Ahhh, I love Best Picture time! I also love when I get to finally cross off films that I've wanted to see for forever from my list. There's a couple in this group where I've only seen one of these films. So I'll get to enjoy crossing some films off my list and hopefully get a good group to go with it.
1971 Best Picture
The French Connection
What I like best about this film is how matter of fact the whole thing is. The film is only one hour and forty-three minutes long and yet it zips along telling a very tight, concise story without any of the extraneous plot threads that can doom other films of this nature. It's a manly New York City cop movie where a narcotics officer foils an international drug ring from France. And I do mean manly. There's barely any women in this film and the two partners (Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider) talk frankly and give each other shit. There's so much tension and edge of your seat thrills that you can cut it with a knife. There's also a ton of action, including what some people say is one of the greatest car chase sequences ever put to film. I was excited to finally watch it and can say that it is exhilarating and the fact that it's a car versus an elevated train, really adds to the dynamic. It ranks up there, for sure. Hackman gives a great performance in a role that really made him into a leading man in Hollywood. But I just love how straightforward everything in this film is. Hackman as Popeye Doyle is just a cop who wants to get his man and will doggedly follow them all over. I enjoyed this film a lot and think it's a deserving winner and is a classic, but I also kinda was expecting to be genuinely wowed because I'd heard so much about this film over the years. I figured it would hit me like an All The President's Men and become an instant favorite of mine. Alas, I think it's awesome but not a top film for me personally. But I do appreciate how to the point the story was and honestly it makes it that much better of a film. My one big gripe is that ending. It's left ambiguous as to did Popeye kill his man and then we get the run down of the criminals and that the main French guy was never found and Popeye and his partner were reassigned. So anti climactic and unnecessary if you ask me. Will this be my winner? I'm unsure as of now but it is a very good film that everyone should see.
A Clockwork Orange
The more I watch this film, the more I appreciate it for different reasons. Yeah, it's a cool film with some provocative images but it's more than just some ultra violent flick you find as a teenager. It's got all the usual Stanley Kubrick director trademarks. The use of classical music with the visceral images on screen goes so well together and is something Kubrick is great at including in his films. There are scenes taken straight from a painting. This film has a scene where prisoners are walking in a circle that is taken straight from a Van Gogh painting, I believe, and just points to Kubrick's attention to detail and his aesthetic overall. So much care and detail put into every scene is clearly evident and makes the film an even better viewing experience. Most of you should at least know what this one is about by now, but it's a near future where we follow a teen who goes off with his little gang committing acts of ultra violence but is caught and then reformed through aversion therapy. It has a ton of memorable scenes that evoke all kinds of different emotions, which is an area where this films excel in. It's got a really great lead acting turn from Malcolm MacDowell who should have been nominated for Best Actor and it's a damn shame he wasn't. This film lives on his smarmy, cocky, self assured, wild character as we experience everything through his mind. Just a really strong performance that buoys the film along with Kubrick's direction. This is one of those films that I forget was a Best Picture nominee every time I watch it because it just seems so out of character for the Academy, but they do get it right sometimes. This is an all time great film and just another feather in Kubrick's cap, which is amazing to think about - and he never even won a Best Director Oscar!
Fiddler on the Roof
Amazing that this musical film about poor Jewish farmers in Russia could become this cultural touchstone and be remembered fondly even today. It's incredible to think that this film did so well and made money and got a ton of awards recognition. One thing I found funny when reading about this film was that the producer's hired director Norman Jewison because they thought he was actually Jewish, which he is not and that was the first thing he told them after he was hired! But I think the film really succeeds on two things: Topol's performance as Teyve and Jewison's direction. The film won the Oscar for Best Cinematography in a really stacked year and it is what really stood out to me about this film. It's painted in these drab, muted earth tones and yet it looks as beautiful as any film or musical has a right to. There are so many fantastic shots including the opening with the fiddler on the roof and the closing of the fiddler walking behind the villagers on the move in a cold, snowy, very gray landscape. There's a lot more in between and it surprised me just how well shot this thing really was. The other reason the film does so well is because of Topol's acting as the main character, Teyve. Topol had originated the role in the London stage production and you can tell he knows that character in and out and brings a certain gravitas to the film. Without his performance, the film fails to connect with audiences if you ask me. It's the role he was born to play and he gives us a memorable performance. I will say my biggest complaint is that the film really starts to drag in the third hour. The memorable, catchy songs almost cease totally and the film goes from a lively, good natured story to a serious, dramatic, sad one when the Russians ramp up their hatred. It at least ends in a very hopeful manner but the last hour felt every bit of an hour as I was watching. But the music is very good and honestly iconic. The songs are mostly catchy and ones you want to hum along to. It looks great, has great direction, and a very good main performance. Fiddler is well worth the three hours, especially if you have been sleeping on it like I was.
The Last Picture Show
I had been wanting to see this one for so long. I had appreciated Peter Bogdanovich's other films I've seen and knew that he was part of that auteur movement in the 70s. You could say this film helped usher in that era for the Oscars because this is totally a film with a certain unique style. The film is shot in a gorgeous black and white that makes the setting of a small West Texas town seem even more bleak and desperate. I love Bogdanovich's use of closeups on his characters as the film is full of the shots and it really lends an intimacy and gravitas to the material. The story is about the town but specifically a couple high schoolers and how life is for a small town in the 50s. It's a coming of age story but not one where we end up happy at the end. It's more true to life that growing up isn't this idealistic thing with happy endings and warm fuzzy moments. Life can be cruel and cold and callous. The performances are the highlight because there are so many really great ones in this film. There's four Oscar nominations from it but also Cybill Shepherd and especially Timothy Bottoms standout as well. Bottoms effectively carries the film as the lead actor and gets screwed by not getting a nomination for himself. The film is a classic for all of these reasons from the acting to the incredible directing and cinematography to the writing itself. I love that a film like this could be nominated for Best Picture because it represents a lot of what I am looking for in my films. I love that depressed sorta feel to a story where you enter people's lives and get the raw and real version of what would really happen. This is an incredible film and one that's definitely going on my list of new favorites.
Nicholas and Alexandra
I kept wanting to call this Fanny and Alexander but that's a Bergman film and this is a historical epic clocking in at over three hours about the Russian Tsar (or Czar, however you want to spell it) and the end of his rule. This is a holdover nominee from the previous decade. By that I mean the 60s had a ton of these grand historical epics that were routinely nominated for Best Picture. This film and nomination feels like the last gasp of that era before the 70s style and attitude fully took over. Is this a bad film? Absolutely not. It has some utterly amazing set production and costumes and the visuals are a sight to behold. There are some very fine cinematography moments where you might mistake you're looking at a painting or a picture taken. The visuals are the highlight of the film. But yes, it is a very long film that covers a lot of actual history and crams it all into a stuffed three plus hours. Rasputin makes a brief entrance and is killed, there are uprisings and revolution, the son is diagnosed with hemophilia, the Czar abdicates, the family is murdered. Everything that you know about the last royal family of Russia plus some other characters like Lenin and Trotsky all make their appearances. The acting is fine enough, though nothing really stands out to me. It is a bit jarring to hear English accents for every character even though they are all supposed to be Russian. That probably bothered me more than it should have honestly. It's also not entirely boring. The first half is somewhat enthralling and zipped right along but that may be due to me enjoying the historical aspect of events I don't really know that much about. I do think it slows down in the second half right when you think it should be picking up steam with the tension and terror of revolution and the end of the monarchy and the eventual deaths of the Romanoffs. The final scene is memorable but the lead up to it is a bit of work. This is clearly a holdover nomination but it is also an interesting film. It has no chance in winning going up against those other four behemoths but I do enjoy the variety this nomination brings to this year.
Man, what a list! This is one that you look at and might think meh, I have heard of these but maybe never actually sat down and watched them and it doesn't seem like a strong list. But it is though! The French Connection has become a sort of classic I think in part because it did win Best Picture but also because of Gene Hackman and that great car chase scene. That's why I am leaving this as my winner. I love most of these films a lot but I really did enjoy watching this winner. A Clockwork Orange is such a classic and such an inspired choice by the Academy and I'm glad they didn't ignore it. It's different than most BP films but it deserves to be here without a doubt. I had heard great things about The Last Picture Show and it completely delivered on becoming a new favorite of mine. It's so moody and just has a great feel to it with some amazing acting and direction that it ushered in a new auteur driven decade. Fiddler on the Roof surprised me in how much I enjoyed it. I was not expecting to like it as much as I did, but it's got great songs and great acting and you can see why it was a cultural touchstone. Nicholas and Alexandra is the last gasp holdover from the 60s and is the end of that kind of grand historical epic. It's somewhat enjoyable but really doesn't hold up to the rest of this list. It's interesting to watch for that reason but definitely is the bottom of this list. Overall, a great year that I was very happy to watch - and now finish.
Oscar Winner: The French Connection
My Winner: The French Connection
A Clockwork Orange
The Last Picture Show
Fiddler on the Roof
Nicholas and Alexandra
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Leading Actor 1971
This is a list of big names (and Chaim Topol) that would make anyone want to sit down and watch these men and figure out who is best. I have seen none of these, so let's sit down and figure out which of these guys is the best this year.
1971 Best Actor
Gene Hackman - The French Connection
This was the role and performance that turned Hackman into a leading man in Hollywood. I was thinking this was his first nomination but he was nominated twice before for Supporting Actor, including the year prior in 1970. So it seems almost like he was due, in that he had been putting in the work and was finally rewarded with a performance that fit his true style. That's what sticks out to me about his win here, it's not flashy by any means. It almost looks like he's not doing much acting and that it's a weak winner. But I think if you really look at it closely, Hackman is doing some wonderful work even when it's not obvious. We know who this man is and what he stands for essentially, even though we don't get all this extra character development. We see a cop who will go to any length necessary to follow and find his man and get the arrest. We see a tough old dude who will fight his own fellow cops because he believes he is right. He gets along well with his partner even though they shit talk each other hardcore at times. He is a man born to do this and get results. Hackman is realistic in his portrayal and you can see him being a cop commanding suspects and being kind of an asshole to them. His Popeye is obsessive in getting his man or finding out who/what is involved in these drug deals and we actually see this obsession manifest at the very end when he goes into the building and shoots the wrong guy and then continues on and we hear another shot but don't know what happens. I think the ending is best left ambiguous instead of telling us what happens but it highlights how Doyle gets tunnel vision in trying to catch his guy. The look of determination and singular focus on Hackman's face is great acting. The performance ends up being a lot more interesting than you might initially give it credit for. You might say well, he didn't do much and then you think back on the whole story and see just how much Hackman did with his character and how truly great it is. This is a sneaky good performance and represents the best of Hackman as an actor.
Peter Finch - Sunday Bloody Sunday
I feel it's sometimes harder to review a performance about a regular person than it is for something like a very Jewish character in a musical or a sweet old guy or a down and dirty cop or a drunk doctor. Those are specific characters and easier to digest and compare to ones we've already seen or know about. But when it's a normal character going through life's challenges, it's harder to really dive into and talk about sometimes. Or at least know where to begin. You can make the case for Finch being another specific characterization because his role is of a gay doctor but the rub is that Finch portrays this character as just a normal person. That's amazing because this was one of the first openly gay characters to kiss another man onscreen in a major film (or something to that effect - it was a real sticking point that made other actors turn down the role.) Finch just plays his character like any other person and he just happens to be gay and involved with a young man who is also seeing a woman. It's the frankness with which everything is dealt with that I find refreshing since this is a film from the early 70s and a kiss between men was still shocking and taboo. But Finch plays it wonderfully and makes his relationship with the young artist guy feel so natural and not like some perverted mess. It's certainly not the most ideal of relationships and Finch knows he sees women too. But Finch is clearly in love and devoted to his beau and wants to do things with him but is concerned that his art will take him to NYC. A perfectly normal thing for a successful young artist and it makes the relationship authentic. He puts this young man's attention above all else and it's heartbreaking to see how flippant the young man treats him. This is a far cry from the angry newscaster of Network but it is still as compelling. I like that Finch treats it as a normal relationship and there isn't any exaggerated gay stereotypes. It's just an older man trying to stay relevant to his younger lover. I especially like the very end scene of just Finch because it does sum up the whole performance and you could just watch that to understand what and why this was nominated. A good, unexpected performance from Finch.
Walter Matthau - Kotch
This was described as a Harry and Tonto film before that even was made. Matthau plays an old man, though he was only 50 and played a much older character. That seemed to be a theme for Matthau in his films, playing way older than he really was. Also, this was the only film directed by one of my favorite actors, Jack Lemmon. So I was curious on how this would actually turn out. Not bad is the answer, however tepid that is. Matthau plays a sweet old man who lives with a kid of his but they want to put him in a retirement home. He decides to ride around the country (but with no cat) and see places and talk to everyone. He strikes up a friendship with a pregnant girl and he tries to cling to her as she kinda goes and does what she wants returning to him when she needs stuff. We've already seen this film before and this is a ho-hum version of it. Matthau is good at playing the sweet, gentle old man but it gets really old, really fast. He's just a super nice guy, always upbeat wanting to talk to anyone and everyone, and he finds the positive in everything. One of those type of characters who become a little too cloying even if Matthau imbues it with his own little version of sarcastic acting. But the performance is just kinda there and we watch the same beats for almost two hours. While we like the guy, I got bored of what was going on because it was the same throughout and Matthau didn't do anything particularly compelling. Maybe this is a case of wanting to reward Matthau or even Lemmon, but this is one of those forgettable performances that doesn't quite move the needle either way for me. I'm mostly disappointed in this performance because I was really hoping it would be a great Matthau role I hadn't heard of before.
George C. Scott - The Hospital
Having won the previous year for Patton, an iconic role, this was in the wheelhouse of the Academy's "let's nominate a previous winner for some good work" thing they love to do. Sometimes it's just let's nominate a previous winner because they made a film, no matter how bad, but at least Scott is pretty good in this role. But for real, Scott had just turned down the Academy Award and still got nominated. That speaks to his acting ability and also the Academy's desire to be right. This film is a bit strange but it is a dark comedy written by Paddy Chayefsky, who wrote Network. It's a dark portrayal of hospital life brought to life by a guy who brings an unmatched intensity to his work. Scott walks that fine line between too intense with his head up his ass in acting and devolving into some black humor schlock. The Hospital probably hits harder for those that have experienced a medical setting because it could easily still be a bit true to life for 2019. The film is incredibly wordy and asks a lot of Scott to deliver pages of dialogue. Therefore it makes the performance come off as very theatrical and it feels like a stage adaptation. Scott is intense, yes, but he is at the top of his game and plays a very great drunk. I am always impressed when an actor can play a convincing drunk because it's the absolute hardest thing to get right on screen. But I also think the film/writing is a bit self indulgent and it looks like Scott was trying to challenge himself. It just comes off a bit like the opposite of General Patton. That's probably an unfair assessment but it feels like work from Scott. I mean that in a non bad way, but it does feel like he's showing off a bit. I think the best review I read said it was more Chayefsky's film than Scott's and I agree. It feels like Scott getting caught up in an exercise of Chayefsky's. The performance is good, most certainly buoyed by his win the previous year. But Scott is earnest in his portrayal even if the character is a bit half baked in the script. I'd like more and for Scott to really flex his acting muscles. I think this is Scott chewing scenery in a film that wanted to be more influential and powerful than it was.
Chaim Topol - Fiddler on the Roof
This was one of those names and performances on the list that I looked at when first doing this project and thought, really? I didn't know much about the film other than it was a musical about Jewish folk and the Academy has a history of rewarding those that are from another medium or do one thing exceptionally well. I was thinking Topol was like an actual fiddler or dancer or created the whole musical himself because I just didn't know any better. But after finally watching this film, it makes complete sense why he is nominated because it is so well deserved in my opinion. Topol is the heart and soul of the film and without his performance, the story would fail miserably. He has an expressive, distinctive face and a deep voice (that sounds like Marcus, the narrator and gunsmith in the Borderlands video game series, weird comparison, I know) that really suits his presence in the film. He's really quite funny, even in the most subtle of ways, and some of his songs are super catchy. It helps that he sings the most famous one from the film, "If I Were a Rich Man." That's one probably everyone has heard even if they haven't seen the film. Topol's energy in the film and in singing allows the viewer to grab onto him and really dive into the story. He is our conduit and as Topol goes, we go. He is a levelheaded man, though he becomes irked by his daughters' insistence to eschew tradition and marry who they want. But still, Topol allows it (for the most part) and understands change is coming. His character arc is interesting to watch, because at first you wonder if he has the range to portray the emotions necessary for such a joyous film that eventually becomes a sad and tragic one. He is up to the task and not just a singer or dancer or funny actor. He brings real heart to the role and humanizes Teyve for us. I really enjoy his talks with God as it allows us a way to peek inside his mind and Topol does the almost fourth wall breaking justice. I really wasn't expecting to enjoy this performance as much as I did but it's a fully fleshed out character on screen in a very good film. This was absolutely the role of a lifetime for Topol and it helps that he originated it for the London stage production. All of the hard work and devotion to perfecting the character is evident in his performance and this is one you should definitely watch.
A list of big names (and Chaim Topol) that actually delivers for the most part. Matthau is the clear bottom feeder in this ecosystem. I don't think he deserves to be nominated, honestly. There are so many other great performances this year including Timothy Bottoms in The Last Picture Show and Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange to name a couple. Both are a thousand times more deserving than Matthau's too nice old man. It doesn't make much sense for a nomination. Scott just won the year before so he would have to be utterly amazing to win again and he's just okay. He's good, actually, in a very dark comedy of sorts and it's worth seeing but could be easily replaced, honestly. Finch is terrific in a role that is somewhat taboo and I like that he makes it a normal feeling character. It's not GAY in big letters but just a normal human who is in a homosexual relationship. It's refreshing for the early 70s. I struggled to figure out who to give the win to. If Topol had won, I'd be very happy because it's his film and he is perfect in it. But I also love Hackman and feel he is good enough to win as well. So let's stay with the Academy on this but if I woke up tomorrow and it was an alternate reality where Topol is the winner, I'd be more than okay with that. So excited to be wrapping up the 70s soon because it feels like I've been doing this since the 70s!
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - The French Connection
My Winner: Gene Hackman - The French Connection
Chaim Topol
Peter Finch
George C. Scott
Walter Matthau
1971 Best Actor
Gene Hackman - The French Connection
This was the role and performance that turned Hackman into a leading man in Hollywood. I was thinking this was his first nomination but he was nominated twice before for Supporting Actor, including the year prior in 1970. So it seems almost like he was due, in that he had been putting in the work and was finally rewarded with a performance that fit his true style. That's what sticks out to me about his win here, it's not flashy by any means. It almost looks like he's not doing much acting and that it's a weak winner. But I think if you really look at it closely, Hackman is doing some wonderful work even when it's not obvious. We know who this man is and what he stands for essentially, even though we don't get all this extra character development. We see a cop who will go to any length necessary to follow and find his man and get the arrest. We see a tough old dude who will fight his own fellow cops because he believes he is right. He gets along well with his partner even though they shit talk each other hardcore at times. He is a man born to do this and get results. Hackman is realistic in his portrayal and you can see him being a cop commanding suspects and being kind of an asshole to them. His Popeye is obsessive in getting his man or finding out who/what is involved in these drug deals and we actually see this obsession manifest at the very end when he goes into the building and shoots the wrong guy and then continues on and we hear another shot but don't know what happens. I think the ending is best left ambiguous instead of telling us what happens but it highlights how Doyle gets tunnel vision in trying to catch his guy. The look of determination and singular focus on Hackman's face is great acting. The performance ends up being a lot more interesting than you might initially give it credit for. You might say well, he didn't do much and then you think back on the whole story and see just how much Hackman did with his character and how truly great it is. This is a sneaky good performance and represents the best of Hackman as an actor.
Peter Finch - Sunday Bloody Sunday
I feel it's sometimes harder to review a performance about a regular person than it is for something like a very Jewish character in a musical or a sweet old guy or a down and dirty cop or a drunk doctor. Those are specific characters and easier to digest and compare to ones we've already seen or know about. But when it's a normal character going through life's challenges, it's harder to really dive into and talk about sometimes. Or at least know where to begin. You can make the case for Finch being another specific characterization because his role is of a gay doctor but the rub is that Finch portrays this character as just a normal person. That's amazing because this was one of the first openly gay characters to kiss another man onscreen in a major film (or something to that effect - it was a real sticking point that made other actors turn down the role.) Finch just plays his character like any other person and he just happens to be gay and involved with a young man who is also seeing a woman. It's the frankness with which everything is dealt with that I find refreshing since this is a film from the early 70s and a kiss between men was still shocking and taboo. But Finch plays it wonderfully and makes his relationship with the young artist guy feel so natural and not like some perverted mess. It's certainly not the most ideal of relationships and Finch knows he sees women too. But Finch is clearly in love and devoted to his beau and wants to do things with him but is concerned that his art will take him to NYC. A perfectly normal thing for a successful young artist and it makes the relationship authentic. He puts this young man's attention above all else and it's heartbreaking to see how flippant the young man treats him. This is a far cry from the angry newscaster of Network but it is still as compelling. I like that Finch treats it as a normal relationship and there isn't any exaggerated gay stereotypes. It's just an older man trying to stay relevant to his younger lover. I especially like the very end scene of just Finch because it does sum up the whole performance and you could just watch that to understand what and why this was nominated. A good, unexpected performance from Finch.
Walter Matthau - Kotch
This was described as a Harry and Tonto film before that even was made. Matthau plays an old man, though he was only 50 and played a much older character. That seemed to be a theme for Matthau in his films, playing way older than he really was. Also, this was the only film directed by one of my favorite actors, Jack Lemmon. So I was curious on how this would actually turn out. Not bad is the answer, however tepid that is. Matthau plays a sweet old man who lives with a kid of his but they want to put him in a retirement home. He decides to ride around the country (but with no cat) and see places and talk to everyone. He strikes up a friendship with a pregnant girl and he tries to cling to her as she kinda goes and does what she wants returning to him when she needs stuff. We've already seen this film before and this is a ho-hum version of it. Matthau is good at playing the sweet, gentle old man but it gets really old, really fast. He's just a super nice guy, always upbeat wanting to talk to anyone and everyone, and he finds the positive in everything. One of those type of characters who become a little too cloying even if Matthau imbues it with his own little version of sarcastic acting. But the performance is just kinda there and we watch the same beats for almost two hours. While we like the guy, I got bored of what was going on because it was the same throughout and Matthau didn't do anything particularly compelling. Maybe this is a case of wanting to reward Matthau or even Lemmon, but this is one of those forgettable performances that doesn't quite move the needle either way for me. I'm mostly disappointed in this performance because I was really hoping it would be a great Matthau role I hadn't heard of before.
George C. Scott - The Hospital
Having won the previous year for Patton, an iconic role, this was in the wheelhouse of the Academy's "let's nominate a previous winner for some good work" thing they love to do. Sometimes it's just let's nominate a previous winner because they made a film, no matter how bad, but at least Scott is pretty good in this role. But for real, Scott had just turned down the Academy Award and still got nominated. That speaks to his acting ability and also the Academy's desire to be right. This film is a bit strange but it is a dark comedy written by Paddy Chayefsky, who wrote Network. It's a dark portrayal of hospital life brought to life by a guy who brings an unmatched intensity to his work. Scott walks that fine line between too intense with his head up his ass in acting and devolving into some black humor schlock. The Hospital probably hits harder for those that have experienced a medical setting because it could easily still be a bit true to life for 2019. The film is incredibly wordy and asks a lot of Scott to deliver pages of dialogue. Therefore it makes the performance come off as very theatrical and it feels like a stage adaptation. Scott is intense, yes, but he is at the top of his game and plays a very great drunk. I am always impressed when an actor can play a convincing drunk because it's the absolute hardest thing to get right on screen. But I also think the film/writing is a bit self indulgent and it looks like Scott was trying to challenge himself. It just comes off a bit like the opposite of General Patton. That's probably an unfair assessment but it feels like work from Scott. I mean that in a non bad way, but it does feel like he's showing off a bit. I think the best review I read said it was more Chayefsky's film than Scott's and I agree. It feels like Scott getting caught up in an exercise of Chayefsky's. The performance is good, most certainly buoyed by his win the previous year. But Scott is earnest in his portrayal even if the character is a bit half baked in the script. I'd like more and for Scott to really flex his acting muscles. I think this is Scott chewing scenery in a film that wanted to be more influential and powerful than it was.
Chaim Topol - Fiddler on the Roof
This was one of those names and performances on the list that I looked at when first doing this project and thought, really? I didn't know much about the film other than it was a musical about Jewish folk and the Academy has a history of rewarding those that are from another medium or do one thing exceptionally well. I was thinking Topol was like an actual fiddler or dancer or created the whole musical himself because I just didn't know any better. But after finally watching this film, it makes complete sense why he is nominated because it is so well deserved in my opinion. Topol is the heart and soul of the film and without his performance, the story would fail miserably. He has an expressive, distinctive face and a deep voice (that sounds like Marcus, the narrator and gunsmith in the Borderlands video game series, weird comparison, I know) that really suits his presence in the film. He's really quite funny, even in the most subtle of ways, and some of his songs are super catchy. It helps that he sings the most famous one from the film, "If I Were a Rich Man." That's one probably everyone has heard even if they haven't seen the film. Topol's energy in the film and in singing allows the viewer to grab onto him and really dive into the story. He is our conduit and as Topol goes, we go. He is a levelheaded man, though he becomes irked by his daughters' insistence to eschew tradition and marry who they want. But still, Topol allows it (for the most part) and understands change is coming. His character arc is interesting to watch, because at first you wonder if he has the range to portray the emotions necessary for such a joyous film that eventually becomes a sad and tragic one. He is up to the task and not just a singer or dancer or funny actor. He brings real heart to the role and humanizes Teyve for us. I really enjoy his talks with God as it allows us a way to peek inside his mind and Topol does the almost fourth wall breaking justice. I really wasn't expecting to enjoy this performance as much as I did but it's a fully fleshed out character on screen in a very good film. This was absolutely the role of a lifetime for Topol and it helps that he originated it for the London stage production. All of the hard work and devotion to perfecting the character is evident in his performance and this is one you should definitely watch.
A list of big names (and Chaim Topol) that actually delivers for the most part. Matthau is the clear bottom feeder in this ecosystem. I don't think he deserves to be nominated, honestly. There are so many other great performances this year including Timothy Bottoms in The Last Picture Show and Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange to name a couple. Both are a thousand times more deserving than Matthau's too nice old man. It doesn't make much sense for a nomination. Scott just won the year before so he would have to be utterly amazing to win again and he's just okay. He's good, actually, in a very dark comedy of sorts and it's worth seeing but could be easily replaced, honestly. Finch is terrific in a role that is somewhat taboo and I like that he makes it a normal feeling character. It's not GAY in big letters but just a normal human who is in a homosexual relationship. It's refreshing for the early 70s. I struggled to figure out who to give the win to. If Topol had won, I'd be very happy because it's his film and he is perfect in it. But I also love Hackman and feel he is good enough to win as well. So let's stay with the Academy on this but if I woke up tomorrow and it was an alternate reality where Topol is the winner, I'd be more than okay with that. So excited to be wrapping up the 70s soon because it feels like I've been doing this since the 70s!
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - The French Connection
My Winner: Gene Hackman - The French Connection
Chaim Topol
Peter Finch
George C. Scott
Walter Matthau
Leading Actress 1971
I went and looked and calculated that I've seen about maybe 4-5 actual performances from the next 20 years or so of this category. So there is a whoooole lot that I haven't seen yet and I'm super excited to finally be knocking some of these off my list. I have seen none of the below women yet, so let's get started!
1971 Best Actress
Jane Fonda - Klute
This was Jane Fonda's first win and I had heard nothing but great things about the film and her performance. I knew she played a hooker/call girl, so I was expecting the hooker with a heart of gold trope but luckily the role avoids that stereotype. I also was expecting to wowed or bowled over or say this is my favorite Fonda performance of hers. But I only found it to be a very solid job by Fonda, one that fits into her strong, independent woman roles that she finds and excels at. That sounds like damning with faint praise but Fonda is very good and you can absolutely see that she dives deep into the character and produces something really strong. The win feels deserved, though as I write this I haven't seen the other performances yet. Some of her other, later work really feel like she is trying to send or promote a message with her work, not just delivering great acting. This one feels like purely acting on her part. She does play a hooker/call girl who Donald Sutherland finds because a missing person he is trying to locate sent her a letter. The two try to track down some clues to find this missing man and paranoia abounds. The film itself is very moody and that matches the performance by Fonda. She's a smart woman who is involved in the lifestyle because she has a compulsion that draws her in. I think due in part to her being a struggling actress, the lifestyle allows her to play a role she can control and be the lead in. I also like how restrained Fonda is in this. She never goes off into histrionics or breaks down crying and screaming or anything like that. The acting choices are pretty measured and Fonda makes her character come off as a regular flawed human being. I also believe that the paranoia and tension of the film really adds to the overall performance. Fonda is very serious and she matches the tone of the film spot on, so it in turn makes us more invested in both the performance and the film. This win just honestly feels like Fonda really putting in the work and dedicating herself to creating the best performance she possibly could. She herself even said that she nailed this role and usually looks back and critiques her work but not this one. It's strong work that I'd recommend especially because this review was clear as mud about how good Fonda is in this role. Go watch it and see for yourself.
Julie Christie - McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Christie was a previous winner from 1965 for Darling (not Doctor Zhivago, which was the same year) and yeah, I've never heard of that film either. We will get there in a few years, but Christie was a major actress who was beloved in America and England and had the awards love to prove it. So it's no surprise to see her nominated here for Robert Altman's anti-western, as he called it. Christie plays a brothel madam who is addicted to opium and partners up with Warren Beatty, who owns the local whorehouse. It's mutually beneficial and the two get along quite well for the most part. The drug addiction really doesn't come into play for Christie, though she does want the money when a mining company comes in and offers to buy the town, which Beatty refuses. Christie puts in solid work as the madam and has some moments where she really shines when she stands up to Beatty when initially trying to partner up to him. She's this fierce, independent woman who knows her shit and takes none from anyone. But sadly, Christie is underutilized. She disappears from the film for long stretches and is seen as nothing more at times as a love interest for Beatty. It's a good performance but we never get to see Christie full stretch out her acting muscles and do much after her initial entry to the film. I wanted more of her but we never get it. She was also in The Go-Between which had a nomination in Supporting Actress, so she was visible to the Academy in a couple films this year. So while it's good, it's certainly not enough to unseat the winner, especially in this stacked group of women.
Glenda Jackson - Sunday Bloody Sunday
The two-time Oscar winner was always an enigma to me. I've gone into her story in her other, later reviews, but she was an actress that just happened to capture the attention of the Academy in the 70s for some reason. I feel like Jackson is nominated here because of the strength of this film and because of her performances in Mary, Queen of Scots and a mini-series where she played Queen Elizabeth I. She was in the minds of the voters for sure and had just won her first Oscar the year prior. That all adds up to this nomination. That also makes it sounds like this is an awful nomination that is terrible and bad and no good and all that. It's not. I just didn't feel much affinity towards this performance in the film as I did for Peter Finch. I described her performance as "whatever" in a text to my boo and I meant that. The story alternates between Finch and Jackson sharing the same man and both are very into this young artist guy. Jackson shows more of the jealousy and worry than Finch's total love. Jackson is fine in the role but she never really stirs anything inside of me. I don't feel for her one way or the other. She is more a woman in a midlife crisis than a woman purely devoted to her man. I do think this is more Finch's film than hers and that's because he does more with his performance so I just am not as enamored with Jackson in this role. Anytime the story veered away from Finch, I wanted it to return to him. Mostly because Jackson isn't as compelling but also because Jackson isn't as strong. It's not fair to compare the two but they do share a man and Jackson seems to be nothing more than a weak willed, worrisome woman. That's a bit harsh but her love seems like a fling and not legit and Jackson can't convince me otherwise. It's just a performance that exists and I much prefer her work in the below film with Vanessa Redgrave to this, no matter how supporting it is. I'll see in my next group just exactly if she deserved her first win.
Vanessa Redgrave - Mary, Queen of Scots
This film is a holdover from the 60's where these costume dramas were all the rage. It's like the end of an era with this film and probably would have been more of an awards darling if it came out a few years earlier. It's actually a pretty good film, though. I feel like because the subject has so much intrigue and events happening, that it doesn't get bogged down in endless, boring court scenes. The film is alive in a sense and some of that is due to Redgrave's portrayal of Mary Stuart. Now, Glenda Jackson plays Queen Elizabeth I in this film and for my money, has the better performance (though really she is more supporting). That's probably part of the reason she is also nominated along side Redgrave just in a different film. Redgrave's role as Mary is a bit different, though, as she is supposed to be a woman in her teens and early twenties, so she has this youthful naivete and idealism. Whereas Jackson gets to play the composed, calculating Queen of England who has tons of experience being a leader. It's hard to really compare the two, but Redgrave is able to standout on her own. I think it just comes down to preference on who you like more. Redgrave grows with the character as she becomes a stronger leader over time and Redgrave becomes more confident as an actor. By the end of the film, you see what makes her such a great actress as Mary stays strong and resolute in the face of death. Compare and contrast it to the young Mary from the beginning and it is a satisfying character arc and a very deserving performance. She has a lot to do as Mary but never devolves into whining or any other child-like behavior (Redgrave was in her 30's at this point) and gives the film a stately feel to it. She also makes the film way more tolerable and worth watching than I had anticipated (so does Jackson) and it's just an overall good performance.
Janet Suzman - Nicholas and Alexandra
I was trying to figure out just what to say about Suzman and this performance but I don't have a ton to say really. She was a stage actress in London and this was her debut film role. It doesn't look like it's her first film role because she is very polished as Alexandra, wife to Czar Nicholas II. Suzman delivers a very solid performance that perfectly supports Nicholas. She speaks her mind, loves her husband, loves her kids, and comes across as a noblewoman comfortable with her lot in life. Suzman is essentially the only female lead in the film as there is a lack of top females roles in this one. It's strong work in a historical epic about the downfall of the last Czar of Russia. That's about the best I can do with talking about this. It's good and I see why the Academy nominated her. It seems like an overall weaker year, so a holdover film that would fit perfectly in the 60s gets one last gasp with a few nominations (and two wins) to close out an era. Suzman is a beneficiary of that process but also stands on her own with a good performance, if a little lacking in something to set it apart from the others on this list. It's good, maybe forgettable, but you could easily find a ton more that are worse than Suzman is in this one.
This is actually a pretty great group of women. None of these performances are bad in the slightest. They may be a little underwhelming, but certainly not bad at all. And that's pretty good for this category because I always seem to dislike at least one if not more. Fonda is the clear winner and really the only one you could choose. It's her first win and feels like the natural choice for the Academy given her output up to that point and given who her family is. Jackson had just won the year prior, so she wasn't winning unless she gave us something amazing. She was good but I don't think it was anything amazing to deserve a back to back win. Christie was also a previous winner but didn't wow in her performance, either. It's good but she disappears for a bit. Suzman was making her film debut in a historical epic and did some solid work, but again doesn't wow or have any big moments. Redgrave had been nominated a couple times before this one and was from a beloved acting family, so her nomination makes sense for the Academy. Again, not amazing but still good. I think that's the theme of this year for this category - good, but not amazing. Still, I'd rather have a year like this than one where I hate half of the list. Let's finish out the 70s now and hopefully close out with a good one!
Oscar Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
My Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
Glenda Jackson
Janet Suzman
Julie Christie
Vanessa Redgrave
1971 Best Actress
Jane Fonda - Klute
This was Jane Fonda's first win and I had heard nothing but great things about the film and her performance. I knew she played a hooker/call girl, so I was expecting the hooker with a heart of gold trope but luckily the role avoids that stereotype. I also was expecting to wowed or bowled over or say this is my favorite Fonda performance of hers. But I only found it to be a very solid job by Fonda, one that fits into her strong, independent woman roles that she finds and excels at. That sounds like damning with faint praise but Fonda is very good and you can absolutely see that she dives deep into the character and produces something really strong. The win feels deserved, though as I write this I haven't seen the other performances yet. Some of her other, later work really feel like she is trying to send or promote a message with her work, not just delivering great acting. This one feels like purely acting on her part. She does play a hooker/call girl who Donald Sutherland finds because a missing person he is trying to locate sent her a letter. The two try to track down some clues to find this missing man and paranoia abounds. The film itself is very moody and that matches the performance by Fonda. She's a smart woman who is involved in the lifestyle because she has a compulsion that draws her in. I think due in part to her being a struggling actress, the lifestyle allows her to play a role she can control and be the lead in. I also like how restrained Fonda is in this. She never goes off into histrionics or breaks down crying and screaming or anything like that. The acting choices are pretty measured and Fonda makes her character come off as a regular flawed human being. I also believe that the paranoia and tension of the film really adds to the overall performance. Fonda is very serious and she matches the tone of the film spot on, so it in turn makes us more invested in both the performance and the film. This win just honestly feels like Fonda really putting in the work and dedicating herself to creating the best performance she possibly could. She herself even said that she nailed this role and usually looks back and critiques her work but not this one. It's strong work that I'd recommend especially because this review was clear as mud about how good Fonda is in this role. Go watch it and see for yourself.
Julie Christie - McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Christie was a previous winner from 1965 for Darling (not Doctor Zhivago, which was the same year) and yeah, I've never heard of that film either. We will get there in a few years, but Christie was a major actress who was beloved in America and England and had the awards love to prove it. So it's no surprise to see her nominated here for Robert Altman's anti-western, as he called it. Christie plays a brothel madam who is addicted to opium and partners up with Warren Beatty, who owns the local whorehouse. It's mutually beneficial and the two get along quite well for the most part. The drug addiction really doesn't come into play for Christie, though she does want the money when a mining company comes in and offers to buy the town, which Beatty refuses. Christie puts in solid work as the madam and has some moments where she really shines when she stands up to Beatty when initially trying to partner up to him. She's this fierce, independent woman who knows her shit and takes none from anyone. But sadly, Christie is underutilized. She disappears from the film for long stretches and is seen as nothing more at times as a love interest for Beatty. It's a good performance but we never get to see Christie full stretch out her acting muscles and do much after her initial entry to the film. I wanted more of her but we never get it. She was also in The Go-Between which had a nomination in Supporting Actress, so she was visible to the Academy in a couple films this year. So while it's good, it's certainly not enough to unseat the winner, especially in this stacked group of women.
Glenda Jackson - Sunday Bloody Sunday
The two-time Oscar winner was always an enigma to me. I've gone into her story in her other, later reviews, but she was an actress that just happened to capture the attention of the Academy in the 70s for some reason. I feel like Jackson is nominated here because of the strength of this film and because of her performances in Mary, Queen of Scots and a mini-series where she played Queen Elizabeth I. She was in the minds of the voters for sure and had just won her first Oscar the year prior. That all adds up to this nomination. That also makes it sounds like this is an awful nomination that is terrible and bad and no good and all that. It's not. I just didn't feel much affinity towards this performance in the film as I did for Peter Finch. I described her performance as "whatever" in a text to my boo and I meant that. The story alternates between Finch and Jackson sharing the same man and both are very into this young artist guy. Jackson shows more of the jealousy and worry than Finch's total love. Jackson is fine in the role but she never really stirs anything inside of me. I don't feel for her one way or the other. She is more a woman in a midlife crisis than a woman purely devoted to her man. I do think this is more Finch's film than hers and that's because he does more with his performance so I just am not as enamored with Jackson in this role. Anytime the story veered away from Finch, I wanted it to return to him. Mostly because Jackson isn't as compelling but also because Jackson isn't as strong. It's not fair to compare the two but they do share a man and Jackson seems to be nothing more than a weak willed, worrisome woman. That's a bit harsh but her love seems like a fling and not legit and Jackson can't convince me otherwise. It's just a performance that exists and I much prefer her work in the below film with Vanessa Redgrave to this, no matter how supporting it is. I'll see in my next group just exactly if she deserved her first win.
Vanessa Redgrave - Mary, Queen of Scots
This film is a holdover from the 60's where these costume dramas were all the rage. It's like the end of an era with this film and probably would have been more of an awards darling if it came out a few years earlier. It's actually a pretty good film, though. I feel like because the subject has so much intrigue and events happening, that it doesn't get bogged down in endless, boring court scenes. The film is alive in a sense and some of that is due to Redgrave's portrayal of Mary Stuart. Now, Glenda Jackson plays Queen Elizabeth I in this film and for my money, has the better performance (though really she is more supporting). That's probably part of the reason she is also nominated along side Redgrave just in a different film. Redgrave's role as Mary is a bit different, though, as she is supposed to be a woman in her teens and early twenties, so she has this youthful naivete and idealism. Whereas Jackson gets to play the composed, calculating Queen of England who has tons of experience being a leader. It's hard to really compare the two, but Redgrave is able to standout on her own. I think it just comes down to preference on who you like more. Redgrave grows with the character as she becomes a stronger leader over time and Redgrave becomes more confident as an actor. By the end of the film, you see what makes her such a great actress as Mary stays strong and resolute in the face of death. Compare and contrast it to the young Mary from the beginning and it is a satisfying character arc and a very deserving performance. She has a lot to do as Mary but never devolves into whining or any other child-like behavior (Redgrave was in her 30's at this point) and gives the film a stately feel to it. She also makes the film way more tolerable and worth watching than I had anticipated (so does Jackson) and it's just an overall good performance.
Janet Suzman - Nicholas and Alexandra
I was trying to figure out just what to say about Suzman and this performance but I don't have a ton to say really. She was a stage actress in London and this was her debut film role. It doesn't look like it's her first film role because she is very polished as Alexandra, wife to Czar Nicholas II. Suzman delivers a very solid performance that perfectly supports Nicholas. She speaks her mind, loves her husband, loves her kids, and comes across as a noblewoman comfortable with her lot in life. Suzman is essentially the only female lead in the film as there is a lack of top females roles in this one. It's strong work in a historical epic about the downfall of the last Czar of Russia. That's about the best I can do with talking about this. It's good and I see why the Academy nominated her. It seems like an overall weaker year, so a holdover film that would fit perfectly in the 60s gets one last gasp with a few nominations (and two wins) to close out an era. Suzman is a beneficiary of that process but also stands on her own with a good performance, if a little lacking in something to set it apart from the others on this list. It's good, maybe forgettable, but you could easily find a ton more that are worse than Suzman is in this one.
This is actually a pretty great group of women. None of these performances are bad in the slightest. They may be a little underwhelming, but certainly not bad at all. And that's pretty good for this category because I always seem to dislike at least one if not more. Fonda is the clear winner and really the only one you could choose. It's her first win and feels like the natural choice for the Academy given her output up to that point and given who her family is. Jackson had just won the year prior, so she wasn't winning unless she gave us something amazing. She was good but I don't think it was anything amazing to deserve a back to back win. Christie was also a previous winner but didn't wow in her performance, either. It's good but she disappears for a bit. Suzman was making her film debut in a historical epic and did some solid work, but again doesn't wow or have any big moments. Redgrave had been nominated a couple times before this one and was from a beloved acting family, so her nomination makes sense for the Academy. Again, not amazing but still good. I think that's the theme of this year for this category - good, but not amazing. Still, I'd rather have a year like this than one where I hate half of the list. Let's finish out the 70s now and hopefully close out with a good one!
Oscar Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
My Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
Glenda Jackson
Janet Suzman
Julie Christie
Vanessa Redgrave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)