Ahhhhh, finally here we are finishing up the 70s! I feel like I've been doing this decade for an actual decade so I'm glad to be done. I can't wait to move on to the 60s but first I'm going to clean up last year's Oscars (2018) and will do this year's (2019) after that. Those nominations will actually come out in a few hours from when I publish this, so this is perfect timing. Some big films down below here and I've only seen the winner. Let's get this started so we can finish the decade out strong!
1970 Best Picture
Patton
I forgot just how great this film is. When I was thinking back on this one, I was remembering a great acting performance and a long story about the General. But the whole thing was so engrossing that the just under three hours doesn't feel that long at all. Plus, George C. Scott's magnificent portrayal is one of the very best ever and a true joy to just watch play out on screen. I really shouldn't have to write out what this is about other than to say it's about Patton's WWII exploits. It's got one of the most memorable opening scenes where Scott stands in front of a giant American flag and addresses his troops in full regalia and delivers a bunch of classic Patton lines. The film has some really amazingly shot scenes and great cinematography. It's so well directed and deserved the Best Director award for Franklin J. Schaffner. Some of the scenes look like art and you sometimes get these great shots of Patton as there is a voice over and it just feels like the film is on another level. The score is also memorable with those haunting trumpet sounds that give the film a necessary serious tone. The story is great and actually mostly written by Francis Ford Coppola. The battle scenes are thrilling and not so heavily edited like today's films where you have no idea what's going on. It's just a great film, one that ranks up there as one of the better winners from the Academy. I had to rewatch it to appreciate what I had forgotten, but I'm glad I did because this is such a great film. I could just write that over and over and have that be my review but I'll spare you the headache. Just know that it's awesome and you should see it if you haven't done so yet.
Airport
Ahh, Airport! This film birthed the disaster flick genre and ushered in the blockbuster era for Hollywood. Yes, other films had done the whole bunch of famous people in a big drama thing, but not quite like this. It's funny because you look at this inclusion in the Best Picture pantheon and you think what a joke, couldn't they find anything else to take its place? But then you realize just how much this film captured the zeitgeist of the time and the fact that it was a huge hit and is now considered a piece of film history. The Academy did only what it should have - made it a very heavily nominated film. It is also a very entertaining film and really not that bad of a nomination. It's also interesting because the disaster part doesn't really come into play until almost the very end. Before that, it's all about the drama of running a huge international airport. Burt Lancaster is great in his role but I found Dean Martin to be even better in his. He is a terrific actor who never really got his due. Of course, he wouldn't have won anything this year but he was still very talented. You've also got Jean Seberg as the I think head customer relations manager or something. She's really strong in the role, whatever her title, and anchors this film. The film has a little bit of everything and is fun to watch. It did lead to a genre that is ridiculed today and this film itself was lampooned and parodied. But I do think it's a film everyone should watch just to see where all your favorite popcorn flicks come from. It's entertaining to the max but I'm glad it didn't win. It can take solace that it was nominated and became this cultural icon of a film and appreciate it for what it is.
Five Easy Pieces
This is an interesting film to choose for a Best Picture candidate. On one hand, it's representative of the kind of slice of life, character driven films we would get to see in the 70s. But on the other hand, the film feels a little shallow and like it needs more depth to it than just being a star vehicle for Jack Nicholson. I really love these types of films that showcase a more gritty side of life than we normally see. It's about a once promising classical piano player in Nicholson who now works on a California oil field and has a ditzy waitress girlfriend he steps out on any chance he gets. It's a sad existence especially once we learn he comes from a family of amazing musical talent that he for some reason squandered. We never actually get to dive deep into Nicholson's character to find out why he is living a hard, yet simple life working on an oil field. We know there's a lot more to him than just boozing and cruising and we get really quick glimpses of that, but I wanted a lot more than what we got. He has a heartfelt talk with his dying dad at the end of the film that doesn't feel earned and I was struggling to come up with a reason why I should care. Nicholson is a mostly awful person because we don't get to explore his deep flaws and make sense of him as a human. I like seeing the country as it was back then and all the fashions and the old cars and beers and bowling lane, but I need more depth in my character driven drama. Everything seems to be an afterthought made simply for Nicholson to act against. He's good, but he's good in anything. I like the feel of the film and the historical aspect of it, but this one just left me wanting a whole lot more.
Love Story
This is one of those films that I had kept an eye on for some time because, I mean come on, it's Love Story! I think most film fans have heard about it, know of it, and have seen parodies that reference it already. But it was for real a Best Picture nominated film?? Yeah! It made a crap ton of money and was the first film to cross $100 million. It's such a simple, yet effective film that actually stands the test of time. This film is 50 years old currently and it feels like something that could be made right now and probably has been copied very recently. It's timeless, honestly. It's about a Harvard guy who falls for the local girl (she goes to the local college) and he is from money and she is not. That's the crux of the film. Girl thinks guy is just hanging with her for the short term and doesn't care but he does and they become a couple. They now have to talk to his parents who expect someone of stature. So guy doesn't listen to parents and marries her and forges his own path before they eventually work their way back into money. And then of course she *SPOILER* gets diagnosed with a terminal illness. It's so very sad but done in such an honest way that it really does earn your tears and sadness. It's easy to see why this was such a smash hit. You have a relatable story told in a simple way and you have two leads who are also charming and relatable. And the run time is short so you can squeeze in more showings. But it's a simple, yet effective telling of a story that we can all relate to regardless of our financial situations. It's a mega hit that presses all our buttons and makes us want to see it again and makes us want to root for it. Easy to see why it's included and why the Academy is good at it's job.
MASH
So many people are like MASH? Isn't that a TV show my grandparents used to watch? Yes, it is. But this film from Robert Altman came first and allowed that TV series to become one of the most beloved comedies of all time. The film version is a very black, absurd comedy that highlights the hi-jinks of an Army hospital unit during the Korean War. Though it is set in Korea, the underlying context is really about the Vietnam War that was going on at the time. The film is so darkly funny and is buoyed by great performances from both Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould. The format is almost episodic as we watch this unit get up to all kinds of crazy antics. There's lots of pranks and boozing and trying to get laid and getting out of actually working and doing military things. And that's what the film is in a nutshell. It's similar to Catch-22 for me in that regard and even has those serious moments sprinkled in when the surgeons save a little Japanese boy while in Japan. I kinda wish there was more of that contrast thrown in but I don't know what the source book is like. Even still, MASH is a fantastic film and stands in stark contrast to this year's winner, Patton. I think which kind of flavor of war films you like will determine your choice between the two. I also think it's pretty great that the Academy can include both in the same year and recognize the different viewpoints. I highly recommend MASH as it really shows the absurdity of the military life while deployed (to a greater degree, obviously) and shows that not all military life is heroics and blood and guts and danger. Deployed life can be boring and full of people filling that void with pranks and booze and sex and trying to work as little as possible. This will definitely be in contention for my win, but I do have to point out how the film comes off as being gleefully misogynistic. The women are relegated to sex objects and though I understand this is 1970, it makes the film feel a little gross. So maybe it won't be in contention for the win? I love the acting performances and the dark humor, but it could be better to the women in the film. A tough choice to ruminate on.
Yay! The 70s are finally done! Hallelujah! Now I'll finish up the last two years before hitting the 60s, which I'm super excited to do both. As far as this year goes, it's funny how this category is full of the top grossing films for 1970. You have the top four and then Five Easy Pieces would be like 11th or 12th. I say that because maybe some of these nominees could be replaced with better films but we see exactly where the Academy is coming from. Airport is interesting because it does kick off the disaster flick genre and it's decent from a historical standpoint but I wouldn't call it Oscar material really. It's enjoyable but not on the same level as other, better Oscar films. Love Story is a cute and charming and sad romantic film. It made a ton of money and captured everyone's attention and got rewarded for that. It also probably shouldn't actually be on this list but here it is. Five Easy Pieces is such an interesting choice because it feels like a 70s type of film but I feel it meanders around and needed a more cohesive narrative and focus. Still enjoyed it, though. MASH is like the opposite war film to Patton and it's neat to see that juxtaposition this year. It's funny as hell and really does get a lot right about military culture but it also is not very fair to the women it has. It's a very masculine film and I have issues with that. But still very watchable and hilarious with some great performances. Patton is just an all timer, though, and the Academy gets it right. Easy winner this year and probably most other years, too. All in all, an enjoyable year with some nominees that could have been way stronger.
Oscar Winner: Patton
My Winner: Patton
MASH
Five Easy Pieces
Love Story
Airport
Monday, January 13, 2020
Leading Actor 1970
Some big names on the list and a performance many consider to be one of the all time best in George C. Scott. I've seen it and loved it and can't wait to revisit it. The others look interesting but this feels like a race for second place. Let's see how it ends up.
1970 Best Actor
George C. Scott - Patton
When you think of General George S. Patton, do you not think about George C. Scott in full military dress talking in front of a giant American flag? Because I know I do. Scott's performance has become synonymous with Patton himself and that's the mark of an all time classic performance. Scott honestly wins this Oscar just for the opening scene where he addresses the troops. It perfectly captures what the film and Patton are all about. A man that wants the glory but has the talent to back it up, who says what he wants, and respects his troops as long as they fight for him. He's a soldier's soldier. We follow Patton as he starts out in North Africa, goes on to Sicily, is removed from command for slapping a battle fatigued soldier, and then picking back up as he races across Europe. I like that the story focuses intently on Patton and his different episodes throughout the war. We learn about who he is as a person and as an officer leading men into battle. We learn what motivates him and what he doesn't like from his troops. We see how controlled his chaos is and how others view it as reckless. He's a fascinatingly complex individual that Scott has to mine the depths of to show us who this man really is. Yes, he's a rough man born for combat but also deeply intellectual and well versed in history and even a bit religious. Scott wraps all of this up into a nice portrait of a soldier who is alive in the right time at the right place and hampered by those around him who let him have free reign. I do like that we see how Patton's time away from command somewhat changed him to be more in tune with his troops yet still keep his edge. This is simply one of the best acting performances ever that seems to perfectly match the actor with the subject. Scott famously rejected the Oscar because he felt awards shows were just a meat parade but he fully deserves it nonetheless. If you haven't seen it, go watch it now and see what you've been missing out on.
Melvyn Douglas - I Never Sang for My Father
I wasn't a big fan at all with Douglas's second Oscar win in 1979's Being There. So I was definitely curious as to what kind of performance I would get from him in this film. I had never heard of this one before the project and it co-stars Gene Hackman as Douglas's son and the film is about their strained relationship. It's a very acting heavy film and I love those types of stories. Hackman is really terrific as the son but Douglas is equally great as the father. I was so glad that Douglas was able to do something that showcased his talents because I didn't get that the first time around. Now what does bug me about the performance is that I feel like Douglas is more Supporting than Lead, as Hackman is in almost every scene and is the focus of the story. Douglas disappears for some stretches so if you were to flip those two categories, I'd like both performances even more. But I can also see how Douglas ends up in Lead as he has a domineering presence every time he is on screen. Much of that is due to the character being such an overbearing force in the family always somehow relating everything back to himself. And Douglas's character gets a few monologues where he waxes on about some old memory of his life which kind of have this serious tone to them. Some may find those annoying but I didn't, mostly because of Douglas's acting ability. That ability is also why his character has such a dominating presence in the film. I like that Hackman and Douglas go toe to toe with each other without either one trying to one up the other. The two just put on a pure acting showcase that is both of them doing their best on their own so that it works in harmony together. The relationship is emotional and the acting matches that tone and you get some terrific scenes throughout the film. Both characters and actors expose themselves emotionally and it's so rewarding to watch them act it out. The stubborn nature of Douglas's character eventually wins out at the end but the process of getting there is fun to watch. Glad Douglas didn't disappoint me this time around.
James Earl Jones - The Great White Hope
I think many people don't realize that James Earl Jones was a hugely talented and respected actor in his hey day. He is more than a voice from The Lion King or as Darth Vader or of CNN. He's an EGOT winner, having been given an Honorary Oscar a couple years ago. Just an all around great actor in all different mediums. This was his only acting nomination and it's for a role that he won a Tony Award for playing a fictionalized version of legendary heavyweight champion boxer, Jack Johnson. He was hugely popular and also hugely controversial in the early 1900s and this story covers some of that in brief. He had a white woman as a girlfriend which got him in trouble with the law since racism was out in the open back then. That's where the film title comes from as people were looking for the great white hope to defeat the successful black man. We see his success and his downfall as he tried to find fights but couldn't. And then there's the tragic ending that leaves you sad. Jones has such strong charisma in the film and his performance is magnetic. He's got so much energy that he dominates the film and his comfort level in the role is quite evident. His stage role was like training for this moment for him. He's loud and brash and bold and everything you'd expect a heavyweight champion boxer to be like, including being temperamental in his love life. He and Jane Alexander have good chemistry and that makes sense given they had been in the roles for so long. It's a great performance that has it's theatrical moments but also gets to use Jones' physicality. Fun performance to watch and see just where Jones had come from. Shame this was his only Oscar nomination, though.
Jack Nicholson - Five Easy Pieces
This was Nicholson's second nomination and his first for Best Actor. It's weird that I'm coming to the end of my time with Jack because it feels like he's been ever present throughout my whole project. He has three wins and a ton of nominations and I'm almost finished with his amazing output. I had been looking forward to this one for a long time because I didn't really know much about it but people had mentioned it as a classic and a very good performance. You can't ask for much more than that. This is quintessential Nicholson. If you had told me this was his 5th or 6th nomination, I'd believe you. It's absolute Nicholson at the top of his game even though it's earlier in his career. Now, his character is a complete and total asshole. He is a once promising pianist who for whatever reason is now working in a California oil field living with his waitress girlfriend who he constantly cheats on and treats like dirt. It's actually nice to watch him in this role because we don't get all those Nicholson tics that we see in his later performances. The ones where he has that big grin and one raised eyebrow and his yelling lines in his distinctive cadence. This is Nicholson as a pure actor finding himself and delivering some amazing acting. There are those flashes of brilliance and timeless acting like in the highway scene where he plays piano on the back of a truck or in the diner scene where he doesn't get his order of toast fulfilled. Those are the moments where we see what Nicholson would become and the film is nothing but Nicholson. It lives or dies on his performance and he thankfully delivers, allowing for it to be nominated for a few awards. He's also good at showing all the complex relationships in his life with his family and with his girlfriend. My one complaint is that we don't really know who his character is. We don't get that deep dive as to why he's such a raging asshole at times and why he doesn't play the piano professionally and why he steps out on his girlfriend yet drag her along to his family home. We don't get to learn too much about the character other than what we see and I wish that Nicholson would have had a chance to show us the depth to Robert that we know he is more than capable of showing us. It's a good performance that shows you exactly what Nicholson is going to give us for the next few decades and coming up short against George C. Scott isn't a terrible thing.
Ryan O'Neal - Love Story
I hate that I've written three other reviews from this film before doing O'Neal's. But honestly his felt like the hardest to do. I really like O'Neal's other work in Paper Moon and Barry Lyndon. I really enjoyed him in the Kubrick film the most. This film came first, but it's easy to see how much charisma O'Neal exudes. It's effortless for him and he has such a soft quality to his performance which is very necessary to a role like this. He's absolutely an obvious leading man, it sucks that he was such an asshole in real life which prevented more of those roles. But in this film he is so sweet to with MacGraw, even if their courtship is rather unusual. They both insult each other and it goes from there. They continue that tête-à-tête throughout their relationship and give each other shit which is so nice to see. O'Neal is the main focus of the film and he plays the part perfectly. I feel that neither of the leads probably felt like they had anything Oscar worthy but here we are discussing their performances all these years later. I say that to mean O'Neal does nothing flashy with his role to attract attention. He plays it as he sees it, maintaining that simple, yet effective mantra I've talked about. He just does a great job and then it blew up, but O'Neal does everything necessary of his character. He's charming and loving towards his wife and also so delicate to her once he finds out her predicament. His strength is in being able to be all of those things in the same role and the same film. It's honestly a great performance from him even if the film is something that might get looked down upon. He's done great work and that is evident here. Too bad he couldn't capitalize on that.
I love when there's not a bad one in the group. Even better when we have an all time classic performance like Scott's. A well deserved win there. O'Neal is the last place but he still delivers a charming, effective portrayal of a rich guy who loves his woman no matter the circumstances. It's very watchable and not a bad choice here. Douglas surprised me a bit by delivering an emotionally charged performance I wasn't expecting. But I'm glad I got to watch it even if it's maybe more supporting than lead. Nicholson actually places in the middle. I think he's very good and we see what kind of an actor he will become for decades to come but the film kind of meanders and I think he needed more focus as a character. Jones ends up in second place because he is just magnetic and full of energy and gives us an interesting look at a man who defeat the best but who society defeated in return. Cool to see Jones nominated, as well. This ends the 70s for Best Actor and I'm pumped to finally be done and to move on!
Oscar Winner: George C. Scott - Patton
My Winner: George C. Scott - Patton
James Earl Jones
Jack Nicholson
Melvyn Douglas
Ryan O'Neal
1970 Best Actor
George C. Scott - Patton
When you think of General George S. Patton, do you not think about George C. Scott in full military dress talking in front of a giant American flag? Because I know I do. Scott's performance has become synonymous with Patton himself and that's the mark of an all time classic performance. Scott honestly wins this Oscar just for the opening scene where he addresses the troops. It perfectly captures what the film and Patton are all about. A man that wants the glory but has the talent to back it up, who says what he wants, and respects his troops as long as they fight for him. He's a soldier's soldier. We follow Patton as he starts out in North Africa, goes on to Sicily, is removed from command for slapping a battle fatigued soldier, and then picking back up as he races across Europe. I like that the story focuses intently on Patton and his different episodes throughout the war. We learn about who he is as a person and as an officer leading men into battle. We learn what motivates him and what he doesn't like from his troops. We see how controlled his chaos is and how others view it as reckless. He's a fascinatingly complex individual that Scott has to mine the depths of to show us who this man really is. Yes, he's a rough man born for combat but also deeply intellectual and well versed in history and even a bit religious. Scott wraps all of this up into a nice portrait of a soldier who is alive in the right time at the right place and hampered by those around him who let him have free reign. I do like that we see how Patton's time away from command somewhat changed him to be more in tune with his troops yet still keep his edge. This is simply one of the best acting performances ever that seems to perfectly match the actor with the subject. Scott famously rejected the Oscar because he felt awards shows were just a meat parade but he fully deserves it nonetheless. If you haven't seen it, go watch it now and see what you've been missing out on.
Melvyn Douglas - I Never Sang for My Father
I wasn't a big fan at all with Douglas's second Oscar win in 1979's Being There. So I was definitely curious as to what kind of performance I would get from him in this film. I had never heard of this one before the project and it co-stars Gene Hackman as Douglas's son and the film is about their strained relationship. It's a very acting heavy film and I love those types of stories. Hackman is really terrific as the son but Douglas is equally great as the father. I was so glad that Douglas was able to do something that showcased his talents because I didn't get that the first time around. Now what does bug me about the performance is that I feel like Douglas is more Supporting than Lead, as Hackman is in almost every scene and is the focus of the story. Douglas disappears for some stretches so if you were to flip those two categories, I'd like both performances even more. But I can also see how Douglas ends up in Lead as he has a domineering presence every time he is on screen. Much of that is due to the character being such an overbearing force in the family always somehow relating everything back to himself. And Douglas's character gets a few monologues where he waxes on about some old memory of his life which kind of have this serious tone to them. Some may find those annoying but I didn't, mostly because of Douglas's acting ability. That ability is also why his character has such a dominating presence in the film. I like that Hackman and Douglas go toe to toe with each other without either one trying to one up the other. The two just put on a pure acting showcase that is both of them doing their best on their own so that it works in harmony together. The relationship is emotional and the acting matches that tone and you get some terrific scenes throughout the film. Both characters and actors expose themselves emotionally and it's so rewarding to watch them act it out. The stubborn nature of Douglas's character eventually wins out at the end but the process of getting there is fun to watch. Glad Douglas didn't disappoint me this time around.
James Earl Jones - The Great White Hope
I think many people don't realize that James Earl Jones was a hugely talented and respected actor in his hey day. He is more than a voice from The Lion King or as Darth Vader or of CNN. He's an EGOT winner, having been given an Honorary Oscar a couple years ago. Just an all around great actor in all different mediums. This was his only acting nomination and it's for a role that he won a Tony Award for playing a fictionalized version of legendary heavyweight champion boxer, Jack Johnson. He was hugely popular and also hugely controversial in the early 1900s and this story covers some of that in brief. He had a white woman as a girlfriend which got him in trouble with the law since racism was out in the open back then. That's where the film title comes from as people were looking for the great white hope to defeat the successful black man. We see his success and his downfall as he tried to find fights but couldn't. And then there's the tragic ending that leaves you sad. Jones has such strong charisma in the film and his performance is magnetic. He's got so much energy that he dominates the film and his comfort level in the role is quite evident. His stage role was like training for this moment for him. He's loud and brash and bold and everything you'd expect a heavyweight champion boxer to be like, including being temperamental in his love life. He and Jane Alexander have good chemistry and that makes sense given they had been in the roles for so long. It's a great performance that has it's theatrical moments but also gets to use Jones' physicality. Fun performance to watch and see just where Jones had come from. Shame this was his only Oscar nomination, though.
Jack Nicholson - Five Easy Pieces
This was Nicholson's second nomination and his first for Best Actor. It's weird that I'm coming to the end of my time with Jack because it feels like he's been ever present throughout my whole project. He has three wins and a ton of nominations and I'm almost finished with his amazing output. I had been looking forward to this one for a long time because I didn't really know much about it but people had mentioned it as a classic and a very good performance. You can't ask for much more than that. This is quintessential Nicholson. If you had told me this was his 5th or 6th nomination, I'd believe you. It's absolute Nicholson at the top of his game even though it's earlier in his career. Now, his character is a complete and total asshole. He is a once promising pianist who for whatever reason is now working in a California oil field living with his waitress girlfriend who he constantly cheats on and treats like dirt. It's actually nice to watch him in this role because we don't get all those Nicholson tics that we see in his later performances. The ones where he has that big grin and one raised eyebrow and his yelling lines in his distinctive cadence. This is Nicholson as a pure actor finding himself and delivering some amazing acting. There are those flashes of brilliance and timeless acting like in the highway scene where he plays piano on the back of a truck or in the diner scene where he doesn't get his order of toast fulfilled. Those are the moments where we see what Nicholson would become and the film is nothing but Nicholson. It lives or dies on his performance and he thankfully delivers, allowing for it to be nominated for a few awards. He's also good at showing all the complex relationships in his life with his family and with his girlfriend. My one complaint is that we don't really know who his character is. We don't get that deep dive as to why he's such a raging asshole at times and why he doesn't play the piano professionally and why he steps out on his girlfriend yet drag her along to his family home. We don't get to learn too much about the character other than what we see and I wish that Nicholson would have had a chance to show us the depth to Robert that we know he is more than capable of showing us. It's a good performance that shows you exactly what Nicholson is going to give us for the next few decades and coming up short against George C. Scott isn't a terrible thing.
Ryan O'Neal - Love Story
I hate that I've written three other reviews from this film before doing O'Neal's. But honestly his felt like the hardest to do. I really like O'Neal's other work in Paper Moon and Barry Lyndon. I really enjoyed him in the Kubrick film the most. This film came first, but it's easy to see how much charisma O'Neal exudes. It's effortless for him and he has such a soft quality to his performance which is very necessary to a role like this. He's absolutely an obvious leading man, it sucks that he was such an asshole in real life which prevented more of those roles. But in this film he is so sweet to with MacGraw, even if their courtship is rather unusual. They both insult each other and it goes from there. They continue that tête-à-tête throughout their relationship and give each other shit which is so nice to see. O'Neal is the main focus of the film and he plays the part perfectly. I feel that neither of the leads probably felt like they had anything Oscar worthy but here we are discussing their performances all these years later. I say that to mean O'Neal does nothing flashy with his role to attract attention. He plays it as he sees it, maintaining that simple, yet effective mantra I've talked about. He just does a great job and then it blew up, but O'Neal does everything necessary of his character. He's charming and loving towards his wife and also so delicate to her once he finds out her predicament. His strength is in being able to be all of those things in the same role and the same film. It's honestly a great performance from him even if the film is something that might get looked down upon. He's done great work and that is evident here. Too bad he couldn't capitalize on that.
I love when there's not a bad one in the group. Even better when we have an all time classic performance like Scott's. A well deserved win there. O'Neal is the last place but he still delivers a charming, effective portrayal of a rich guy who loves his woman no matter the circumstances. It's very watchable and not a bad choice here. Douglas surprised me a bit by delivering an emotionally charged performance I wasn't expecting. But I'm glad I got to watch it even if it's maybe more supporting than lead. Nicholson actually places in the middle. I think he's very good and we see what kind of an actor he will become for decades to come but the film kind of meanders and I think he needed more focus as a character. Jones ends up in second place because he is just magnetic and full of energy and gives us an interesting look at a man who defeat the best but who society defeated in return. Cool to see Jones nominated, as well. This ends the 70s for Best Actor and I'm pumped to finally be done and to move on!
Oscar Winner: George C. Scott - Patton
My Winner: George C. Scott - Patton
James Earl Jones
Jack Nicholson
Melvyn Douglas
Ryan O'Neal
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Leading Actress 1970
As I've said before, I do love that I get to categories where I've seen none of the films and sometimes have never even heard of the actor/actress that's been nominated. That's true here as I know Jackson and Alexander but don't know the rest at all (MacGraw by name only because of the film she's in). It always makes it exciting because I find those diamonds in the rough occasionally and it always feels good when that happens. Of course, I also have to wade through the muck to find those and there's a lot of muck to wade through! Anyway, I do hope that this category brings it home for me and wraps up the decade nicely.
1970 Best Actress
Glenda Jackson - Women in Love
Jackson was probably one of the most anticipated viewings for this project. Here was this two time Oscar winner who had a flurry of nominations in the 70s and then all but disappeared and I had no idea who she even was. I've learned more about her and wrote about that in her other reviews (she got into UK politics and won a Tony in 2018). Interesting lady and interesting nominations. I wasn't a fan of her work in Hedda but I did really like Sunday Bloody Sunday and enjoyed her work enough in A Touch of Class, for which she won her second Oscar. This was her first nomination and first win and I'd heard some very mixed reviews about it. Some people praising it and some thinking it's one of the worst wins for the category. It's certainly a divisive film and performance because of that reason. It's an adaptation of a D.H. Lawrence novel and the film is pretty avant-garde. It feels like a late 60s film (it came out in 69 in the UK) with it's empty philosophizing and psycho babble. There are strange scenes of Jackson dancing wildly in front of cattle of some sort, the two male leads (Alan Bates and Oliver Reed) wrestling buck ass naked in front of a fireplace, an odd ballet dancing scene, Bates running through fields rubbing trees and bushes all over his naked body. Just strange, avant-garde scenes abound in this one. So Jackson has a demanding role of trying to make sense of her character so that her character can make sense to us, the viewer. And it's a tough role and I don't know if Jackson does quite enough for this to be an actual acting performance with depth. Everything is overdone in this film to extremes and that makes the characters come off as if everyone is completely insane. It feels like they are going for this deep, sexually liberated, philosophical treatise on life but it all comes off as clumsy madness. It was probably very shocking in 1969 and had more of an intended effect but now it looks absurd at times. The story is about two sisters who meet a pair of friends at a wedding and then romance ensues in different ways. But as one reviewer put it there isn't much actual women in love as there is everyone talking about love. And I feel that represents the film and the performances as lacking depth and only barely scratching the surface. Maybe in 1969/70 this kind of work was seen as bold and innovative but Jackson's performance left me lacking anything to grab onto. I'll have to see what the rest of the category offers up, but this isn't looking good as a winner for me. Though I wouldn't say it's one of the worst wins ever. It's interesting for sure and Jackson is obviously a very talented actress which comes through here. The pretentiousness, however, has it failing to live up to an Oscar winner type of hype.
Jane Alexander - The Great White Hope
Alexander is one of those underrated actresses who somehow quietly has four Oscar nominations and all of them are good to great. I had no idea who she was before this project, even confusing her with someone else. I imagine anyone reading this doesn't really know her either and that's a shame. She blew me away in Testament and her other two nominations in between were good work. This was her film debut but she had already won a Tony Award for the same role in her stage debut. She played the white woman in black boxer Jack Johnson's life (different name in the film and portrayed by James Earl Jones, who also won a Tony Award for playing the same role) which was controversial back in the early 1900s. Johnson was a heavyweight champion who was an animated guy just like Muhammad Ali and so brought the hate of a lot of folks who didn't like him winning and this was back when racism was the norm. Anyway, like I said, Alexander plays his white girlfriend/lover. I was worried at first because she doesn't do anything for the first almost 30 minutes but then she has a scene where some white DA is asking her questions to try and find some way to charge Johnson with some crime because the whites don't like him. She figures out quickly what he is trying to do and makes a 180 degree turn from being an emotional mess to a woman not to be fucked with. She rebukes him with a great line where she calls him a slimy, two-bit, no dick, mother grabber and storms out. It's an awesome exchange and shows her range and that she won't just be the simple girlfriend type of performance. There's also a great extended scene between Alexander and Jones where the two argue and it's very theatrical and clearly is probably taken from the play they did together. Still, it's great to see them both go at each other and see how comfortable both are in their respective roles. That's the plus of having done the role so often on stage that you can make the film version feel lived in and like a natural extension of their self. It's really well done work for a debut that probably didn't feel like a debut for Alexander and I'm so glad I got to discover her as an actress in this project.
Ali MacGraw - Love Story
This was one of those films that when I looked at the list always threw me for a loop. I knew it was a romantic film and had been made fun of a ton but I thought it was just a cheesy love film and nothing more. I do think it is slightly elevated above that and MacGraw's performance helps a lot in that regard. Now, I'm gonna be real as well and say that I feel like any actress could have played that part and been successful. That's no fault of MacGraw, it's just how the part was written. It's definitely written from a male point of view and so her real story is subdued, or really stifled if you want to be accurate. She doesn't even get told that she has a *SPOILER ALERT* terminal illness. That's kept hidden and the film is very male centric. She's good looking and equally charming to O'Neal and the two have great chemistry. But she doesn't really stand out as you hope she would. MacGraw exists in the film but isn't the reason you are watching. She is essentially an accessory in her own film. But MacGraw is terrific with what she is given to do. She's pretty, smart, charming, funny, says bad words - all of that. And for such a hugely popular film, there was no way she wasn't getting nominated. That's what the Academy does and I won't say it's not deserved, but MacGraw should feel glad she got the opportunity and nomination with this film. That sounds awful to say but here we are talking about her 50 years later, so that's something. It's not amazing but it is effective and we can't deny that.
Sarah Miles - Ryan's Daughter
I'm always curious going into a performance where I don't know the name. I've said this a million times it feels like, but I know it's either going to be good or really bad. It's rarely just a meh. So I knew this was a David Lean epic (he of the Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago films) and it wasn't well received by critics which led to Lean not making a film for like the next 14 years or so. But I rather enjoyed it! I love big epics like this with amazing cinematography and memorable shots. It's about a woman (Miles) who marries an older fella (Robert Mitchum, who the critics say was miscast but I enjoyed in the role) but then cheats on him with a British officer. This is during WWI and right after Easter Uprising and it takes place in Ireland so they hate the Brits. It's scandalous and we see the fallout. It's a small romantic plot dressed up in an epic film. Miles is so very good in the role. I really love the fact that she plays the character so restrained. She's like a true sheltered Irishwoman who knows nothing beyond her village yet longs for so much more excitement. It's why she marries Mitchum and why she cheats on him with a war hero British officer. She plays it like a young woman trying to find something better to grab onto and fill a void. I feel like other actresses would have played this in such a grand way or been a really loud, domineering presence in the film. But Miles' way is what the film needs to succeed. She's an innocent girl who gets caught up in her search for excitement. And Miles has to carry this very long film almost on the strength of her performance alone. She's the only real lead and the British officer she falls for does not give a very good performance at all. The fact that she has to act opposite him so much and he gives such a bad performance and she still comes out looking great is a testament to her ability. The guy even admitted his heart wasn't in it because he didn't find Miles attractive and because Sharon Tate was killed during production and they apparently had an affair not long before she died. So Miles is trying to have a romance with a guy who is an awful actor and makes it believable and salvages what she can for the film. That's reason enough to be nominated but she is so good throughout the whole film. She shines in the end when the town comes together to rip her clothes off and cut off her hair because they feel she ratted on their local Irish rebels to her man and got them arrested. She, with her hair cut and ragged looking, looks pitiful but also almost saintly, like Joan of Arc. That sounds wild but it's how she comes off. It's like the experience matured her and though she is separating from Mitchum, she seems at peace. It's great acting and she grows in the performance from the beginning, which is awesome to watch. I think it's a strong performance that really makes this film work. It got shredded by critics but without Miles, it probably wouldn't even be Oscar nominated.
Carrie Snodgress - Diary of a Mad Housewife
This is a name I'm sure nobody recognizes for a film no one has probably seen before. I've read some other bloggers say this one was hard for them to find but I found a copy rather easily, though it wasn't the best copy ever. I'm always interested in these performances from actors and films I know nothing about because it's a wildcard. I have no idea what to expect and it makes for a fun watch. This one happened to be a very good performance in a rather interesting film. It's about a housewife played by Snodgress who has a husband who belittles her at every turn, emotionally abuses her, and just general is an absolute dick head to his wife, treating her like hired help or a slave even. Her kids are no better and she's just so unloved. So she has an affair but that's with a man who treats her poorly as well. She tries therapy but they also are abusive and belittling. It's a story about a woman who is constantly under fire from everyone around her and she has to placate them all as if it's her job to take the abuse. Like I said, an interesting subject and Snodgress has to be effective for it to work and she is. She gives such an understated performance where she just takes the abuse and the emotional belittling without saying much or reacting at all. She gives it back a little bit at times which makes those moments hit harder because she does take so much grief from everyone. It's such a strong performance because her character is downtrodden and I feel like she reacts like a woman in 1970 might. It seems real to me and I appreciate that there isn't this big, theatrical element to her performance. It's subtle and understated and really drives home how awful everyone else is around her. Is this a winner? I'm not sure, but I like that it's different and shows her perspective only. She is the saving grace of the film and I'm glad I got to see her restrained performance of a mad housewife.
A solid group to be sure. I don't agree with the Academy with Jackson's win. I think some would say this is a middling/weak year and I could agree, I guess. It's just that I didn't hate any of these and liked most of them, even if there wasn't a runaway favorite. So I think it's solid enough. Jackson is just in a weird film and I don't think she wows enough to win. Maybe the Academy was shocked and thought it was bold acting or something, I don't know, but I felt it could have been better. She's my fifth. Next up is MacGraw who does exactly what the role and film need. She's good and funny and charming and that's all you can ask for. I do feel like many other actresses would have had equal success so that's why I'm keeping it ranked lower. Next would be Alexander as she does a great job with a role she was very familiar with. She has two really strong scenes but does kind of disappear a little for the rest of the film. It's good, though. Now as for my next two, I really don't know. I like both of them for what they bring, as both have to be good so that their films work. Miles carries her long epic of a film and even has to act opposite a guy who wasn't into her and gave a poor performance and still made it work somehow. She makes the three and a half hours bearable, which is no easy task. I think I'll give my win to Snodgress. It's a very 1970 woman's film and role and I like how understated she plays it. It feels so real and is like a breath of fresh air. Just feels different and in this group, that matters. So there we go, 70s almost over and a decent little category this year.
Oscar Winner: Glenda Jackson - Women in Love
My Winner: Carrie Snodgress - Diary of a Mad Housewife
Sarah Miles
Jane Alexander
Ali MacGraw
Glenda Jackson
1970 Best Actress
Glenda Jackson - Women in Love
Jackson was probably one of the most anticipated viewings for this project. Here was this two time Oscar winner who had a flurry of nominations in the 70s and then all but disappeared and I had no idea who she even was. I've learned more about her and wrote about that in her other reviews (she got into UK politics and won a Tony in 2018). Interesting lady and interesting nominations. I wasn't a fan of her work in Hedda but I did really like Sunday Bloody Sunday and enjoyed her work enough in A Touch of Class, for which she won her second Oscar. This was her first nomination and first win and I'd heard some very mixed reviews about it. Some people praising it and some thinking it's one of the worst wins for the category. It's certainly a divisive film and performance because of that reason. It's an adaptation of a D.H. Lawrence novel and the film is pretty avant-garde. It feels like a late 60s film (it came out in 69 in the UK) with it's empty philosophizing and psycho babble. There are strange scenes of Jackson dancing wildly in front of cattle of some sort, the two male leads (Alan Bates and Oliver Reed) wrestling buck ass naked in front of a fireplace, an odd ballet dancing scene, Bates running through fields rubbing trees and bushes all over his naked body. Just strange, avant-garde scenes abound in this one. So Jackson has a demanding role of trying to make sense of her character so that her character can make sense to us, the viewer. And it's a tough role and I don't know if Jackson does quite enough for this to be an actual acting performance with depth. Everything is overdone in this film to extremes and that makes the characters come off as if everyone is completely insane. It feels like they are going for this deep, sexually liberated, philosophical treatise on life but it all comes off as clumsy madness. It was probably very shocking in 1969 and had more of an intended effect but now it looks absurd at times. The story is about two sisters who meet a pair of friends at a wedding and then romance ensues in different ways. But as one reviewer put it there isn't much actual women in love as there is everyone talking about love. And I feel that represents the film and the performances as lacking depth and only barely scratching the surface. Maybe in 1969/70 this kind of work was seen as bold and innovative but Jackson's performance left me lacking anything to grab onto. I'll have to see what the rest of the category offers up, but this isn't looking good as a winner for me. Though I wouldn't say it's one of the worst wins ever. It's interesting for sure and Jackson is obviously a very talented actress which comes through here. The pretentiousness, however, has it failing to live up to an Oscar winner type of hype.
Jane Alexander - The Great White Hope
Alexander is one of those underrated actresses who somehow quietly has four Oscar nominations and all of them are good to great. I had no idea who she was before this project, even confusing her with someone else. I imagine anyone reading this doesn't really know her either and that's a shame. She blew me away in Testament and her other two nominations in between were good work. This was her film debut but she had already won a Tony Award for the same role in her stage debut. She played the white woman in black boxer Jack Johnson's life (different name in the film and portrayed by James Earl Jones, who also won a Tony Award for playing the same role) which was controversial back in the early 1900s. Johnson was a heavyweight champion who was an animated guy just like Muhammad Ali and so brought the hate of a lot of folks who didn't like him winning and this was back when racism was the norm. Anyway, like I said, Alexander plays his white girlfriend/lover. I was worried at first because she doesn't do anything for the first almost 30 minutes but then she has a scene where some white DA is asking her questions to try and find some way to charge Johnson with some crime because the whites don't like him. She figures out quickly what he is trying to do and makes a 180 degree turn from being an emotional mess to a woman not to be fucked with. She rebukes him with a great line where she calls him a slimy, two-bit, no dick, mother grabber and storms out. It's an awesome exchange and shows her range and that she won't just be the simple girlfriend type of performance. There's also a great extended scene between Alexander and Jones where the two argue and it's very theatrical and clearly is probably taken from the play they did together. Still, it's great to see them both go at each other and see how comfortable both are in their respective roles. That's the plus of having done the role so often on stage that you can make the film version feel lived in and like a natural extension of their self. It's really well done work for a debut that probably didn't feel like a debut for Alexander and I'm so glad I got to discover her as an actress in this project.
Ali MacGraw - Love Story
This was one of those films that when I looked at the list always threw me for a loop. I knew it was a romantic film and had been made fun of a ton but I thought it was just a cheesy love film and nothing more. I do think it is slightly elevated above that and MacGraw's performance helps a lot in that regard. Now, I'm gonna be real as well and say that I feel like any actress could have played that part and been successful. That's no fault of MacGraw, it's just how the part was written. It's definitely written from a male point of view and so her real story is subdued, or really stifled if you want to be accurate. She doesn't even get told that she has a *SPOILER ALERT* terminal illness. That's kept hidden and the film is very male centric. She's good looking and equally charming to O'Neal and the two have great chemistry. But she doesn't really stand out as you hope she would. MacGraw exists in the film but isn't the reason you are watching. She is essentially an accessory in her own film. But MacGraw is terrific with what she is given to do. She's pretty, smart, charming, funny, says bad words - all of that. And for such a hugely popular film, there was no way she wasn't getting nominated. That's what the Academy does and I won't say it's not deserved, but MacGraw should feel glad she got the opportunity and nomination with this film. That sounds awful to say but here we are talking about her 50 years later, so that's something. It's not amazing but it is effective and we can't deny that.
Sarah Miles - Ryan's Daughter
I'm always curious going into a performance where I don't know the name. I've said this a million times it feels like, but I know it's either going to be good or really bad. It's rarely just a meh. So I knew this was a David Lean epic (he of the Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago films) and it wasn't well received by critics which led to Lean not making a film for like the next 14 years or so. But I rather enjoyed it! I love big epics like this with amazing cinematography and memorable shots. It's about a woman (Miles) who marries an older fella (Robert Mitchum, who the critics say was miscast but I enjoyed in the role) but then cheats on him with a British officer. This is during WWI and right after Easter Uprising and it takes place in Ireland so they hate the Brits. It's scandalous and we see the fallout. It's a small romantic plot dressed up in an epic film. Miles is so very good in the role. I really love the fact that she plays the character so restrained. She's like a true sheltered Irishwoman who knows nothing beyond her village yet longs for so much more excitement. It's why she marries Mitchum and why she cheats on him with a war hero British officer. She plays it like a young woman trying to find something better to grab onto and fill a void. I feel like other actresses would have played this in such a grand way or been a really loud, domineering presence in the film. But Miles' way is what the film needs to succeed. She's an innocent girl who gets caught up in her search for excitement. And Miles has to carry this very long film almost on the strength of her performance alone. She's the only real lead and the British officer she falls for does not give a very good performance at all. The fact that she has to act opposite him so much and he gives such a bad performance and she still comes out looking great is a testament to her ability. The guy even admitted his heart wasn't in it because he didn't find Miles attractive and because Sharon Tate was killed during production and they apparently had an affair not long before she died. So Miles is trying to have a romance with a guy who is an awful actor and makes it believable and salvages what she can for the film. That's reason enough to be nominated but she is so good throughout the whole film. She shines in the end when the town comes together to rip her clothes off and cut off her hair because they feel she ratted on their local Irish rebels to her man and got them arrested. She, with her hair cut and ragged looking, looks pitiful but also almost saintly, like Joan of Arc. That sounds wild but it's how she comes off. It's like the experience matured her and though she is separating from Mitchum, she seems at peace. It's great acting and she grows in the performance from the beginning, which is awesome to watch. I think it's a strong performance that really makes this film work. It got shredded by critics but without Miles, it probably wouldn't even be Oscar nominated.
Carrie Snodgress - Diary of a Mad Housewife
This is a name I'm sure nobody recognizes for a film no one has probably seen before. I've read some other bloggers say this one was hard for them to find but I found a copy rather easily, though it wasn't the best copy ever. I'm always interested in these performances from actors and films I know nothing about because it's a wildcard. I have no idea what to expect and it makes for a fun watch. This one happened to be a very good performance in a rather interesting film. It's about a housewife played by Snodgress who has a husband who belittles her at every turn, emotionally abuses her, and just general is an absolute dick head to his wife, treating her like hired help or a slave even. Her kids are no better and she's just so unloved. So she has an affair but that's with a man who treats her poorly as well. She tries therapy but they also are abusive and belittling. It's a story about a woman who is constantly under fire from everyone around her and she has to placate them all as if it's her job to take the abuse. Like I said, an interesting subject and Snodgress has to be effective for it to work and she is. She gives such an understated performance where she just takes the abuse and the emotional belittling without saying much or reacting at all. She gives it back a little bit at times which makes those moments hit harder because she does take so much grief from everyone. It's such a strong performance because her character is downtrodden and I feel like she reacts like a woman in 1970 might. It seems real to me and I appreciate that there isn't this big, theatrical element to her performance. It's subtle and understated and really drives home how awful everyone else is around her. Is this a winner? I'm not sure, but I like that it's different and shows her perspective only. She is the saving grace of the film and I'm glad I got to see her restrained performance of a mad housewife.
A solid group to be sure. I don't agree with the Academy with Jackson's win. I think some would say this is a middling/weak year and I could agree, I guess. It's just that I didn't hate any of these and liked most of them, even if there wasn't a runaway favorite. So I think it's solid enough. Jackson is just in a weird film and I don't think she wows enough to win. Maybe the Academy was shocked and thought it was bold acting or something, I don't know, but I felt it could have been better. She's my fifth. Next up is MacGraw who does exactly what the role and film need. She's good and funny and charming and that's all you can ask for. I do feel like many other actresses would have had equal success so that's why I'm keeping it ranked lower. Next would be Alexander as she does a great job with a role she was very familiar with. She has two really strong scenes but does kind of disappear a little for the rest of the film. It's good, though. Now as for my next two, I really don't know. I like both of them for what they bring, as both have to be good so that their films work. Miles carries her long epic of a film and even has to act opposite a guy who wasn't into her and gave a poor performance and still made it work somehow. She makes the three and a half hours bearable, which is no easy task. I think I'll give my win to Snodgress. It's a very 1970 woman's film and role and I like how understated she plays it. It feels so real and is like a breath of fresh air. Just feels different and in this group, that matters. So there we go, 70s almost over and a decent little category this year.
Oscar Winner: Glenda Jackson - Women in Love
My Winner: Carrie Snodgress - Diary of a Mad Housewife
Sarah Miles
Jane Alexander
Ali MacGraw
Glenda Jackson
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Supporting Actor 1970
Well, we've got one big name we all know and four that most people have probably never heard of, myself included. I like that these early years offer up new people I've never seen before. I always hope to find my new favorite performance and I hope it's in this category this year!
1970 Best Supporting Actor
John Mills - Ryan's Daughter
Oh man, I really hate roles like this and I've heard that this was a very poor win but I didn't expect it to be like this. Ugh. Mills is the village idiot in a little fishing town in Ireland. The film is about a woman who marries and then cheats on her husband with one of the occupying British officers. This is set in 1917 during WWI and just after Easter Rising. So the affair is a big no-no and this is everything that leads up to it and after. It's a David Lean epic and it looks amazing and is very long at three and a half hours. Oh, should I actually be talking about this wholly undeserved win and performance? Mills' village idiot has a deformed leg and really bad teeth and he's a dumb mute. Mills doesn't say a single word and the performance is very much a physical one. You can say that Mills tries to imbue the character with a humane quality and tries to get to the core of the person he's playing but that's all whatever. He plays a village idiot that is laughed at and mocked and seems to always be at just the right place at the right time to watch the events of the story unfold. But that's all it is: a village idiot role. It's acted as well as Mills can do but there's nothing really to it. He supposed to be this sympathetic figure who sees people for what they truly are but he doesn't say a word and relies on the physical element of the performance because that's all there is. There are other, better supporting performances in this film. Trevor Howard as the priest is so great. If you want to call Robert Mitchum a supporting character, he'd be a good choice as well. Even the local pub owner who is the Ryan in the title is a better choice because he brings something to the film even though the acting might be a bit over the top. I say that because this is not something I would ever vote for and for some reason the Academy has had such a hard on for these simple/special ed type of roles for some reason. I think it's the lowest form of acting and is too easy to do and no one ever gets it right because it's always so exaggerated. It's never true to life and always feels like someone hamming it up or playing it for awards love. It's a bad win, plain and simple. I can't get behind this and these types of wins (because there is another one coming up for Best Actor, though I haven't seen it yet) just feel like pandering and just all sorts of wrong. Howard would have made an excellent nominee and possible winner. Even the star of the film, Sarah Miles, said he would have been a better winner. When your own Oscar nominated actress says that maybe you should listen! Bad win and I hate to go off like this but this kind of shit from the Academy bothers me.
Richard S. Castellano - Lovers and Other Strangers
This is one of those names you see on the list and don't recognize and if you saw a picture of Castellano, you probably wouldn't recognize him from that, either. But when I tell you he was in The Godfather and ad libbed the famous line "Leave the gun, take the canoli" you will know exactly who he is. Castellano seems to have mostly been a character actor on TV, stage, and in film. He already did this very same role on Broadway a couple years before the film came out and I feel that maybe that's part of the reason he was nominated because the Academy loves to do that. The role/character isn't much. Castellano plays the father of a guy in the film who is getting married. His other son is getting divorced and his wife is portrayed by Bea Arthur from The Golden Girls fame. He plays an almost stereotypical Italian married father who doles out marriage advice despite constant bickering with his own wife and only sticking with her because that's just what you do even if you don't love them any more. So Castellano and Arthur go back and forth and bring a little comedy to the film and both are loud and demonstrative and you've seen that same couple a hundred times before/since. Castellano is good in the role for what it is as he should be, but he often gets overshadowed in the film by the other supporting men. To the point that you wonder why Castellano was chosen and not them. He does have a little wistful monologue towards the end of the film where he tells his divorcing son about how he wanted to marry another woman before he married Arthur that comes off as a good scene but doesn't feel like it particularly stands out to me. It's more a sad indictment on marriage more than anything.
Chief Dan George - Little Big Man
It worried me going into this film that this would be some really racist, outdated mess. Some of the pictures I had seen from the film looked a little goofy, so I was expecting the worst. But instead, the film is a revisionist Western where the US Cavalry soldiers are the enemy and the Indians are shown in a more sympathetic light. It's about Dustin Hoffman and his life as he was saved from an Indian massacre by another tribe and then raised as an Indian and then "rescued" and brought back into white society. It's about his life and he eventually goes back to the Indians. But this is about Chief Dan George who is, well, the chief of the Cheyenne that adopted Hoffman. At first he comes off as the measured, wise chief who takes in Hoffman. Eventually he becomes blind and is a bit more philosophical. All the while he has a great sense of humor. It's just that George isn't used all that much. He's on the peripheral and it would fulfill the stereotype of the Indian chief, though George lends a bit more warmth to that role. It's still not much. I think others are going to find deeper meaning in his performance that just isn't there. He's playing a specific part and nothing else. I don't see much here and Grahame Green, who is the other male Native American nominee from 1990, falls into a similar issue: be more than just the token Indian. I like Green way more than George here, but I'd honestly rather see General Custer nominated because he offers up something interesting and that feels like blasphemy. George does what is needed from his character but it's not something that will make you perk up every time he is on screen. It is great, though, that the Academy diversified it's nominees and went a different way than it normally does, especially in 1970. It's just a shame that the performance isn't better than what it is.
Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father
The project does it again, delivering me a wonderful hidden gem of a film with some really great acting. You'd think I'd have known about this one since it features Hackman, but I had never heard about it or knew what it was about. Even my guess as to what it might be about was really wrong. It has nothing to do with singing or music and is very much an adult drama about the relationship between a son and his father. Hackman is the son and this is such an emotionally acted film where the acting is the star. The son wants to love his father who is overbearing and who makes it tough to actually love him. And that's all Hackman's character wants is that fatherly love. Nothing he does is enough to impress his father and get that love and so Hackman grows to resent his father and the relationship is strained. His father is obstinate and stuck in his ways and it takes the mother dying for them to come together again and butt heads and bond a little bit, though the ending is certainly not a happy one. Hackman, though, is terrific. This is soulful acting where the emotions are at the forefront and this really shows his range as an actor. I honestly like this performance more than his iconic work in The French Connection. You can see that internal struggle of his relationship externalized and it's truly strong, memorable work. The mother was the buffer and once she was gone, the two had to deal head on with their issues with one another. Their little clash, though it's only with words, is heartbreaking to watch the frustrations and disappointment stream from them both. It's an acting showcase type of film and I love watching those kinds of performances. Both Melvyn Douglas (a two time Oscar winner) and Hackman are at the top of their game and deliver something exceptional. My one issue is that Hackman is really the lead actor as he is in almost every scene and the focus of the story. Sticking him in Supporting seems wrong and I feel like he and Douglas should have switched categories. But that's the only mark against this nomination. It's wonderful acting from start to finish and will probably end up my winner.
John Marley - Love Story
I'm not gonna lie, I actually really liked his performance. It is short and I normally can't stand those kinds of nominations, but this meant something. That's what I ask for: bring something to the film and the story. And Marley did. It's not much and some people might not enjoy it and that's okay. But I thought he brought so much needed humanity to the role and the story as the father of Ali MacGraw. I love that he's a father to her in the scene where they visit as a couple and is deferential to Ryan O'Neal because his family is so influential. He's playing off these two different emotions of be a father and also be a good citizen and placate this man. It's really good! It surprised me because I thought it would be a nothing performance but it had heart and earnestness and I loved it. He was great at the wedding and he was heartbreaking at the end. All you could ask for. And you might be asking where have you seen him before and that would be as the man who wakes up with a horse head in his bed in The Godfather. Yep, that's him. But I really did enjoy his performance here. It's simple and effective and that's the theme for this film for me. Will it win, I dunno, but I'm glad it's so much better than I thought it would be.
Ayyy, I really don't like this win. It might very well be the worst one for this category that I have seen so far. Eventually I'll make a list ranking all the winners or something to that effect, but this one will be at the bottom for sure. Mills is my last place and it's really no fault of his own. He does what is needed for the role and it's not like he purposefully played a village idiot to win an Oscar, but still. It's a bad win and I wish he wasn't even nominated. Chief Dan George is an inspired nomination but unfortunately it's not that awesome. He's funny but he just plays an Indian. I need more depth and substance to my nominees. Castellano is pretty good in his role. It fits the film and is one of those Broadway roles that transfers over to film and the Academy loves nominating those. Marley was a pleasant surprise and I enjoyed his small role a lot. It's what a supporting role should be, so he's my second. Now Hackman is my winner even if he should be in the Lead actor category. But he's here and I'm taking him as my winner because he is head and shoulders above everyone else. I love his performance and we can see why he won the next year for his first Oscar. Anyway, disappointing year to round out the 70s. Was hoping for much better, but hey, I watched some really interesting films!
Oscar Winner: John Mills - Ryan's Daughter
My Winner: Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father
John Marley
Richard S. Castellano
Chief Dan George
John Mills
1970 Best Supporting Actor
John Mills - Ryan's Daughter
Oh man, I really hate roles like this and I've heard that this was a very poor win but I didn't expect it to be like this. Ugh. Mills is the village idiot in a little fishing town in Ireland. The film is about a woman who marries and then cheats on her husband with one of the occupying British officers. This is set in 1917 during WWI and just after Easter Rising. So the affair is a big no-no and this is everything that leads up to it and after. It's a David Lean epic and it looks amazing and is very long at three and a half hours. Oh, should I actually be talking about this wholly undeserved win and performance? Mills' village idiot has a deformed leg and really bad teeth and he's a dumb mute. Mills doesn't say a single word and the performance is very much a physical one. You can say that Mills tries to imbue the character with a humane quality and tries to get to the core of the person he's playing but that's all whatever. He plays a village idiot that is laughed at and mocked and seems to always be at just the right place at the right time to watch the events of the story unfold. But that's all it is: a village idiot role. It's acted as well as Mills can do but there's nothing really to it. He supposed to be this sympathetic figure who sees people for what they truly are but he doesn't say a word and relies on the physical element of the performance because that's all there is. There are other, better supporting performances in this film. Trevor Howard as the priest is so great. If you want to call Robert Mitchum a supporting character, he'd be a good choice as well. Even the local pub owner who is the Ryan in the title is a better choice because he brings something to the film even though the acting might be a bit over the top. I say that because this is not something I would ever vote for and for some reason the Academy has had such a hard on for these simple/special ed type of roles for some reason. I think it's the lowest form of acting and is too easy to do and no one ever gets it right because it's always so exaggerated. It's never true to life and always feels like someone hamming it up or playing it for awards love. It's a bad win, plain and simple. I can't get behind this and these types of wins (because there is another one coming up for Best Actor, though I haven't seen it yet) just feel like pandering and just all sorts of wrong. Howard would have made an excellent nominee and possible winner. Even the star of the film, Sarah Miles, said he would have been a better winner. When your own Oscar nominated actress says that maybe you should listen! Bad win and I hate to go off like this but this kind of shit from the Academy bothers me.
Richard S. Castellano - Lovers and Other Strangers
This is one of those names you see on the list and don't recognize and if you saw a picture of Castellano, you probably wouldn't recognize him from that, either. But when I tell you he was in The Godfather and ad libbed the famous line "Leave the gun, take the canoli" you will know exactly who he is. Castellano seems to have mostly been a character actor on TV, stage, and in film. He already did this very same role on Broadway a couple years before the film came out and I feel that maybe that's part of the reason he was nominated because the Academy loves to do that. The role/character isn't much. Castellano plays the father of a guy in the film who is getting married. His other son is getting divorced and his wife is portrayed by Bea Arthur from The Golden Girls fame. He plays an almost stereotypical Italian married father who doles out marriage advice despite constant bickering with his own wife and only sticking with her because that's just what you do even if you don't love them any more. So Castellano and Arthur go back and forth and bring a little comedy to the film and both are loud and demonstrative and you've seen that same couple a hundred times before/since. Castellano is good in the role for what it is as he should be, but he often gets overshadowed in the film by the other supporting men. To the point that you wonder why Castellano was chosen and not them. He does have a little wistful monologue towards the end of the film where he tells his divorcing son about how he wanted to marry another woman before he married Arthur that comes off as a good scene but doesn't feel like it particularly stands out to me. It's more a sad indictment on marriage more than anything.
Chief Dan George - Little Big Man
It worried me going into this film that this would be some really racist, outdated mess. Some of the pictures I had seen from the film looked a little goofy, so I was expecting the worst. But instead, the film is a revisionist Western where the US Cavalry soldiers are the enemy and the Indians are shown in a more sympathetic light. It's about Dustin Hoffman and his life as he was saved from an Indian massacre by another tribe and then raised as an Indian and then "rescued" and brought back into white society. It's about his life and he eventually goes back to the Indians. But this is about Chief Dan George who is, well, the chief of the Cheyenne that adopted Hoffman. At first he comes off as the measured, wise chief who takes in Hoffman. Eventually he becomes blind and is a bit more philosophical. All the while he has a great sense of humor. It's just that George isn't used all that much. He's on the peripheral and it would fulfill the stereotype of the Indian chief, though George lends a bit more warmth to that role. It's still not much. I think others are going to find deeper meaning in his performance that just isn't there. He's playing a specific part and nothing else. I don't see much here and Grahame Green, who is the other male Native American nominee from 1990, falls into a similar issue: be more than just the token Indian. I like Green way more than George here, but I'd honestly rather see General Custer nominated because he offers up something interesting and that feels like blasphemy. George does what is needed from his character but it's not something that will make you perk up every time he is on screen. It is great, though, that the Academy diversified it's nominees and went a different way than it normally does, especially in 1970. It's just a shame that the performance isn't better than what it is.
Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father
The project does it again, delivering me a wonderful hidden gem of a film with some really great acting. You'd think I'd have known about this one since it features Hackman, but I had never heard about it or knew what it was about. Even my guess as to what it might be about was really wrong. It has nothing to do with singing or music and is very much an adult drama about the relationship between a son and his father. Hackman is the son and this is such an emotionally acted film where the acting is the star. The son wants to love his father who is overbearing and who makes it tough to actually love him. And that's all Hackman's character wants is that fatherly love. Nothing he does is enough to impress his father and get that love and so Hackman grows to resent his father and the relationship is strained. His father is obstinate and stuck in his ways and it takes the mother dying for them to come together again and butt heads and bond a little bit, though the ending is certainly not a happy one. Hackman, though, is terrific. This is soulful acting where the emotions are at the forefront and this really shows his range as an actor. I honestly like this performance more than his iconic work in The French Connection. You can see that internal struggle of his relationship externalized and it's truly strong, memorable work. The mother was the buffer and once she was gone, the two had to deal head on with their issues with one another. Their little clash, though it's only with words, is heartbreaking to watch the frustrations and disappointment stream from them both. It's an acting showcase type of film and I love watching those kinds of performances. Both Melvyn Douglas (a two time Oscar winner) and Hackman are at the top of their game and deliver something exceptional. My one issue is that Hackman is really the lead actor as he is in almost every scene and the focus of the story. Sticking him in Supporting seems wrong and I feel like he and Douglas should have switched categories. But that's the only mark against this nomination. It's wonderful acting from start to finish and will probably end up my winner.
John Marley - Love Story
I'm not gonna lie, I actually really liked his performance. It is short and I normally can't stand those kinds of nominations, but this meant something. That's what I ask for: bring something to the film and the story. And Marley did. It's not much and some people might not enjoy it and that's okay. But I thought he brought so much needed humanity to the role and the story as the father of Ali MacGraw. I love that he's a father to her in the scene where they visit as a couple and is deferential to Ryan O'Neal because his family is so influential. He's playing off these two different emotions of be a father and also be a good citizen and placate this man. It's really good! It surprised me because I thought it would be a nothing performance but it had heart and earnestness and I loved it. He was great at the wedding and he was heartbreaking at the end. All you could ask for. And you might be asking where have you seen him before and that would be as the man who wakes up with a horse head in his bed in The Godfather. Yep, that's him. But I really did enjoy his performance here. It's simple and effective and that's the theme for this film for me. Will it win, I dunno, but I'm glad it's so much better than I thought it would be.
Ayyy, I really don't like this win. It might very well be the worst one for this category that I have seen so far. Eventually I'll make a list ranking all the winners or something to that effect, but this one will be at the bottom for sure. Mills is my last place and it's really no fault of his own. He does what is needed for the role and it's not like he purposefully played a village idiot to win an Oscar, but still. It's a bad win and I wish he wasn't even nominated. Chief Dan George is an inspired nomination but unfortunately it's not that awesome. He's funny but he just plays an Indian. I need more depth and substance to my nominees. Castellano is pretty good in his role. It fits the film and is one of those Broadway roles that transfers over to film and the Academy loves nominating those. Marley was a pleasant surprise and I enjoyed his small role a lot. It's what a supporting role should be, so he's my second. Now Hackman is my winner even if he should be in the Lead actor category. But he's here and I'm taking him as my winner because he is head and shoulders above everyone else. I love his performance and we can see why he won the next year for his first Oscar. Anyway, disappointing year to round out the 70s. Was hoping for much better, but hey, I watched some really interesting films!
Oscar Winner: John Mills - Ryan's Daughter
My Winner: Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father
John Marley
Richard S. Castellano
Chief Dan George
John Mills
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Supporting Actress 1970
Here we are finally at the last of the 70s. Can you believe as I write this that 1970 was 50 flipping years ago?! That's insane to think about because the 70s was just the generation before me and watching movies from that decade now for kids growing up would be like watching something from the 30s for me. It doesn't seem that dramatic of a time difference but here we are. I am so glad to be finally finishing this year and I'm ready for a new decade, in more ways than one! I haven't see any of these performances, though they are some pretty accessible films if I might say so. I'm ready to see if Hayes is a bad winner like I've heard for so long. Here we go!
1970 Best Supporting Actress
Helen Hayes - Airport
Okay, I get why this won and was nominated, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Hayes is this old lady who scams her way on to planes to get places supposedly to see her family. She comes off as this sweet, little old lady but once we really get to know her she is nothing but a grifter who is a pretty awful person. This is supposed to be an endearing role where the little old lady provides some comedic relief in being a criminal by sneaking onto planes and playing her old lady part to a T. But her character is just an awful person who uses her age and gender to take advantage of everyone she meets so she can get her way. I know that sounds like some liberal PC bullshit but her character just comes off as such a terrible person, no matter how endearing it's supposed to be. Hayes does exactly what the role needs and is honestly perfect as the old lady grifter. I would say she owns the role and knocks it out of the park. I just don't like the role. It's designed to be taken one way, but I take it another. Maybe this will be the only choice for the win but I don't know yet. I know it has that sheen of a veteran nomination for an older woman the Academy likes for whatever reason and I'm sure that's part of the reason she won/was nominated. If this is the best the year has to offer, it's going to be one very bad category and I hope that isn't the case.
Karen Black - Five Easy Pieces
It's funny how going backwards can line up some interesting familiarities or similarities between the years. Sometimes it's the same actor being in the same spot where all I have to do is change the film name. And sometimes it's like it is here where Black is in a film with Jack Nicholson and the previous review (which is actually the next year, 1971) has Ann-Margret in this spot in a film with Nicholson. It's weird how that can work out and maybe I'm the only one that cares about it, but it's neat. Anyway, Black plays Nicholson's waitress girlfriend, Rayette. She's a meek woman who is scared of Nicholson but devoted to him even though he mistreats and manipulates her into staying with him. She's kind of pathetic in that she can be with anyone else since she is a beautiful woman, but continues to put up with Nicholson's antics like being a drunk douchebag and sleeping with other women. It's the dumb, ditzy blonde character (I think she's a blonde and not strawberry blonde anyway) to a T and she does a good enough job in the role. She's just a loving person who loves the wrong man who doesn't love her back and we see that at the end of the film. It's a heartbreaking portrayal but Black doesn't get to do much other than be pathetic and needy and make us scream at her to leave that asshole. There are some other women in the film who get to have an arc even in their brief scenes but I guess Black is representative of the film as a whole. It was okay, but I was really hoping for an Oscar moment that never came.
Lee Grant - The Landlord
Grant was a highly respected actress who was nominated for an Academy Award 4 times and won in 1975 for Shampoo. She also was nominated a bunch of times for the Emmys and won a couple of those, too. But after her first Oscar nomination in 1952, she was blacklisted in the McCarthy era bullshit and relegated to mostly TV for a while. And then came the redemption arc as she started to work more in film and started getting nominated again. This was her second nomination and she played Beau Bridges' boozy, bougie, racist old mother. She's from a rich family and her son, Bridges, buys an apartment building in a rundown black neighborhood in order to fix it up and gentrify the place. But then Bridges is swayed by the tenants and becomes sympathetic to their plight and even sleeps with a couple black women and fathers a child. The racist, old fashioned Grant doesn't approve at first and stops by the apartment building and talks with one of the black women who lives there and gets drunk with her and enjoys some ham hocks and can't remember who her husband is. It's a funny moment that shows Grant's character was just never exposed to anything other than her own way of life. It's a scene where other actors might ham it up too much or not bring the authenticity that Grant does. It's a film that is part social satire and part political statement and Grant plays her part wonderfully. She shows you exactly why she was such a beloved actress and highly awarded throughout her career.
Sally Kellerman - MASH
MASH is a great film and everyone knows the TV series, so I was expecting a lot more out of this performance. Kellerman does a fine enough job with the role but it feels like this nomination just comes along for the ride as she is the only real female performance in the film. Meaning she is the only woman that really gets to do much in the story, which is one of those things that we see over and over in this category. Her arc is that she is a straight laced Army Major who plays by the rules that the other personnel call Hot Lips, which she hates. She has a tryst with Robert Duvall's straight laced Army officer who no one else really likes. She gets pranked into everyone seeing her naked and has a scene where she erupts and screams to the commanding officer about court-martialing but he doesn't really care. That's about it for her arc other than her being a dumb cheerleader at the football game at the end. Not exactly amazing Oscar quality stuff. Entertaining, absolutely, but not anything that should be up for a win. I would say the TV actress of the same character does a better job with the role, but in fairness, she did get 11 seasons of growth to work with. The film is well worth the watch just not necessarily for this specific performance. It also hurts Kellerman that the film is so misogynistic to the women in the story. Kellerman is seen more as a sex object and doesn't get the chance to bring a lot of depth to the role because the film just won't allow for it. Tone that down and maybe Kellerman can pop through all of that, but instead this is what we are left with.
Maureen Stapleton - Airport
I have not been all that enthused with Stapleton's other nominations/her win. I guess they are decent enough but not anything to make me say wow, she's such a great actress. But she was a very gifted actress who made a lot of films, did a lot of TV, and was a force on Broadway if Wikipedia is correct. So that makes her nominations make more sense to me and that's how this game gets played. This was Stapleton's second nomination and she plays the wife of the airline bomber in this film. When we first see her, she's a supportive wife and worried about her husband going off to some Midwest city for a job. But then she gets some mail about a ticket to Rome and heads to the airport to find him but he has already taken off. She is obviously concerned and wants to talk with whoever in charge to find him. It's then made obvious that he's mentally ill or at least been acting strange and is about to do something drastic. Up until this point, the performance is nothing special. Just a concerned wife but nothing that you'd point to as something to single out. There is a slight Oscar moment at the end where she runs up to the departing passengers of the plane after it's landed and is hysterical and apologizing for her husband who blew up a bomb on the plane. That's the reason she got nominated. But I don't think it's anything to truly gush over and reward. It could be done by any capable actress and doesn't stand out. It's overwrought and just some tethered, obvious acting that I wished for something different from her. I feel like this one came along for the ride with the rest of the film and is easily forgettable, especially for an actress who has done a lot of good work. The positive is that she is easily better than Helen Hayes, who hams it up. I'd choose Stapleton over Hayes every time but neither truly wow me and make me want to champion them for the win.
I definitely feel like Hayes is one of the worst Oscar winners of all time. I don't care at all that she was a very respected stage actress since this isn't the Tony Awards. I can only go by her only nomination and it's just not a good performance. I get why people liked it and voted for it, but it struck the wrong tone with me and that's on Hayes. Plus, it's just not very good acting. Easy 5th place for me. Kellerman unfortunately is treated as a piece of meat in her role and doesn't really get to do a whole lot. Plus, she has the specter of her TV counterpart that had like 12 years with the character hanging over her unfairly as that may be. I would have liked to see more but it is what it is. Stapleton is better than Hayes by a ton. But her role is small and a bit overwrought and while she does a fine enough job, it's not something that should win. Black is pretty good in her pathetic, needy girlfriend role and that's all you can ask from an actress. She's the clear 2nd place for me. Grant just does a great job with her racist, boozy old white woman role which sounds awful lol. But she stands out head and shoulders over everyone else on this list, which is pretty weak overall. I feel like there could be some better nominees from The Landlord like Pearl Bailey or Diana Sands but this is what we got. Let's close out the 70s and move on!
Oscar Winner: Helen Hayes - Airport
My Winner: Lee Grant - The Landlord
Karen Black
Maureen Stapleton
Sally Kellerman
Helen Hayes
1970 Best Supporting Actress
Helen Hayes - Airport
Okay, I get why this won and was nominated, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Hayes is this old lady who scams her way on to planes to get places supposedly to see her family. She comes off as this sweet, little old lady but once we really get to know her she is nothing but a grifter who is a pretty awful person. This is supposed to be an endearing role where the little old lady provides some comedic relief in being a criminal by sneaking onto planes and playing her old lady part to a T. But her character is just an awful person who uses her age and gender to take advantage of everyone she meets so she can get her way. I know that sounds like some liberal PC bullshit but her character just comes off as such a terrible person, no matter how endearing it's supposed to be. Hayes does exactly what the role needs and is honestly perfect as the old lady grifter. I would say she owns the role and knocks it out of the park. I just don't like the role. It's designed to be taken one way, but I take it another. Maybe this will be the only choice for the win but I don't know yet. I know it has that sheen of a veteran nomination for an older woman the Academy likes for whatever reason and I'm sure that's part of the reason she won/was nominated. If this is the best the year has to offer, it's going to be one very bad category and I hope that isn't the case.
Karen Black - Five Easy Pieces
It's funny how going backwards can line up some interesting familiarities or similarities between the years. Sometimes it's the same actor being in the same spot where all I have to do is change the film name. And sometimes it's like it is here where Black is in a film with Jack Nicholson and the previous review (which is actually the next year, 1971) has Ann-Margret in this spot in a film with Nicholson. It's weird how that can work out and maybe I'm the only one that cares about it, but it's neat. Anyway, Black plays Nicholson's waitress girlfriend, Rayette. She's a meek woman who is scared of Nicholson but devoted to him even though he mistreats and manipulates her into staying with him. She's kind of pathetic in that she can be with anyone else since she is a beautiful woman, but continues to put up with Nicholson's antics like being a drunk douchebag and sleeping with other women. It's the dumb, ditzy blonde character (I think she's a blonde and not strawberry blonde anyway) to a T and she does a good enough job in the role. She's just a loving person who loves the wrong man who doesn't love her back and we see that at the end of the film. It's a heartbreaking portrayal but Black doesn't get to do much other than be pathetic and needy and make us scream at her to leave that asshole. There are some other women in the film who get to have an arc even in their brief scenes but I guess Black is representative of the film as a whole. It was okay, but I was really hoping for an Oscar moment that never came.
Lee Grant - The Landlord
Grant was a highly respected actress who was nominated for an Academy Award 4 times and won in 1975 for Shampoo. She also was nominated a bunch of times for the Emmys and won a couple of those, too. But after her first Oscar nomination in 1952, she was blacklisted in the McCarthy era bullshit and relegated to mostly TV for a while. And then came the redemption arc as she started to work more in film and started getting nominated again. This was her second nomination and she played Beau Bridges' boozy, bougie, racist old mother. She's from a rich family and her son, Bridges, buys an apartment building in a rundown black neighborhood in order to fix it up and gentrify the place. But then Bridges is swayed by the tenants and becomes sympathetic to their plight and even sleeps with a couple black women and fathers a child. The racist, old fashioned Grant doesn't approve at first and stops by the apartment building and talks with one of the black women who lives there and gets drunk with her and enjoys some ham hocks and can't remember who her husband is. It's a funny moment that shows Grant's character was just never exposed to anything other than her own way of life. It's a scene where other actors might ham it up too much or not bring the authenticity that Grant does. It's a film that is part social satire and part political statement and Grant plays her part wonderfully. She shows you exactly why she was such a beloved actress and highly awarded throughout her career.
Sally Kellerman - MASH
MASH is a great film and everyone knows the TV series, so I was expecting a lot more out of this performance. Kellerman does a fine enough job with the role but it feels like this nomination just comes along for the ride as she is the only real female performance in the film. Meaning she is the only woman that really gets to do much in the story, which is one of those things that we see over and over in this category. Her arc is that she is a straight laced Army Major who plays by the rules that the other personnel call Hot Lips, which she hates. She has a tryst with Robert Duvall's straight laced Army officer who no one else really likes. She gets pranked into everyone seeing her naked and has a scene where she erupts and screams to the commanding officer about court-martialing but he doesn't really care. That's about it for her arc other than her being a dumb cheerleader at the football game at the end. Not exactly amazing Oscar quality stuff. Entertaining, absolutely, but not anything that should be up for a win. I would say the TV actress of the same character does a better job with the role, but in fairness, she did get 11 seasons of growth to work with. The film is well worth the watch just not necessarily for this specific performance. It also hurts Kellerman that the film is so misogynistic to the women in the story. Kellerman is seen more as a sex object and doesn't get the chance to bring a lot of depth to the role because the film just won't allow for it. Tone that down and maybe Kellerman can pop through all of that, but instead this is what we are left with.
Maureen Stapleton - Airport
I have not been all that enthused with Stapleton's other nominations/her win. I guess they are decent enough but not anything to make me say wow, she's such a great actress. But she was a very gifted actress who made a lot of films, did a lot of TV, and was a force on Broadway if Wikipedia is correct. So that makes her nominations make more sense to me and that's how this game gets played. This was Stapleton's second nomination and she plays the wife of the airline bomber in this film. When we first see her, she's a supportive wife and worried about her husband going off to some Midwest city for a job. But then she gets some mail about a ticket to Rome and heads to the airport to find him but he has already taken off. She is obviously concerned and wants to talk with whoever in charge to find him. It's then made obvious that he's mentally ill or at least been acting strange and is about to do something drastic. Up until this point, the performance is nothing special. Just a concerned wife but nothing that you'd point to as something to single out. There is a slight Oscar moment at the end where she runs up to the departing passengers of the plane after it's landed and is hysterical and apologizing for her husband who blew up a bomb on the plane. That's the reason she got nominated. But I don't think it's anything to truly gush over and reward. It could be done by any capable actress and doesn't stand out. It's overwrought and just some tethered, obvious acting that I wished for something different from her. I feel like this one came along for the ride with the rest of the film and is easily forgettable, especially for an actress who has done a lot of good work. The positive is that she is easily better than Helen Hayes, who hams it up. I'd choose Stapleton over Hayes every time but neither truly wow me and make me want to champion them for the win.
I definitely feel like Hayes is one of the worst Oscar winners of all time. I don't care at all that she was a very respected stage actress since this isn't the Tony Awards. I can only go by her only nomination and it's just not a good performance. I get why people liked it and voted for it, but it struck the wrong tone with me and that's on Hayes. Plus, it's just not very good acting. Easy 5th place for me. Kellerman unfortunately is treated as a piece of meat in her role and doesn't really get to do a whole lot. Plus, she has the specter of her TV counterpart that had like 12 years with the character hanging over her unfairly as that may be. I would have liked to see more but it is what it is. Stapleton is better than Hayes by a ton. But her role is small and a bit overwrought and while she does a fine enough job, it's not something that should win. Black is pretty good in her pathetic, needy girlfriend role and that's all you can ask from an actress. She's the clear 2nd place for me. Grant just does a great job with her racist, boozy old white woman role which sounds awful lol. But she stands out head and shoulders over everyone else on this list, which is pretty weak overall. I feel like there could be some better nominees from The Landlord like Pearl Bailey or Diana Sands but this is what we got. Let's close out the 70s and move on!
Oscar Winner: Helen Hayes - Airport
My Winner: Lee Grant - The Landlord
Karen Black
Maureen Stapleton
Sally Kellerman
Helen Hayes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)