The one thing that stood out about this year, especially in the Best Picture race, is the fact that almost all of these films are anchored by Leading Actresses and it accounts for four out of the five. You could even make a case for Princess Leia in Star Wars being the fifth one. I am not sure there has ever been a year quite like this one for women. I would have to look at the 40 years I've already done and see what the future holds but this is a hallmark, I'm pretty sure. And it's awesome because there should be more years like this. At least in today's world where there are up to 10 nominees, you can have a lot more women lead films. I am looking forward to watching these.
1977 Best Picture
Annie Hall
I look at this Best Picture win as the culmination of my Woody Allen journey. I have gone backwards right alongside the project in watching all his films and here we are at his only Best Picture win, which came early in his career. I was excited to finally watch this because I've heard great things and because it's a female lead driven comedy in some respects. A culmination because this will be at the top or near the top of any definitive Woody Allen best of list and because this is the first film of his to garner awards love (which means it's the last Allen film I'll ever review most likely). There is a lot to love about this film. I think you have to find Allen funny, which I do, because that makes this film and his style just hilarious at times. What I especially liked were all those breaking the fourth wall moments. There is a scene where he is arguing with a man in line for movie about some director and then goes well let's ask him if your interpretation is correct and bring the director from off screen. That sort of absurdity works well within the framework of an Allen film and other moments like Allen and Keaton talking while subtitles show what they are actually thinking are hilarious and poignant at the same time. Hell, there's even a brief animated scene which tells you how different this film really was. I was expecting a normal Allen film where he dissects his relationship with Keaton in a straightforward way but we get all these fun, unique moments and a non-linear version of the relationship that keeps things fresh. The most interesting part for me is that I can see the rest of Allen's career in this film. There are a lot of familiar beats and ideas that will be explored further as the years go on, but this does feel like a leitmotif of Allen's future film output. Allen goes back in time to watch his youth and see his colorful family in a brief scene and he lived under a roller coaster on Coney Island, both which are explored multiple times in later films. It's also nice that Allen isn't too annoying as an actor in this like he will be in some of his later films. Keaton is good and their chemistry together is obvious and makes the film a better experience overall. This is definitely one of Woody Allen's best films and it getting rewarded with Best Picture makes sense to me.
The Goodbye Girl
Oh man. Okay. The progression of going backwards for this project can be a little teasing. You see a film you really enjoy by an actor/director/writer and see that they have other nominations in the past that you will get to. So you get excited for those and then you watch them and are either totally underwhelmed or feel they just plain suck. So you wonder how things would have gone if you saw those films first and then got to the great one. How would that have affected your thoughts on the person? I'll never really know but I loved the hell out of Marsha Mason and Neil Simon's first collaboration I saw, which means it was their last nomination together ever. So I have looked forward to their work and have been subsequently let down by everything I've watched. The Goodbye Girl is no exception. Simon reminds me of a lamer Aaron Sorkin. He has polished, overworked, finely tuned scripts that feel unnatural most of the time because of their rapid fire deliveries and their peculiar words/diction. This film is about a single mother who is freshly left by the man she was with who leased his apartment to another actor friend. Mother/daughter have no claim to the apartment and Richard Dreyfuss shows up one rainy night and tries to get in. The place is locked and he's told to go away so he leaves but then calls from a rainy phonebooth that the apartment is rightfully his. Eventually he gets in and for some reason doesn't call the cops or throw out the mother/daughter though they are squatting in his legally rented apartment. That's the first thing that I disliked about the film was that Dreyfuss allowed them to stay despite Mason demanding he adhere to her rules and pay money and all this. The film would end there as I threw them out no matter what. It continues with us seeing the three all clash because he plays guitar at night and meditates in the morning and they are so different. Okay. Eventually they come to an agreement to live together peacefully. They become friendly and then of course Dreyfuss and Mason fuck and the kid finds out and is heartbroken and jealous. Then Dreyfuss gets offered a film role in Seattle and accepts and oh, drama. Psyche! Flight delayed and he invites Mason to live with him. But oh yeah, drop the kid off at a relative. Don't care about spoilers because this is not a flipping Oscar worthy film! Everything about the two grownups relationship is manufactured. Why would you put up with some squatter? Why would you allow someone to interrupt you as you prepare for your NYC play debut? The romance between Mason and Dreyfuss is hamfisted and rushed for the convenience of the plot. It makes no sense and just starts with no warning. So then they are together and then Dreyfuss gets his movie role offered and that's the part of the film that actually feels real. He takes that thing in a heartbeat and was gonna leave behind this mother/daughter combo that doesn't mean shit to him. But does at the very end when he calls her to come get on the plane with him. There are some nice romantic scenes and some nice familial scenes but this romantic comedy is just so not what should be nominated for Best Picture. I have no clue why the Academy loved it other than Neil Simon and Richard Dreyfuss but it sticks out as a sore thumb because it just doesn't gel. There are too many parts that make you wonder why it was nominated at all. A subpar romantic comedy should never be rewarded like this by the Academy.
Julia
For some reason, I was intimidated by this film when looking at years to come. I saw that it had five different reviews to write and that always seemed like more for whatever reason, even though it was the same as The Turning Point from this year. Maybe it was that the film was about a writer, Lillian Hellman, who goes on a search for her friend Julia just before WWII in Europe. That sounded very epic and the cast seemed very epic and the nominations made it all seem very epic. It wasn't epic. The film is just under two hours and is honestly a little boring. The story is as described above but isn't all that interesting or full of the mystery and intrigue it thinks it is. The beginning shows how Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave grew up as good friends but then drifted apart as life got in the way. The eponymous Julia, Redgrave goes to medical school in Europe and gets involved in the leftist ideals of the time fighting communism (which is a good thing, mind you) but is wounded during some skirmish and Fonda is sent for. Once Fonda arrives to the hospital Redgrave is at, Redgrave is eventually taken away for "treatment" and Fonda spends the rest of the film trying to track her down. It sounds a lot more interesting than it is and the large portion of the middle of the film is mostly Fonda traveling to find Julia. She gets help from various people all working to make sure she gets to Berlin to see her friend. Then she meets Julia but it's brief and she mentions she has a daughter but Fonda must go and they will try to meet up in America again and it's all very rushed. I get that there is secrecy and intrigue and all that going on but the majority of the film is Fonda traveling. I think the film feels it is more important than it really is as evidenced by being virtually forgotten about in today's world. And that's my thing with this film is that it feels grander than it is and is more of a simple story really. That could be the bias I've built up over years of hearing about it and it might be different if you go into it stone cold but for being a much beloved Oscar film based on nominations, it's not all that amazing. I was hoping for an epic film but got an epic letdown. But really, the cast is only okay. The two nominated supporting actors are in the film briefly and don't do much. Fonda carries the film but in that long traveling stretch she just looks confused and surprised then whole time while the others around her do the work. Redgrave is fine and her win seems okay but I was just expecting so much more and didn't get that. If you like this, please let me know what you loved about it.
Star Wars
This is another one of those reviews where I feel I could just leave it blank and you'd understand. This is Star Wars. This is a franchise that is still going on today with an offshoot film about to drop in a couple weeks about Han Solo. It's at almost eleven total films. Almost everyone has seen one of the films and if they haven't, they at least know what Star Wars is. I don't think there is any other film that can match what this franchise has accomplished even on a global scale. And this is one of the first true blockbuster films after Jaws did it first. It set the box office record until E.T. took the record from it almost six years later. Luke, Leia, Solo, Chewie, Vader, Yoda, R2D2, C3PO. You know those characters intimately and could probably fashion the film in your mind just from their names alone. The visual effects changed the game and made the blockbuster into a legit thing that would happen every summer. The story is great, the actors who were in the film are remembered even today and have gone on to do great things. The music is iconic. The sound is amazing. The ideas it presented set off a science fiction boom that is still felt to this day. There's not really much else to say other than this is one of the greatest culminations of things coming together to create something unique and memorable and iconic. I say all this as if this will be my winner but as great as this film is and everything it spawned, I do like the actual winner a lot so it will be really tough to choose who wins. But obviously, Star Wars will live on for generations to come because it's filled with such wonder and excitement and that's something indeed.
The Turning Point
So this film received 11 Oscar nominations and went home empty handed (one of only two films, the other was The Color Purple) and yet somehow I have never really heard of this film. Certainly not before starting this project, but even since it's rarely talked about even today by Oscar nuts. I read that this labored in development for years and years because the idea that a film about ballet wouldn't sell well or be too appealing. I don't know why the Academy latched onto this film like it did but it does seem very of the times. It's a very short film, too. I was fully expecting this to be an two plus hour film but it clocks in at just over an hour and a half. And a good amount of that time (maybe twenty plus minutes) is dedicated solely to ballet performances. So it's a really interesting look at what could be a Best Picture contender back then. The story is about Shirley MacLaine and Anne Bancroft basically healing old wounds. MacLaine was a star ballerina who got pregnant and decided to get married and move to Oklahoma and open a dance studio. Bancroft was another ballerina who got her opportunity when MacLaine left to become a huge success in the ballet world. Bancroft's theater company did a traveling show that MacLaine attended with her family and after her older daughter is offered a spot in the prestigious company. So MacLaine goes with her daughter and son to NYC to be with them as they train. Old wounds are reopened between the two leads and the mother-daughter relationship is strained as the daughter becomes a star. By the end, the ladies all hash everything out and accept everything that has happened. Nice little story with lots of interesting behind the scene looks at ballet with the main draw being the actual ballet performances and the acting of MacLaine and Bancroft. It is a bit short and if you don't like ballet, you probably won't be interested in this. I still kinda scratch my head at how this got 11 total nominations but it's not an awful film like I was preparing myself for. The two leads do give us a nice combination performance and the dancing is certainly impressive to watch. Is it worthy of a Best Picture nod, though? I'm not so certain it is and probably wouldn't have been a choice for me this year. I like that the Academy exposes me to subjects and stories I would otherwise ignore. I don't want to be too harsh on this film because it's definitely not outright bad, it just probably wouldn't be nominated so much in today's world.
This is an interesting year. I'll go from bottom up because The Goodbye Girl had no business being nominated for Best Picture. It's not that good of a film, first of all. And second, it's got some bad acting and a stupid fucking story to boot. I don't like it and don't think it should have been a nominee. I don't like when the Academy gets obsessed with a certain writer or director to the point of crap like this getting nominated. Neil Simon ain't that great. Julia would be next up. I honestly thought this was going to be some epic about a woman going to Europe to meet her friend turned revolutionary, but this is just a boring mess. Fonda isn't that great and half the film is just her traveling to Europe to try to find her friend. It's about people you don't care about and once introduced to them, still don't care about them. It's that Oscar film that purports to be really important and well made that turns out to be boring shit. I mean, I get it as a fifth nomination but nothing more. It got way too much love it didn't deserve. Next up is The Turning Point. A film about two older women jealous of each other's lives because one has a family and the other has a prima ballerina career. More interesting than it seems, the lure is the actual ballet dancing and the relationship of the two older women. It's actually not bad but was way over nominated. It went 0-for-11 and was the first of two films to do that. Says all you need to know about it. Decent but not 11 nominations great. My runner up would be Star Wars. Yeah, I know. It has a more lasting impact than Annie Hall but god damn if I don't like that Woody Allen film. Star Wars is great but it also would have set a bad precedent as a win, I think. Is it the actual Best Picture or is it simply the most fun and well liked because space explosions and aliens and all that? It has it's flaws for sure. The same things used to praise it could be the flaws. Acting, story, effects, music - all are not flawless. So I stick with the Academy and think Woody Allen does deserve a Best Picture win. Easy to say 40 years later knowing he'd put out a film per year but it just feels right that he should have a win here. And Annie Hall is a good choice from his oeuvre. The top half of this category is great while the bottom half is garbage. I'm fully expecting 1976 to be amazing based off my cursory glance at the films on that list.
Oscar Winner: Annie Hall
My Winner: Annie Hall
Star Wars
The Turning Point
Julia
The Goodbye Girl
Showing posts with label 1977. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1977. Show all posts
Friday, February 9, 2018
Leading Actor 1977
No little insights into me or any cool little anecdote or whatever. Let's just get to the actors and see what they have to offer this year.
1977 Best Actor
Richard Dreyfuss - The Goodbye Girl
I'll admit right off the bat that this performance just doesn't do all that much for me. I enjoy Dreyfuss in Jaws, Close Encounters, and even Mr. Holland's Opus, but not this film. I think most of that stems from not liking the film and because the character Dreyfuss plays is such an asshole. The film is supposed to be a sort of romantic comedy where Dreyfuss tries to enter a new apartment he has rented only to find a mother and daughter living there already. They all are antagonistic towards each other at first and then warm up into a family unit. A basic story but the motivations of the characters are just bizarre and done only for convenience. I don't feel like any of the relationships established are authentic in the slightest little bit. Part of the dislike towards the character is that Dreyfuss is playing a theater actor, come to NYC to star in his first play. The stress of it not going as planned (because the director wants him to play Richard III as gay) actually does feel real and the building animosity between he and Marsha Mason is understandable. I like that Dreyfuss creates that portrait of a New York actor. That part is fine, it's just the inevitable love story that drags everything down. The two grownups seem to despise each other, with good reason, and then on a dime, the dynamic flips to one of respect and love and loins. That's the writing, of course, but Dreyfuss certainly doesn't help sell it and make it believable. I think that's the main takeaway of the beginning of the film. Dreyfuss is a total asswipe and pretty annoying and doesn't do anything to endear his character to the audience. Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't turn the character around 180 degrees and make him into a sympathetic, caring family man. That would have been an actual character arc but that doesn't exist here. The blame has to partially fall on Dreyfuss for not building that arc and letting the character stay unconvincing. As the film goes on, Dreyfuss shows his warmth as he falls in love with Mason and is nice to her daughter (though some of the interactions bordered on creepy, I must say). He's sweet and charming and loving and realizes he's happy and then he gets an offer for a film and that goes right out the window. Again, that abrupt change would be better if the tonal shifts weren't so starkly contrasted. And the fact that I didn't find him all that great in the beginning only to kinda warm up to him by the end says everything about his performance. I feel that he won because he had this film and Close Encounters in the same year and the Academy rewarded him for it. I don't know if that's true but more often than not, some wins are given because an actor has a bunch of highly visible and well liked roles. Looking at the rest of the list, he may have just been the default choice. I'll find out soon enough.
Woody Allen - Annie Hall
This was the first and only time Woody Allen was nominated for acting and it feels apropos that it would be for Annie Hall and that it would be so early in his long career. A lot of people don't enjoy Allen as an actor because he's so frenetic and neurotic and annoying. If you've watched all his films, you'll see that Allen is very much the same in almost every single one of them. That's just Woody Allen playing Woody Allen. Often times it works, a lot of times at the end of his acting days, it doesn't. Allen works for me in this performance. He's got that standup comedian sense of dry humor and uses to great effect in this film. He's hilarious at times but not always obviously so. His neurosis also works well for the characters he plays, but especially in this performance because it's who he is as an actor and a person. The story is about his relationship to Diane Keaton, so you can see the Allen you know from real life in the character. I think it just depends on how annoying you find that style as to whether you like this performance or not. To me, it's not anywhere close to as grating as it is in his later performances. He's more subdued and dialed back and more focused on the comedy and telling a good story. Now, should Allen have won an Oscar for acting? No way. I don't think he was ever anything amazing as an actual actor, he's just good at playing Woody Allen. So it's nice that he has one acting nomination to go with all his writing and directing nominations but he certainly didn't deserve a win. Allen is good in Annie Hall and him being nominated isn't a problem for me. If he had won, maybe I would have taken him down a bit more but one nomination is fine for his career (which of course no one could tell how long that would be back then, but you get my point). I like the nomination and Woody would be well rewarded for this film anyway.
Richard Burton - Equus
This is a weird film based on a play that still gets put on even today about a boy who blinds a bunch of horses but also loves them, as in really loves them. They boy is naked a lot with his horse and they like to horse around and bad puns aside, this is about sex with a horse. So yeah, the subject is weird but I actually was really into the film mostly because of Burton's performance. I think it was also because of Sidney Lumet's direction, but mostly it was Burton. We first see him with just half his face in shadow as he delivers a monologue to the camera and it is a striking scene. It's buoyed by Burton who just commands the screen with a deep voice grabs your attention. I later read that Burton did all eight or so of his monologues in one day of shooting because of scheduling issues or something which hammers home how amazing and effective they are. He did all of them in one day and they don't at all feel like someone who just learned his lines and recited from memory. The monologues feel lived in and carefully studied and have their own presence within the film. I was hooked from there as we follow him interview Peter Firth and his family and others about the horse stuff and be a concerned therapist. I think Burton is solid in this. The film might be strange but he gives the role his all and nails all of those monologues, which is very impressive to me. I love how he goes from building rage that peaks to immediately becoming almost a narrator with a return to his normal voice. You'll see what I mean when you watch it, but how he goes from passionate to normal so quickly without skipping the beats of the performance is amazing stuff. It also feels like a throwback performance which makes sense as Burton is a veteran actor who was very much a huge actor in the 50s and 60s where this style would feel at home. I also like how self reflective the performance is when Burton's character talks with his lady friend and sort of drills down into his own psyche and mind about what's going on in his life. I just like this performance a lot. There are times where you watch something and it instantly clicks for you and Burton's performance was just that for me. This was Burton's 7th nomination and he didn't win any, but I am now looking forward to his performances if this is any indication of his work. For what most people will probably dismiss as weird and veteran, this nomination delivered for me.
Marcello Mastroianni - A Special Day
I had to look at my first review of Mastroianni to remember that I did indeed enjoy him in that first nomination I saw of his. I remember it being a lot more involved as far as performances go and I was hopeful that this one might be as interesting. And it lives up to the latter nomination as this Italian performance is quietly engaging. So Mastroianni doesn't show up until thirty minutes in and only is in the film for an hour. This is more a Sophia Loren film, though. She has a bird fly out her apartment and asks to come into his apartment to retrieve it. This all happens in a big apartment block while everyone else is out at the parade for Hitler coming to Italy. We see Mastroianni getting his affairs in order and it looks like he's going to kill himself before he's interrupted by Loren. We learn later that he is gay and an anti-fascist (fuck all fascists, by the way) and is going to be imprisoned on Sardinia. The two then engage in friendly banter and enjoy each other's company and it's a sweet moment for all involved. Mastroianni is human throughout his time onscreen. That sounds weird but in a film where a fascist speaker is the undertone for the whole film, it's nice to see a man be kind and gentle and funny and not at all an evil person. Mastroianni builds his character slowly and I do think that works for the film as we are made aware of certain things deliberately which makes their impact land with a more resounding noise. He's a man at his end, yet still has the effort to laugh and be human with Loren, knowing what's going to happen to him very soon. I didn't like the part where the two have sex, though it meant nothing to Mastroianni and is more of a release for Loren in her shitty marriage, but still it was ill conceived. Mastroianni is charming and bittersweet at the same time and I really enjoyed his nuanced performance of a man basically waiting out his time to go die. The performance is good, but short lived. In this year, though, he might just have a shot to win it all with me.
John Travolta - Saturday Night Fever
Okay, admit that when you see the name John Travolta and the film Saturday Night Fever, it conjures up visions of him in a white suit doing the whole disco point thing in a club. The two are synonymous but what a lot of people don't realize is that he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and that he was fucking good. This is a star making performance and the Academy recognized that and nominated him for it. I think they wanted to be all in on the next big thing and Travolta has the swagger to pull off the hot shot dancer. I think that's his greatest attribute here is all the confidence he has as he dances and as he woos the ladies and as he tells his father to fuck off for complaining about him getting a raise. He's just so energetic for all the same reasons. He's full of rhythm and you can tell he just wants to bust a move at any given moment. He also tells it like it is with his family, with his boss at work, with his friends, and with the ladies he bangs. That part surprised me about the film because I guess I only ever saw the TV version and this one is a very vulgar film, but naturally so. Everyone is cussing and talking about pussies creaming and all this stuff that feels like legit young guys in Brooklyn in the late 70s who have been brought up in Italian households talking. I remembered it as a goody two shoes disco movie and it's way more than that. What's also good about the performance is that he is more than just the usual Italian kid stereotype. Sure, he has all those qualities but he gives the character more depth that he probably deserves. It's like he's conflicted in that he wants to treat women good but is still a guy who uses them as his plaything. He wants to do more than just stay in the neighborhood and be a loser like his father. He wants to move out to Manhattan and do greater things. He says racist things but recognizes that the Hispanic couple should have won the dance competition because they were flat out better. He seems like a genuinely good guy who is defined by the times. There's just a lot more to the performance than just the dancing and I think most people forget that. It wasn't going to win but it definitely deserves to be highlighted with these other men. It's nice to see that it wasn't just the good looks and dancing that got him nominated, but the depth of the performance that put him here.
Again, I'm pretty happy with this Best Actor group. When I put the Oscar winner last, it can only be good from there. I did not like Dreyfuss' performance in that film. I did not like that film. He was a partial reason why, though his performance got better as the film went on. But still, I did not like how much of an asshole he was and how unlikable the character was overall. He won because of this film and his work in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I think it does come down to that. Mastroianni has grown on me since I watched that film. It's a sweet, deeply affected performance. There are missteps in it but I did enjoy it more than I thought I would. Allen is Allen. We've seen that same performance many times but this was probably the best iteration of it. He was rewarded with a Best Picture and Best Director win and even a Best Original Screenplay win. So he's fine at third with his only acting nomination. Travolta was way more impressive than I remember him being. There is way more depth to his performance than I think most people realize. It's also a star making turn and he nailed it and did a fantastic job. Easy number two. Burton, though, wow. I had no expectations going into his performance because I just didn't know. Maybe it was a veteran type of thing but I didn't know and then I was knocked the hell over by this amazing piece of acting. I enjoyed the monologues and the acting and just the whole intensity of his performance. It makes the film for me and for that he is my winner. This was a pretty good group and that's all I can ever ask for as I go backwards through the years.
Oscar Winner: Richard Dreyfuss - The Goodbye Girl
My Winner: Richard Burton - Equus
John Travolta
Woody Allen
Marcello Mastroianni
Richard Dreyfuss
1977 Best Actor
Richard Dreyfuss - The Goodbye Girl
I'll admit right off the bat that this performance just doesn't do all that much for me. I enjoy Dreyfuss in Jaws, Close Encounters, and even Mr. Holland's Opus, but not this film. I think most of that stems from not liking the film and because the character Dreyfuss plays is such an asshole. The film is supposed to be a sort of romantic comedy where Dreyfuss tries to enter a new apartment he has rented only to find a mother and daughter living there already. They all are antagonistic towards each other at first and then warm up into a family unit. A basic story but the motivations of the characters are just bizarre and done only for convenience. I don't feel like any of the relationships established are authentic in the slightest little bit. Part of the dislike towards the character is that Dreyfuss is playing a theater actor, come to NYC to star in his first play. The stress of it not going as planned (because the director wants him to play Richard III as gay) actually does feel real and the building animosity between he and Marsha Mason is understandable. I like that Dreyfuss creates that portrait of a New York actor. That part is fine, it's just the inevitable love story that drags everything down. The two grownups seem to despise each other, with good reason, and then on a dime, the dynamic flips to one of respect and love and loins. That's the writing, of course, but Dreyfuss certainly doesn't help sell it and make it believable. I think that's the main takeaway of the beginning of the film. Dreyfuss is a total asswipe and pretty annoying and doesn't do anything to endear his character to the audience. Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't turn the character around 180 degrees and make him into a sympathetic, caring family man. That would have been an actual character arc but that doesn't exist here. The blame has to partially fall on Dreyfuss for not building that arc and letting the character stay unconvincing. As the film goes on, Dreyfuss shows his warmth as he falls in love with Mason and is nice to her daughter (though some of the interactions bordered on creepy, I must say). He's sweet and charming and loving and realizes he's happy and then he gets an offer for a film and that goes right out the window. Again, that abrupt change would be better if the tonal shifts weren't so starkly contrasted. And the fact that I didn't find him all that great in the beginning only to kinda warm up to him by the end says everything about his performance. I feel that he won because he had this film and Close Encounters in the same year and the Academy rewarded him for it. I don't know if that's true but more often than not, some wins are given because an actor has a bunch of highly visible and well liked roles. Looking at the rest of the list, he may have just been the default choice. I'll find out soon enough.
Woody Allen - Annie Hall
This was the first and only time Woody Allen was nominated for acting and it feels apropos that it would be for Annie Hall and that it would be so early in his long career. A lot of people don't enjoy Allen as an actor because he's so frenetic and neurotic and annoying. If you've watched all his films, you'll see that Allen is very much the same in almost every single one of them. That's just Woody Allen playing Woody Allen. Often times it works, a lot of times at the end of his acting days, it doesn't. Allen works for me in this performance. He's got that standup comedian sense of dry humor and uses to great effect in this film. He's hilarious at times but not always obviously so. His neurosis also works well for the characters he plays, but especially in this performance because it's who he is as an actor and a person. The story is about his relationship to Diane Keaton, so you can see the Allen you know from real life in the character. I think it just depends on how annoying you find that style as to whether you like this performance or not. To me, it's not anywhere close to as grating as it is in his later performances. He's more subdued and dialed back and more focused on the comedy and telling a good story. Now, should Allen have won an Oscar for acting? No way. I don't think he was ever anything amazing as an actual actor, he's just good at playing Woody Allen. So it's nice that he has one acting nomination to go with all his writing and directing nominations but he certainly didn't deserve a win. Allen is good in Annie Hall and him being nominated isn't a problem for me. If he had won, maybe I would have taken him down a bit more but one nomination is fine for his career (which of course no one could tell how long that would be back then, but you get my point). I like the nomination and Woody would be well rewarded for this film anyway.
Richard Burton - Equus
This is a weird film based on a play that still gets put on even today about a boy who blinds a bunch of horses but also loves them, as in really loves them. They boy is naked a lot with his horse and they like to horse around and bad puns aside, this is about sex with a horse. So yeah, the subject is weird but I actually was really into the film mostly because of Burton's performance. I think it was also because of Sidney Lumet's direction, but mostly it was Burton. We first see him with just half his face in shadow as he delivers a monologue to the camera and it is a striking scene. It's buoyed by Burton who just commands the screen with a deep voice grabs your attention. I later read that Burton did all eight or so of his monologues in one day of shooting because of scheduling issues or something which hammers home how amazing and effective they are. He did all of them in one day and they don't at all feel like someone who just learned his lines and recited from memory. The monologues feel lived in and carefully studied and have their own presence within the film. I was hooked from there as we follow him interview Peter Firth and his family and others about the horse stuff and be a concerned therapist. I think Burton is solid in this. The film might be strange but he gives the role his all and nails all of those monologues, which is very impressive to me. I love how he goes from building rage that peaks to immediately becoming almost a narrator with a return to his normal voice. You'll see what I mean when you watch it, but how he goes from passionate to normal so quickly without skipping the beats of the performance is amazing stuff. It also feels like a throwback performance which makes sense as Burton is a veteran actor who was very much a huge actor in the 50s and 60s where this style would feel at home. I also like how self reflective the performance is when Burton's character talks with his lady friend and sort of drills down into his own psyche and mind about what's going on in his life. I just like this performance a lot. There are times where you watch something and it instantly clicks for you and Burton's performance was just that for me. This was Burton's 7th nomination and he didn't win any, but I am now looking forward to his performances if this is any indication of his work. For what most people will probably dismiss as weird and veteran, this nomination delivered for me.
Marcello Mastroianni - A Special Day
I had to look at my first review of Mastroianni to remember that I did indeed enjoy him in that first nomination I saw of his. I remember it being a lot more involved as far as performances go and I was hopeful that this one might be as interesting. And it lives up to the latter nomination as this Italian performance is quietly engaging. So Mastroianni doesn't show up until thirty minutes in and only is in the film for an hour. This is more a Sophia Loren film, though. She has a bird fly out her apartment and asks to come into his apartment to retrieve it. This all happens in a big apartment block while everyone else is out at the parade for Hitler coming to Italy. We see Mastroianni getting his affairs in order and it looks like he's going to kill himself before he's interrupted by Loren. We learn later that he is gay and an anti-fascist (fuck all fascists, by the way) and is going to be imprisoned on Sardinia. The two then engage in friendly banter and enjoy each other's company and it's a sweet moment for all involved. Mastroianni is human throughout his time onscreen. That sounds weird but in a film where a fascist speaker is the undertone for the whole film, it's nice to see a man be kind and gentle and funny and not at all an evil person. Mastroianni builds his character slowly and I do think that works for the film as we are made aware of certain things deliberately which makes their impact land with a more resounding noise. He's a man at his end, yet still has the effort to laugh and be human with Loren, knowing what's going to happen to him very soon. I didn't like the part where the two have sex, though it meant nothing to Mastroianni and is more of a release for Loren in her shitty marriage, but still it was ill conceived. Mastroianni is charming and bittersweet at the same time and I really enjoyed his nuanced performance of a man basically waiting out his time to go die. The performance is good, but short lived. In this year, though, he might just have a shot to win it all with me.
John Travolta - Saturday Night Fever
Okay, admit that when you see the name John Travolta and the film Saturday Night Fever, it conjures up visions of him in a white suit doing the whole disco point thing in a club. The two are synonymous but what a lot of people don't realize is that he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and that he was fucking good. This is a star making performance and the Academy recognized that and nominated him for it. I think they wanted to be all in on the next big thing and Travolta has the swagger to pull off the hot shot dancer. I think that's his greatest attribute here is all the confidence he has as he dances and as he woos the ladies and as he tells his father to fuck off for complaining about him getting a raise. He's just so energetic for all the same reasons. He's full of rhythm and you can tell he just wants to bust a move at any given moment. He also tells it like it is with his family, with his boss at work, with his friends, and with the ladies he bangs. That part surprised me about the film because I guess I only ever saw the TV version and this one is a very vulgar film, but naturally so. Everyone is cussing and talking about pussies creaming and all this stuff that feels like legit young guys in Brooklyn in the late 70s who have been brought up in Italian households talking. I remembered it as a goody two shoes disco movie and it's way more than that. What's also good about the performance is that he is more than just the usual Italian kid stereotype. Sure, he has all those qualities but he gives the character more depth that he probably deserves. It's like he's conflicted in that he wants to treat women good but is still a guy who uses them as his plaything. He wants to do more than just stay in the neighborhood and be a loser like his father. He wants to move out to Manhattan and do greater things. He says racist things but recognizes that the Hispanic couple should have won the dance competition because they were flat out better. He seems like a genuinely good guy who is defined by the times. There's just a lot more to the performance than just the dancing and I think most people forget that. It wasn't going to win but it definitely deserves to be highlighted with these other men. It's nice to see that it wasn't just the good looks and dancing that got him nominated, but the depth of the performance that put him here.
Again, I'm pretty happy with this Best Actor group. When I put the Oscar winner last, it can only be good from there. I did not like Dreyfuss' performance in that film. I did not like that film. He was a partial reason why, though his performance got better as the film went on. But still, I did not like how much of an asshole he was and how unlikable the character was overall. He won because of this film and his work in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I think it does come down to that. Mastroianni has grown on me since I watched that film. It's a sweet, deeply affected performance. There are missteps in it but I did enjoy it more than I thought I would. Allen is Allen. We've seen that same performance many times but this was probably the best iteration of it. He was rewarded with a Best Picture and Best Director win and even a Best Original Screenplay win. So he's fine at third with his only acting nomination. Travolta was way more impressive than I remember him being. There is way more depth to his performance than I think most people realize. It's also a star making turn and he nailed it and did a fantastic job. Easy number two. Burton, though, wow. I had no expectations going into his performance because I just didn't know. Maybe it was a veteran type of thing but I didn't know and then I was knocked the hell over by this amazing piece of acting. I enjoyed the monologues and the acting and just the whole intensity of his performance. It makes the film for me and for that he is my winner. This was a pretty good group and that's all I can ever ask for as I go backwards through the years.
Oscar Winner: Richard Dreyfuss - The Goodbye Girl
My Winner: Richard Burton - Equus
John Travolta
Woody Allen
Marcello Mastroianni
Richard Dreyfuss
Leading Actress 1977
The names on this list give me hope that these ladies can make me very happy after watching them all. I haven't seen any of them but hopefully their star power makes this category worth it.
1977 Best Actress
Diane Keaton - Annie Hall
I have always been excited to finally watch this Woody Allen film that won Best Picture and nabbed Best Actress, especially since I also started my Allen watching when I started this project. This is widely considered one of his best films and Keaton is considered iconic for her look in the film. I must say I was a little let down by Keaton's actual performance. I really thought she was going to be this big strong, independent woman maybe giving Allen the business and just being overall more powerful. But that doesn't happen in this film. Maybe it's on me for expecting that but I did think that with Allen's previous female leads and nominations, most of those are well written, strong women. Keaton is more of a shy girl when we see her at the beginning of the relationship with Allen. She has a nervous energy to her and is a bucket of awkward, which kinda matches Allen's neurotic character. She is this bumbling, innocent, Midwestern girl who latches onto Allen for whatever reason. I feel like Keaton is strong in showing this sheltered woman feel actual love for Allen, even if she's even more kooky than he is at times. There is a caring in her character that shows the truth of the performance by Keaton who obviously is way more than a shy Midwestern girl in NYC. I thought the performance would be stronger but Keaton at least shows off with the character she plays. The way it's written, Keaton can't be this big, strong, independent woman but can make her role into a loving, caring, hopeful woman excited about whatever might come next in her life. It's a nice little portrait of a woman and I think Keaton does a good job of portraying that woman. I know she's remembered more for what she wore than her actual performance but it should be remembered, too. I do think that Keaton doesn't win the Oscar on the strength of this performance alone. She was also the lead actress in Looking for Mr. Goodbar, a film where she was a schoolteacher who went out at night and did drugs and banged random guys before getting murdered. It's starkly different than what Keaton did in Annie Hall and I think the two performances combined to give her the Oscar this year. She's very good in the other film and probably would have been nominated for that if not for this film getting Best Picture love.
Anne Bancroft - The Turning Point
I always find some of these actress reviews to be so difficult to write about. I feel like I need to be deep and clever and exhaustive but sometimes it gets so hard to even start writing. That's when I decide to walk around my apartment and try to simplify things by just thinking about what I liked and didn't. Instead of trying to conflate the performance to some larger meaning I just say that Bancroft did next to no dancing in a film where she is a prima ballerina getting up in age, yet is still highly respected and in demand. I thought it was funny and interesting that she never showed off any dance moves, just posing while others danced around her. Luckily, her performance isn't being judged by her dancing abilities. Bancroft plays a woman who did become a success in the ballet world while her friend, Shirley MacLaine, got pregnant and started a family and moved to Oklahoma to open a dance studio. Bancroft has stayed childless and single, though she has an affair with a married man. Success and ego drive her but she obviously wishes she had a family of her own. Bancroft conveys this conflicting emotion well. She has a powerful presence and uses that further her career but also to help out her goddaughter, Emilia (MacLaine's daughter). I think Bancroft latches on to Emilia because she sees herself and is able to be a maternal figure in her life. The meat of the performance, however, is in the relationship she has with MacLaine. The two are friends yet you can see how strained their relationship is and the last half of the film is old wounds being reopened and their friendship reevaluated. The two go toe to toe but do so in a restrained way. They actually talk to each other about the past, even though it gets a bit loud and heated. The two then have it out in a very good scene towards the end where a drink is thrown in a face and the two get a bit violent outside before things are resolved. Bancroft is a great actress and she is so subtle at times and such a studied, committed actress. I see why the voters were attracted to her as she is one of two heads in this film that sort of feeds one combination role with MacLaine. The two are intertwined and their acting with each other obviously elevates the other to bring their best. Bancroft does a good job with that in this rather short film.
Jane Fonda - Julia
Here is Jane Fonda again. She has been really hit or miss with me over the years I've covered with me liking some and hating others, but never thinking that she should have been a winner. I don't think she should have won in 1978 for Coming Home and I was curious as to how this performance would fair with me. I would say that I can see why it was nominated but I don't think it's all that amazing. To me, it's just like a few other of her nominations where she just kinda skates by while others do heavy lifting, maybe has a big moment, and then gets nominated as if she carried the film. This film is about Lillian Hellman, a writer whose friend, Julia (played by Vanessa Redgrave), goes off to Europe and gets wounded in the upheaval before WWII and is a revolutionary (I think). The film starts with her and Dashiell Hammet arguing and butting heads about her writing before we see her youth where she and Julia become good friends. Then the middle half of the film, which covers a majority of the film, is all about Fonda traveling to find Julia. During this time, Fonda spends most of the scenes looking confused and shocked and worried. And that's the extent of her performance for the traveling bits. The actors around her do all the lifting which makes sense in context of the plot but Fonda gets the love. And when Fonda finally faces Redgrave at the end of the film, Redgrave dominates the scene like a boss and Fonda again has nothing much to offer but confusion and wonder. I just feel like you could replace Fonda with any other actress and get the same result. She doesn't bring much to the role that isn't already written into it. I'd say her best scenes are when she's having trouble writing and Robards as Hammet has to get her back on track. It's not much but it's more than looking confused on a train. So this screams to me that the Academy loved this film because of who was involved with it and nominated it a ton even though the performances were weak and the film hasn't stood up to the test of time because no one cares about this film nowadays. It's not ever really mentioned besides Redgrave's admittedly well deserved win. I obviously didn't much care for the film but I can still see good performances and I'm still looking for that in Fonda here.
Shirley MacLaine - The Turning Point
I am always kinda wary when there are two nominees in a category from the same film. Are they both deserved or does one ride the coattails of the other or the film? I didn't know anything of this film, so I was keenly interested in what I was going to get from two leading performances that were nominated. MacLaine plays a woman who is living in Oklahoma who used to be a great ballerina in NYC but got pregnant and started a family and opened a dance studio and lived a normal life. The film starts when her old company and friend put on a traveling ballet that she sees and then hangs out with her old friends. They invite her daughter to study at the company in NYC and she goes along with her daughter and son. There, old wounds are reopened and a life is reevaluated and all that goes along with questioning a decision made in youth. Same as I said for Bancroft above, MacLaine is very understated and restrained in this film. At first, I was wondering if anything would happen with her character because she plays a supportive, loving mother and wife who is excited for her daughter to go to NYC to study ballet. But as the performance went on, it grew into a more nuanced study of old relationships and choices. She has always wondered if she would have got the starring role in a ballet that Bancroft got once she left and I think that what if ate away at her for years. I can think that because MacLaine allows me to based of her acting. She displays that frustration and wonder perfectly and even when she confronts Bancroft about their old issues, never lets the part get out of control. The two are absolutely two heads of one combined performance. You can't really separate the two without damaging the other and so both seem deserving of their nominations. Their little fight towards the end of the film is one between old friends and seems decades in the making and still seems appropriate give the story. It feels earned and authentic as does their make up after. I think I prefer Bancroft just slightly more because of her arc but both are very good in what is a really short film if you factor in the ballet sequences. They have to do so much in so little time that it is impressive. I do wish the film was stronger and this might be one of those few times I wish the film was longer so that both the performances could be even more fleshed out and given room to grow and become stronger. You watch this film solely for the MacLaine/Bancroft tandem and the ballet dancing, that's the draw.
Marsha Mason - The Goodbye Girl
Okay, so I loved the hell out of the first Marsha Mason role I watched. It mesmerized me. I loved her collaboration with then husband, Neil Simon, and thought they fit perfectly together. But I dislike this film. Richard Dreyfuss comes to what he thinks is his apartment but isn't let in initially because Mason still lives there with her daughter. They eventually live together as Dreyfuss is forgiving and the two start off as adversaries before obviously moving on to be lovers. It's a boring, tired, obvious arc for her character and one that is wholly unoriginal. The relationship between Mason and Dreyfuss is kinda teased but then comes out of nowhere to just happen and it's not earned and it's not welcome and it's not interesting at all. Mason falls victim to her husband's own words because her character felt too polished. The character felt overworked and rehearsed that her delivery of her lines felt completely not genuine. Simon is known for breakneck line delivery but it feels incredibly unnatural here. Mason is too slick and too perfect in her choice of words. No one is that good in real life and that diminishes the overall effect of the script. Mason is lovely with her short hair and everything but she seems committed to a play that looks better on paper than it does on the silver screen. Mason herself is a great actress. There is no doubt about that here. She gives a good performance as the mother but she just doesn't evoke much emotion in believing her relationship, which is a problem. It feels like Mason going through the acting motions with whoever is available at the time and still delivering something worth checking out. That's a credit to Mason's ability, of course, but doesn't offer up a glowing indictment of what she brings to the role. No one is searching this out except us dumb Oscar completionists. I can only hope Mason's last nomination is much better than her last few I've watched.
Well, the big names kinda sorta lived up to their billing. To me, Fonda is what she has usually been for me: okay. I don't exactly see why she was nominated for that performance but I get she's a previous winner and a known name and a big presence in Hollywood. The performance is okay but certainly could be better and is very forgettable. She comes in last easily. Mason is next because even though she's a very good actress, I couldn't really stand her in this role or the film. She's been way better than this and the others just were a little bit better. As for the two The Turning Point actresses, I give the slight nod to Bancroft. She had a lot more to do with her role and nailed it. MacLaine was good but didn't have the meatier role that Bancroft did. Both are decent but don't really wow for a win. Neither does Keaton, though, and she's my winner. I do like her in her film, but I was definitely expecting a stronger female lead performance than what she delivered there. But I did like it just a bit more than all the rest. If you combine this role with the Looking for Mr. Goodbar role, it's a no brainer. I'd say that one might even be better? Maybe that's a bias but those two roles showcase her range significantly. I would say that this year is a letdown. I was hoping for strong leads and great acting and I didn't get anything that really wowed me. Everything was just kinda okay and Oscar should be better than that.
Oscar Winner: Diane Keaton - Annie Hall
My Winner: Diane Keaton - Annie Hall
Anne Bancroft
Shirley MacLaine
Marsha Mason
Jane Fonda
1977 Best Actress
Diane Keaton - Annie Hall
I have always been excited to finally watch this Woody Allen film that won Best Picture and nabbed Best Actress, especially since I also started my Allen watching when I started this project. This is widely considered one of his best films and Keaton is considered iconic for her look in the film. I must say I was a little let down by Keaton's actual performance. I really thought she was going to be this big strong, independent woman maybe giving Allen the business and just being overall more powerful. But that doesn't happen in this film. Maybe it's on me for expecting that but I did think that with Allen's previous female leads and nominations, most of those are well written, strong women. Keaton is more of a shy girl when we see her at the beginning of the relationship with Allen. She has a nervous energy to her and is a bucket of awkward, which kinda matches Allen's neurotic character. She is this bumbling, innocent, Midwestern girl who latches onto Allen for whatever reason. I feel like Keaton is strong in showing this sheltered woman feel actual love for Allen, even if she's even more kooky than he is at times. There is a caring in her character that shows the truth of the performance by Keaton who obviously is way more than a shy Midwestern girl in NYC. I thought the performance would be stronger but Keaton at least shows off with the character she plays. The way it's written, Keaton can't be this big, strong, independent woman but can make her role into a loving, caring, hopeful woman excited about whatever might come next in her life. It's a nice little portrait of a woman and I think Keaton does a good job of portraying that woman. I know she's remembered more for what she wore than her actual performance but it should be remembered, too. I do think that Keaton doesn't win the Oscar on the strength of this performance alone. She was also the lead actress in Looking for Mr. Goodbar, a film where she was a schoolteacher who went out at night and did drugs and banged random guys before getting murdered. It's starkly different than what Keaton did in Annie Hall and I think the two performances combined to give her the Oscar this year. She's very good in the other film and probably would have been nominated for that if not for this film getting Best Picture love.
Anne Bancroft - The Turning Point
I always find some of these actress reviews to be so difficult to write about. I feel like I need to be deep and clever and exhaustive but sometimes it gets so hard to even start writing. That's when I decide to walk around my apartment and try to simplify things by just thinking about what I liked and didn't. Instead of trying to conflate the performance to some larger meaning I just say that Bancroft did next to no dancing in a film where she is a prima ballerina getting up in age, yet is still highly respected and in demand. I thought it was funny and interesting that she never showed off any dance moves, just posing while others danced around her. Luckily, her performance isn't being judged by her dancing abilities. Bancroft plays a woman who did become a success in the ballet world while her friend, Shirley MacLaine, got pregnant and started a family and moved to Oklahoma to open a dance studio. Bancroft has stayed childless and single, though she has an affair with a married man. Success and ego drive her but she obviously wishes she had a family of her own. Bancroft conveys this conflicting emotion well. She has a powerful presence and uses that further her career but also to help out her goddaughter, Emilia (MacLaine's daughter). I think Bancroft latches on to Emilia because she sees herself and is able to be a maternal figure in her life. The meat of the performance, however, is in the relationship she has with MacLaine. The two are friends yet you can see how strained their relationship is and the last half of the film is old wounds being reopened and their friendship reevaluated. The two go toe to toe but do so in a restrained way. They actually talk to each other about the past, even though it gets a bit loud and heated. The two then have it out in a very good scene towards the end where a drink is thrown in a face and the two get a bit violent outside before things are resolved. Bancroft is a great actress and she is so subtle at times and such a studied, committed actress. I see why the voters were attracted to her as she is one of two heads in this film that sort of feeds one combination role with MacLaine. The two are intertwined and their acting with each other obviously elevates the other to bring their best. Bancroft does a good job with that in this rather short film.
Jane Fonda - Julia
Here is Jane Fonda again. She has been really hit or miss with me over the years I've covered with me liking some and hating others, but never thinking that she should have been a winner. I don't think she should have won in 1978 for Coming Home and I was curious as to how this performance would fair with me. I would say that I can see why it was nominated but I don't think it's all that amazing. To me, it's just like a few other of her nominations where she just kinda skates by while others do heavy lifting, maybe has a big moment, and then gets nominated as if she carried the film. This film is about Lillian Hellman, a writer whose friend, Julia (played by Vanessa Redgrave), goes off to Europe and gets wounded in the upheaval before WWII and is a revolutionary (I think). The film starts with her and Dashiell Hammet arguing and butting heads about her writing before we see her youth where she and Julia become good friends. Then the middle half of the film, which covers a majority of the film, is all about Fonda traveling to find Julia. During this time, Fonda spends most of the scenes looking confused and shocked and worried. And that's the extent of her performance for the traveling bits. The actors around her do all the lifting which makes sense in context of the plot but Fonda gets the love. And when Fonda finally faces Redgrave at the end of the film, Redgrave dominates the scene like a boss and Fonda again has nothing much to offer but confusion and wonder. I just feel like you could replace Fonda with any other actress and get the same result. She doesn't bring much to the role that isn't already written into it. I'd say her best scenes are when she's having trouble writing and Robards as Hammet has to get her back on track. It's not much but it's more than looking confused on a train. So this screams to me that the Academy loved this film because of who was involved with it and nominated it a ton even though the performances were weak and the film hasn't stood up to the test of time because no one cares about this film nowadays. It's not ever really mentioned besides Redgrave's admittedly well deserved win. I obviously didn't much care for the film but I can still see good performances and I'm still looking for that in Fonda here.
Shirley MacLaine - The Turning Point
I am always kinda wary when there are two nominees in a category from the same film. Are they both deserved or does one ride the coattails of the other or the film? I didn't know anything of this film, so I was keenly interested in what I was going to get from two leading performances that were nominated. MacLaine plays a woman who is living in Oklahoma who used to be a great ballerina in NYC but got pregnant and started a family and opened a dance studio and lived a normal life. The film starts when her old company and friend put on a traveling ballet that she sees and then hangs out with her old friends. They invite her daughter to study at the company in NYC and she goes along with her daughter and son. There, old wounds are reopened and a life is reevaluated and all that goes along with questioning a decision made in youth. Same as I said for Bancroft above, MacLaine is very understated and restrained in this film. At first, I was wondering if anything would happen with her character because she plays a supportive, loving mother and wife who is excited for her daughter to go to NYC to study ballet. But as the performance went on, it grew into a more nuanced study of old relationships and choices. She has always wondered if she would have got the starring role in a ballet that Bancroft got once she left and I think that what if ate away at her for years. I can think that because MacLaine allows me to based of her acting. She displays that frustration and wonder perfectly and even when she confronts Bancroft about their old issues, never lets the part get out of control. The two are absolutely two heads of one combined performance. You can't really separate the two without damaging the other and so both seem deserving of their nominations. Their little fight towards the end of the film is one between old friends and seems decades in the making and still seems appropriate give the story. It feels earned and authentic as does their make up after. I think I prefer Bancroft just slightly more because of her arc but both are very good in what is a really short film if you factor in the ballet sequences. They have to do so much in so little time that it is impressive. I do wish the film was stronger and this might be one of those few times I wish the film was longer so that both the performances could be even more fleshed out and given room to grow and become stronger. You watch this film solely for the MacLaine/Bancroft tandem and the ballet dancing, that's the draw.
Marsha Mason - The Goodbye Girl
Okay, so I loved the hell out of the first Marsha Mason role I watched. It mesmerized me. I loved her collaboration with then husband, Neil Simon, and thought they fit perfectly together. But I dislike this film. Richard Dreyfuss comes to what he thinks is his apartment but isn't let in initially because Mason still lives there with her daughter. They eventually live together as Dreyfuss is forgiving and the two start off as adversaries before obviously moving on to be lovers. It's a boring, tired, obvious arc for her character and one that is wholly unoriginal. The relationship between Mason and Dreyfuss is kinda teased but then comes out of nowhere to just happen and it's not earned and it's not welcome and it's not interesting at all. Mason falls victim to her husband's own words because her character felt too polished. The character felt overworked and rehearsed that her delivery of her lines felt completely not genuine. Simon is known for breakneck line delivery but it feels incredibly unnatural here. Mason is too slick and too perfect in her choice of words. No one is that good in real life and that diminishes the overall effect of the script. Mason is lovely with her short hair and everything but she seems committed to a play that looks better on paper than it does on the silver screen. Mason herself is a great actress. There is no doubt about that here. She gives a good performance as the mother but she just doesn't evoke much emotion in believing her relationship, which is a problem. It feels like Mason going through the acting motions with whoever is available at the time and still delivering something worth checking out. That's a credit to Mason's ability, of course, but doesn't offer up a glowing indictment of what she brings to the role. No one is searching this out except us dumb Oscar completionists. I can only hope Mason's last nomination is much better than her last few I've watched.
Well, the big names kinda sorta lived up to their billing. To me, Fonda is what she has usually been for me: okay. I don't exactly see why she was nominated for that performance but I get she's a previous winner and a known name and a big presence in Hollywood. The performance is okay but certainly could be better and is very forgettable. She comes in last easily. Mason is next because even though she's a very good actress, I couldn't really stand her in this role or the film. She's been way better than this and the others just were a little bit better. As for the two The Turning Point actresses, I give the slight nod to Bancroft. She had a lot more to do with her role and nailed it. MacLaine was good but didn't have the meatier role that Bancroft did. Both are decent but don't really wow for a win. Neither does Keaton, though, and she's my winner. I do like her in her film, but I was definitely expecting a stronger female lead performance than what she delivered there. But I did like it just a bit more than all the rest. If you combine this role with the Looking for Mr. Goodbar role, it's a no brainer. I'd say that one might even be better? Maybe that's a bias but those two roles showcase her range significantly. I would say that this year is a letdown. I was hoping for strong leads and great acting and I didn't get anything that really wowed me. Everything was just kinda okay and Oscar should be better than that.
Oscar Winner: Diane Keaton - Annie Hall
My Winner: Diane Keaton - Annie Hall
Anne Bancroft
Shirley MacLaine
Marsha Mason
Jane Fonda
Supporting Actor 1977
I am just super glad to be in the 70s now. I was thinking about this earlier in that I'm getting into territory where I haven't seen a thing and I'm starting to get some legit older classics to finally watch. It's nice to finally be watching history unfold. I have only seen Guinness as Obi-wan Kenobi and the others have a lot to live up to.
1977 Best Supporting Actor
Jason Robards - Julia
I am fucking bewildered. What the fuck is it about Jason Robards that the Academy had a damn hard on for? Like, the dude is a good actor, yeah absolutely. But I've seen him in Melvin and Howard in a very short performance that wasn't nomination worthy at all that was nominated. I saw him in Magnolia where he was fine, but everyone was clamoring for him to be nominated (he wasn't). And then I go into this with an open mind and after, I'm thinking, that's it? Robards plays Dashiell Hammett, a writer who is the friend and lover of Jane Fonda's Lillian Hellman. During the beginning of the film he is catching fish and cooks for Fonda and encourages her to keep writing. There is no big Oscar moment, there is no scene you can point to on a highlight real for Robards that includes this film. He is just playing a famous writer and I guess that's supposed to be enough? He seems like a very manly man as he is the one going out and fishing and then cleaning and cooking the fish while doling out advice for Fonda. The scenes don't last long and really don't stick out for Robards in any meaningful way. We see him for brief moments later in the film but that's all there is to his performance! The film doesn't care about the relationship of Hammett and Hellman and makes that quite clear by glossing over their interactions. So Robards doesn't have that to hang his hat on. It's just him giving advice and fishing and that's it. This fucking dude won his second consecutive Oscar, one of only 5 people in history along with Tom Hanks, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Luise Rainer. I don't even think this should have been nominated. His character needed to be explored more which means paying more attention to the relationship and Hammett's issues himself. This is not good and I seriously don't understand why it won. Someone convince me that it's actually decent before I go crazy.
Mikhail Baryshnikov - The Turning Point
This will probably be a short review. Baryshnikov is only nominated here because the Academy loved this film so much for whatever reason and because he is a world renowned ballet dancer who was at the height of his popularity at the time. Try and name another ballet dancer, male or female. Baryshnikov would be the only name I could give you as an answer which speaks to how popular he was and his effect on popular culture. The Academy most likely nominated him for his dancing in the film which I do take exception to. This is an acting nomination and not a dancing nomination so I feel the performance should reflect that. Baryshnikov isn't a stinker but he certainly isn't that great of an actor. His stumbling block is his thick Russian accent that makes it hard to understand him at times. Like I said, not much of a performance outside of the dancing, which is incredible obviously. Sometimes the Academy just nominates, and sometimes rewards, performances of individuals who are better at something else, like singing, rather than the acting bit. They gave a win to Jennifer Hudson for her awful singing in one of the worst decisions by the Academy, so it happens. I won't be mad at this nomination because it's not Baryshnikov's fault and he is a good dancer without much of a role outside of that besides being a playboy. He's fine even if you can't understand him, but the precedent for a nomination should be good or great acting and not anything else.
Peter Firth - Equus
You might have heard of this film before because it has such a weird premise . It's about a young man who gets sent to a nut house for evaluation after blinding a bunch of horses. The weird aspect is that the young man, played by Firth, is in love with horses and likes to be naked with them and do other things with them. You might have also heard of this story because Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, played Firth's part on stage and was naked a lot - just like Firth is in this film. That always seems to be the big takeaway from this performance is that is has long, sustained male frontal nudity a couple different times throughout the film and was somewhat groundbreaking in that regard. What is also interesting to me was that Firth played this role on stage first and scored a Tony Award nomination a couple years before the film version came out. Firth played this character over a thousand times on stage before bringing it to the big screen and it shows. Firth is supremely comfortable as the mentally unstable young man and his passion for the character shines bright. Though, when Firth is on screen, it sometimes looks like he's acting on stage. I guess that doing it on stage so much would bleed over into the film version but a minor quibble at best. Firth knows what he's doing with his character even if the performance seems more theatrical at times. He recounts his past indiscretions to Richard Burton and you get a sense that they are real. I don't want to say that Firth is any better than he is in the role but he is comfortable and does a great job of bringing an emotionally disturbed young man to life even if it might not be as memorable as the nudity. I do think Firth is good, just not overwhelmingly so. I feel like this performance should be a lot better than it is due to how much Firth had already played the character. That might be a little unfair but I wasn't wanting more than just the crazed young man. I needed nuance and subtlety, really. Firth is a decent supporting performance that I'll have to let marinate some more.
Alec Guinness - Star Wars
I wasn't even sure if I was going to rewatch Star Wars for this project (I did) because I've seen it so many times growing up. I was not, and still am not, a huge Star Wars fan. I haven't even seen any of the new films and I actively dislike the prequels. But there isn't anything quite like the original. For this review I was going to just write simply: Obi-wan Kenobi. You know the character and you know the performance just from reading those words. There's the iconic hooded figure overlooking look in the beginning of the film that sort of sets the tone of this mysterious figure whose past we don't know anything about. I do believe Guinness brings the proper amount of dedication to the role, though one thing has always seemed funny to me when I watch him in this film. Guinness at times seems like he'd rather be anywhere else and I could never quite figure out if that was real or part of his character who was off on his own reluctantly coming back to fight the Empire. I tend to think it might of been a bit of both as this role isn't all that challenging for Guinness and the dialogue is certainly not amazing. But Guinness does help turn Kenobi into an iconic character and it's something we remember decades later. I don't think much else really needs to be said. If the Academy had given the Oscar to Guinness for this performance, I don't think there would be much gruff about it. It even would have validated the film as even more than just a blockbuster. It might even be my winner, I'm not sure yet, but everyone enjoys Obi-wan.
Maximilian Schell - Julia
You know, I saw that this film had two Supporting Actor nominees and thought that either this film was beyond amazing with a bunch of acting nominees or that one of these came along for the ride while the other was more deserving. After watching the film, I'm wondering what happened. I've read the reviews and all that and people seem to love Robards and seem to think Schell is as good or sometimes better. But Schell doesn't have much of a role. He is a liaison between Redgrave and Jane Fonda. He meets Fonda at a hotel and gives her information on where to be and then leaves. He is just someone who moves the plot along and also explains some missing information like what organization Julia (Redgrave) is a part of. We then see him at the train station and he gives Fonda some more information in a clever way and then that's all we see of Schell. He does what is necessary of the character and is quite warm and calming but that's not worthy of a nomination. If this film wasn't so loved for some stupid reason, Schell would never have been nominated. I think that the Academy saw his name and knew he was a previous Oscar winner and nominated him. Simple as that. Same as with Robards. Why either of them were nominated is beyond my comprehension. They are short, nothing roles that you can't even explain away with flowery writing. I don't get this at all.
After letting the choices marinate some, I do think Guinness would be a fine winner that no one would really complain about. But I also feel that Firth put in a lot more work, even if born on stage, to create a performance that was vital to the film. He is danger close to being a leading performance himself so I guess that should be taken into consideration, too. But I like Firth and Guinness, though giving the win to Firth seems the better choice right now. The other three are just garbage nominees. A little harsh on Baryshnikov's part because he was only nominated for his dancing and famous name. He wasn't ever really given much to do but still, this is an acting award and he didn't do much of that. I put him last for that reason though I think I'd rather give him an Oscar over Robards and Schell. Schell does nothing in a very brief performance other than be mysterious. Robards just tries to be Robards and that's it. One of the worst wins I've encountered so far and completely undeserved. Can't believe he won for that crap. Whatever. 1976 better be leaps and bounds ahead of this group.
Oscar Winner: Jason Robards - Julia
My Winner: Peter Firth - Equus
Alec Guinness
Jason Robards
Maximilian Schell
Mikail Baryshnikov
1977 Best Supporting Actor
Jason Robards - Julia
I am fucking bewildered. What the fuck is it about Jason Robards that the Academy had a damn hard on for? Like, the dude is a good actor, yeah absolutely. But I've seen him in Melvin and Howard in a very short performance that wasn't nomination worthy at all that was nominated. I saw him in Magnolia where he was fine, but everyone was clamoring for him to be nominated (he wasn't). And then I go into this with an open mind and after, I'm thinking, that's it? Robards plays Dashiell Hammett, a writer who is the friend and lover of Jane Fonda's Lillian Hellman. During the beginning of the film he is catching fish and cooks for Fonda and encourages her to keep writing. There is no big Oscar moment, there is no scene you can point to on a highlight real for Robards that includes this film. He is just playing a famous writer and I guess that's supposed to be enough? He seems like a very manly man as he is the one going out and fishing and then cleaning and cooking the fish while doling out advice for Fonda. The scenes don't last long and really don't stick out for Robards in any meaningful way. We see him for brief moments later in the film but that's all there is to his performance! The film doesn't care about the relationship of Hammett and Hellman and makes that quite clear by glossing over their interactions. So Robards doesn't have that to hang his hat on. It's just him giving advice and fishing and that's it. This fucking dude won his second consecutive Oscar, one of only 5 people in history along with Tom Hanks, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Luise Rainer. I don't even think this should have been nominated. His character needed to be explored more which means paying more attention to the relationship and Hammett's issues himself. This is not good and I seriously don't understand why it won. Someone convince me that it's actually decent before I go crazy.
Mikhail Baryshnikov - The Turning Point
This will probably be a short review. Baryshnikov is only nominated here because the Academy loved this film so much for whatever reason and because he is a world renowned ballet dancer who was at the height of his popularity at the time. Try and name another ballet dancer, male or female. Baryshnikov would be the only name I could give you as an answer which speaks to how popular he was and his effect on popular culture. The Academy most likely nominated him for his dancing in the film which I do take exception to. This is an acting nomination and not a dancing nomination so I feel the performance should reflect that. Baryshnikov isn't a stinker but he certainly isn't that great of an actor. His stumbling block is his thick Russian accent that makes it hard to understand him at times. Like I said, not much of a performance outside of the dancing, which is incredible obviously. Sometimes the Academy just nominates, and sometimes rewards, performances of individuals who are better at something else, like singing, rather than the acting bit. They gave a win to Jennifer Hudson for her awful singing in one of the worst decisions by the Academy, so it happens. I won't be mad at this nomination because it's not Baryshnikov's fault and he is a good dancer without much of a role outside of that besides being a playboy. He's fine even if you can't understand him, but the precedent for a nomination should be good or great acting and not anything else.
Peter Firth - Equus
You might have heard of this film before because it has such a weird premise . It's about a young man who gets sent to a nut house for evaluation after blinding a bunch of horses. The weird aspect is that the young man, played by Firth, is in love with horses and likes to be naked with them and do other things with them. You might have also heard of this story because Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, played Firth's part on stage and was naked a lot - just like Firth is in this film. That always seems to be the big takeaway from this performance is that is has long, sustained male frontal nudity a couple different times throughout the film and was somewhat groundbreaking in that regard. What is also interesting to me was that Firth played this role on stage first and scored a Tony Award nomination a couple years before the film version came out. Firth played this character over a thousand times on stage before bringing it to the big screen and it shows. Firth is supremely comfortable as the mentally unstable young man and his passion for the character shines bright. Though, when Firth is on screen, it sometimes looks like he's acting on stage. I guess that doing it on stage so much would bleed over into the film version but a minor quibble at best. Firth knows what he's doing with his character even if the performance seems more theatrical at times. He recounts his past indiscretions to Richard Burton and you get a sense that they are real. I don't want to say that Firth is any better than he is in the role but he is comfortable and does a great job of bringing an emotionally disturbed young man to life even if it might not be as memorable as the nudity. I do think Firth is good, just not overwhelmingly so. I feel like this performance should be a lot better than it is due to how much Firth had already played the character. That might be a little unfair but I wasn't wanting more than just the crazed young man. I needed nuance and subtlety, really. Firth is a decent supporting performance that I'll have to let marinate some more.
Alec Guinness - Star Wars
I wasn't even sure if I was going to rewatch Star Wars for this project (I did) because I've seen it so many times growing up. I was not, and still am not, a huge Star Wars fan. I haven't even seen any of the new films and I actively dislike the prequels. But there isn't anything quite like the original. For this review I was going to just write simply: Obi-wan Kenobi. You know the character and you know the performance just from reading those words. There's the iconic hooded figure overlooking look in the beginning of the film that sort of sets the tone of this mysterious figure whose past we don't know anything about. I do believe Guinness brings the proper amount of dedication to the role, though one thing has always seemed funny to me when I watch him in this film. Guinness at times seems like he'd rather be anywhere else and I could never quite figure out if that was real or part of his character who was off on his own reluctantly coming back to fight the Empire. I tend to think it might of been a bit of both as this role isn't all that challenging for Guinness and the dialogue is certainly not amazing. But Guinness does help turn Kenobi into an iconic character and it's something we remember decades later. I don't think much else really needs to be said. If the Academy had given the Oscar to Guinness for this performance, I don't think there would be much gruff about it. It even would have validated the film as even more than just a blockbuster. It might even be my winner, I'm not sure yet, but everyone enjoys Obi-wan.
Maximilian Schell - Julia
You know, I saw that this film had two Supporting Actor nominees and thought that either this film was beyond amazing with a bunch of acting nominees or that one of these came along for the ride while the other was more deserving. After watching the film, I'm wondering what happened. I've read the reviews and all that and people seem to love Robards and seem to think Schell is as good or sometimes better. But Schell doesn't have much of a role. He is a liaison between Redgrave and Jane Fonda. He meets Fonda at a hotel and gives her information on where to be and then leaves. He is just someone who moves the plot along and also explains some missing information like what organization Julia (Redgrave) is a part of. We then see him at the train station and he gives Fonda some more information in a clever way and then that's all we see of Schell. He does what is necessary of the character and is quite warm and calming but that's not worthy of a nomination. If this film wasn't so loved for some stupid reason, Schell would never have been nominated. I think that the Academy saw his name and knew he was a previous Oscar winner and nominated him. Simple as that. Same as with Robards. Why either of them were nominated is beyond my comprehension. They are short, nothing roles that you can't even explain away with flowery writing. I don't get this at all.
After letting the choices marinate some, I do think Guinness would be a fine winner that no one would really complain about. But I also feel that Firth put in a lot more work, even if born on stage, to create a performance that was vital to the film. He is danger close to being a leading performance himself so I guess that should be taken into consideration, too. But I like Firth and Guinness, though giving the win to Firth seems the better choice right now. The other three are just garbage nominees. A little harsh on Baryshnikov's part because he was only nominated for his dancing and famous name. He wasn't ever really given much to do but still, this is an acting award and he didn't do much of that. I put him last for that reason though I think I'd rather give him an Oscar over Robards and Schell. Schell does nothing in a very brief performance other than be mysterious. Robards just tries to be Robards and that's it. One of the worst wins I've encountered so far and completely undeserved. Can't believe he won for that crap. Whatever. 1976 better be leaps and bounds ahead of this group.
Oscar Winner: Jason Robards - Julia
My Winner: Peter Firth - Equus
Alec Guinness
Jason Robards
Maximilian Schell
Mikail Baryshnikov
Supporting Actress 1977
This year puts me at 40 years out of 90 for old Oscar and that's pretty damn impressive to me. Soon I'll be over half way and that felt like an impossibility not that long ago. I'm glad to be churning through these years. I have seen Dillon but don't remember her. The rest remain a mystery. Time to unravel it!
1977 Best Supporting Actress
Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
This is the last nominee I am reviewing from this category but one thing stands out: how head and shoulders above the rest Redgrave is as an actress. This role is somewhat meaty, like a chicken wing, but it's slathered in your favorite hot sauce. Meaning, it's not as big of a role as you'd think but it delivers. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not amazed by this performance to the point that I claim it's a favorite or anything like that. I just know that Redgrave knocks it out of the park and is the only possible choice for a win. I can recognize good acting without really liking it. I do like her, just not enough to get ecstatic about it. Redgrave is the eponymous Julia. She is a friend of the writer Lillian Hellman and is a strong woman outright. She goes to medical school in Europe and while there, fighting breaks out and she is wounded and then eventually whisked away somewhere. The film follows Fonda as she searches for Redgrave, so the Julia isn't in the film all that much. She's decent in the beginning when we see her and Fonda as friends growing up. Julia is self assured and a natural born leader and Redgrave emotes this effortlessly. She dominates the screen and Fonda seems to cower when the two are together. That is never more obvious than when the two finally meet late in the film in a bar and Redgrave just imposes herself on the scene. She is impatient but tactful and a woman who knows that she needs to get out certain information in a hurry to a friend that is basically bewildered and star struck. It's a powerful scene because Redgrave controls the whole thing from the start and is probably what sealed her as the winner. It will stand out to you when you watch it as being particularly good and you'll understand what Redgrave means to the film. My issue is that we never really get to know anything about Redgrave and why she chose to go off and be a revolutionary other than her mother was an independent gal doing whatever she wanted. I feel like more effort on establishing why Redgrave did anything would have been nice. I recognize she is great here, but I'm not all that enthused about the performance. I won't ever come back to this film so what does that tell you?
Leslie Browne - The Turning Point
I had heard that this was a bad performance but I don't think that's true at all. Browne was a professional ballerina and the story of this film is actually based around her life, essentially. The director knew her parents and they had a similar story to the parents in this one in that they were dancers in New York who got married and moved to I think Arizona and opened a dance school. So Browne plays herself, as the daughter who goes back to NYC to become a respected ballerina. She wasn't an actress before this and it shows at times, but I feel like she handles the role just fine. It's probably easy to play yourself in your first role and the fact the she already was a dancer probably made it an easy transition. At first she is shy and quiet but then opens up when she is able to dance and come out of her shell. The scene where she dances drunk onstage is actually really great and doesn't play like most drunk scenes. Her dancing is off and also selfish while not being too overdone to emphasize being drunk. It was restrained but really effective in showing how her character had evolved. Browne is also very good at the whole dancing thing which helps her performance and isn't the only thing going for her like in Baryshnikov's case. She does get overpowered by the other actresses in the film but never to the point where she loses control of her character and she still is able to give an effective, heartfelt performance. This was a lot better than I was expecting it to be even with Browne not having to do much heavy lifting acting wise in the film. Her greenness shows, but it works in context for the character and that's okay.
Quinn Cummings - The Goodbye Girl
Okay, my first instinct is to lay into this nomination because it's a child nomination. I've been conditioned that way because when kids are nominated, they are usually beyond awful and annoying. This is a Neil Simon film and I have realized that I mostly don't like his films. I actually liked Only When I Laugh but seems everything else hasn't been all that good. Cummings is a child actor if I didn't make that clear. She's like 12 or something and I think she does a better job than most of the child actors in this project. But I'll get this out there already, this is a young girl speaking the words of Neil Simon. His scripts are already too polished and overworked. You put his words into a young girl and you get a performance that is too cutesy, precocious, and annoying. Cummings says things that no other kid would ever say and is too mature despite being underage. I don't like those types of performances for kids and I don't like them for Oscar nominated kids. But I will say that Cummings is a good actress. She is able to at least try to bring Simon's words to life and seem like they are from a naturally quirky, weird little girl. It's just that Simon gives her quip after biting quip that doesn't feel authentic in the slightest. The script even calls itself out when Marsha Mason says Cummings was born 23 or whatever age she says. That's admitting that your child character is too adult and you need an actor that is transcendent to pull of anything natural. But again, Cummings is decent in the role. Yeah, she's annoying and too polished but she tries to give it her best shot. She doesn't come off like the typical theater kid. So it's a performance that you'll recognize as good but also too annoying at times. Did it deserve to be nominated? Nah, I don't think so but at least it's not a performance to make you hate the Academy. Cummings is fine but not amazing.
Melinda Dillon - Close Encounters of the Third Kind
I always forget that this film wasn't actually nominated for Best Picture, even though it got a bunch of other nominations including one for Best Director for Steven Spielberg. I have always really enjoyed this film since I first saw it as a young lad. If you don't know, it tells the story of aliens who come to earth and abduct some people and speak to us through musical cues. What I'd really love is this film followed by a watch of Arrival because damn, do these films have similar ideas. That would be a hell of a double feature. Anyway, Dillon sucks. I hate to say that, but she is literally only the mother of the young boy who is abducted in the beginning of the film and meets Dreyfuss when that happens. But really until the end she isn't featured again until she teams up with Dreyfuss as they infiltrate the UFO landing site. She gets her kid back and that's it! I much prefer Teri Garr as Dreyfuss's wife because she is so worried about him and then storms out with the kids. I also thought Garr offered up an actual performance that meant something to the film. Dillon is just the abducted boy's mother and that's basically it. She does nothing besides be really into finding where the aliens are going to come back to. I think Teri Garr has the better claim to an Oscar nomination, however. Garr just does more as an actress and has to experience and demonstrate more range. It's also the more interesting of the supporting actress performances in the film. Dillon is just not interesting. So therefore Garr deserves the second Oscar nomination (which would have been the first nomination, but you get it). Either way, I'm just glad I got to watch this film again because it's so good.
Tuesday Weld - Looking for Mr Goodbar
This is probably the first real 70s movie that I've encountered so far, like super 70s in content. Sure, some of the other films feel like they were definitely made in the 70s and have that vibe, but this one is just an interesting cultural relic. The story concerns Diane Keaton as a hardworking and loved teacher of deaf students by day who then goes out at night and has all kinds of casual sex and does drugs and gets drunk and is murdered at the end. It's got that 70s vibe because of the music and the way everyone talks and how free love the characters seem to be and the way the film is shot. It's really interesting to watch. It's got a very young Richard Gere and Tom Berenger and even LaVar Burton. Tuesday Weld, who I honestly had trouble figuring out which woman she was, is the sister of Keaton and she flits in and out of the film, sometimes like a whirlwind. We are first introduced to her when her sister comes home and Weld is taking pills and talking about drugs and just being this frenetic,obvious acting mess. In contrast to Keaton's refined and controlled acting, Weld looks like an amateur and it's a little jarring. It reminded me of Jesse Spanos on Saved by the Bell when she overdoses on the speed pills. I know that sounds pretty goofy, but she has that same energy. The rest of the film she is more subdued but she still comes in and either talks about some new crisis she is in like getting an abortion or how her therapy sessions are doing while admonishing her sister's choices. I guess you can say she's memorable in that every time she's onscreen her acting is obvious and she is showing up with some new addiction. I feel like Weld got nominated because Keaton is pretty good in this and she was going to win for Annie Hall but Academy members probably watched this film because of her and latched onto Weld as a choice. Maybe. Weld's role is pretty underwritten and she's not given a whole lot to do other than be a spastic reminder of addiction. Weld does what she can but I don't think you'll remember her all that much after watching her performance. The one plus is she allowed me to watch a really interesting film that has been forgotten and is very much of the time.
Ehhh, not that great of a year if you really look at it. Redgrave is the only one that makes sense for a win and no one else even comes close to her. The other four are barely supporting enough. Cummings has more to do than basically everyone but Redgrave and Browne, and even that is arguable, but I just can't really stand these too precious child performances. It's not natural in the slightest and no kid would ever talk like her. I just am not a fan of child performances period. Next up would be Weld, who also doesn't do much other than show the perils that young women can encounter. Drugs, abortion, therapy, men - all that stupid stuff. It's not very interesting or good and probably only gets on because the Academy couldn't nominate Keaton twice for Lead Actress. Then comes Dillon who isn't even the best supporting actress in her own film. That goes to Teri Garr who would have easily been second best in this group. Dillon just plays a frightened mother and that's about it. Meh. Browne was at least a lot better than I was anticipating. She may not be much of an actress but she does what is necessary of her character despite how shallow the character is written. She is better than you will expect but obviously not better than Redgrave. It was hers to lose and she never did. It's not really all that amazing of a performance to me, but others thought so. This is one of the weaker categories I've seen in awhile.
Oscar Winner: Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
My Winner: Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
Leslie Browne
Melinda Dillon
Tuesday Weld
Quinn Cummings
1977 Best Supporting Actress
Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
This is the last nominee I am reviewing from this category but one thing stands out: how head and shoulders above the rest Redgrave is as an actress. This role is somewhat meaty, like a chicken wing, but it's slathered in your favorite hot sauce. Meaning, it's not as big of a role as you'd think but it delivers. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not amazed by this performance to the point that I claim it's a favorite or anything like that. I just know that Redgrave knocks it out of the park and is the only possible choice for a win. I can recognize good acting without really liking it. I do like her, just not enough to get ecstatic about it. Redgrave is the eponymous Julia. She is a friend of the writer Lillian Hellman and is a strong woman outright. She goes to medical school in Europe and while there, fighting breaks out and she is wounded and then eventually whisked away somewhere. The film follows Fonda as she searches for Redgrave, so the Julia isn't in the film all that much. She's decent in the beginning when we see her and Fonda as friends growing up. Julia is self assured and a natural born leader and Redgrave emotes this effortlessly. She dominates the screen and Fonda seems to cower when the two are together. That is never more obvious than when the two finally meet late in the film in a bar and Redgrave just imposes herself on the scene. She is impatient but tactful and a woman who knows that she needs to get out certain information in a hurry to a friend that is basically bewildered and star struck. It's a powerful scene because Redgrave controls the whole thing from the start and is probably what sealed her as the winner. It will stand out to you when you watch it as being particularly good and you'll understand what Redgrave means to the film. My issue is that we never really get to know anything about Redgrave and why she chose to go off and be a revolutionary other than her mother was an independent gal doing whatever she wanted. I feel like more effort on establishing why Redgrave did anything would have been nice. I recognize she is great here, but I'm not all that enthused about the performance. I won't ever come back to this film so what does that tell you?
Leslie Browne - The Turning Point
I had heard that this was a bad performance but I don't think that's true at all. Browne was a professional ballerina and the story of this film is actually based around her life, essentially. The director knew her parents and they had a similar story to the parents in this one in that they were dancers in New York who got married and moved to I think Arizona and opened a dance school. So Browne plays herself, as the daughter who goes back to NYC to become a respected ballerina. She wasn't an actress before this and it shows at times, but I feel like she handles the role just fine. It's probably easy to play yourself in your first role and the fact the she already was a dancer probably made it an easy transition. At first she is shy and quiet but then opens up when she is able to dance and come out of her shell. The scene where she dances drunk onstage is actually really great and doesn't play like most drunk scenes. Her dancing is off and also selfish while not being too overdone to emphasize being drunk. It was restrained but really effective in showing how her character had evolved. Browne is also very good at the whole dancing thing which helps her performance and isn't the only thing going for her like in Baryshnikov's case. She does get overpowered by the other actresses in the film but never to the point where she loses control of her character and she still is able to give an effective, heartfelt performance. This was a lot better than I was expecting it to be even with Browne not having to do much heavy lifting acting wise in the film. Her greenness shows, but it works in context for the character and that's okay.
Quinn Cummings - The Goodbye Girl
Okay, my first instinct is to lay into this nomination because it's a child nomination. I've been conditioned that way because when kids are nominated, they are usually beyond awful and annoying. This is a Neil Simon film and I have realized that I mostly don't like his films. I actually liked Only When I Laugh but seems everything else hasn't been all that good. Cummings is a child actor if I didn't make that clear. She's like 12 or something and I think she does a better job than most of the child actors in this project. But I'll get this out there already, this is a young girl speaking the words of Neil Simon. His scripts are already too polished and overworked. You put his words into a young girl and you get a performance that is too cutesy, precocious, and annoying. Cummings says things that no other kid would ever say and is too mature despite being underage. I don't like those types of performances for kids and I don't like them for Oscar nominated kids. But I will say that Cummings is a good actress. She is able to at least try to bring Simon's words to life and seem like they are from a naturally quirky, weird little girl. It's just that Simon gives her quip after biting quip that doesn't feel authentic in the slightest. The script even calls itself out when Marsha Mason says Cummings was born 23 or whatever age she says. That's admitting that your child character is too adult and you need an actor that is transcendent to pull of anything natural. But again, Cummings is decent in the role. Yeah, she's annoying and too polished but she tries to give it her best shot. She doesn't come off like the typical theater kid. So it's a performance that you'll recognize as good but also too annoying at times. Did it deserve to be nominated? Nah, I don't think so but at least it's not a performance to make you hate the Academy. Cummings is fine but not amazing.
Melinda Dillon - Close Encounters of the Third Kind
I always forget that this film wasn't actually nominated for Best Picture, even though it got a bunch of other nominations including one for Best Director for Steven Spielberg. I have always really enjoyed this film since I first saw it as a young lad. If you don't know, it tells the story of aliens who come to earth and abduct some people and speak to us through musical cues. What I'd really love is this film followed by a watch of Arrival because damn, do these films have similar ideas. That would be a hell of a double feature. Anyway, Dillon sucks. I hate to say that, but she is literally only the mother of the young boy who is abducted in the beginning of the film and meets Dreyfuss when that happens. But really until the end she isn't featured again until she teams up with Dreyfuss as they infiltrate the UFO landing site. She gets her kid back and that's it! I much prefer Teri Garr as Dreyfuss's wife because she is so worried about him and then storms out with the kids. I also thought Garr offered up an actual performance that meant something to the film. Dillon is just the abducted boy's mother and that's basically it. She does nothing besides be really into finding where the aliens are going to come back to. I think Teri Garr has the better claim to an Oscar nomination, however. Garr just does more as an actress and has to experience and demonstrate more range. It's also the more interesting of the supporting actress performances in the film. Dillon is just not interesting. So therefore Garr deserves the second Oscar nomination (which would have been the first nomination, but you get it). Either way, I'm just glad I got to watch this film again because it's so good.
Tuesday Weld - Looking for Mr Goodbar
This is probably the first real 70s movie that I've encountered so far, like super 70s in content. Sure, some of the other films feel like they were definitely made in the 70s and have that vibe, but this one is just an interesting cultural relic. The story concerns Diane Keaton as a hardworking and loved teacher of deaf students by day who then goes out at night and has all kinds of casual sex and does drugs and gets drunk and is murdered at the end. It's got that 70s vibe because of the music and the way everyone talks and how free love the characters seem to be and the way the film is shot. It's really interesting to watch. It's got a very young Richard Gere and Tom Berenger and even LaVar Burton. Tuesday Weld, who I honestly had trouble figuring out which woman she was, is the sister of Keaton and she flits in and out of the film, sometimes like a whirlwind. We are first introduced to her when her sister comes home and Weld is taking pills and talking about drugs and just being this frenetic,obvious acting mess. In contrast to Keaton's refined and controlled acting, Weld looks like an amateur and it's a little jarring. It reminded me of Jesse Spanos on Saved by the Bell when she overdoses on the speed pills. I know that sounds pretty goofy, but she has that same energy. The rest of the film she is more subdued but she still comes in and either talks about some new crisis she is in like getting an abortion or how her therapy sessions are doing while admonishing her sister's choices. I guess you can say she's memorable in that every time she's onscreen her acting is obvious and she is showing up with some new addiction. I feel like Weld got nominated because Keaton is pretty good in this and she was going to win for Annie Hall but Academy members probably watched this film because of her and latched onto Weld as a choice. Maybe. Weld's role is pretty underwritten and she's not given a whole lot to do other than be a spastic reminder of addiction. Weld does what she can but I don't think you'll remember her all that much after watching her performance. The one plus is she allowed me to watch a really interesting film that has been forgotten and is very much of the time.
Ehhh, not that great of a year if you really look at it. Redgrave is the only one that makes sense for a win and no one else even comes close to her. The other four are barely supporting enough. Cummings has more to do than basically everyone but Redgrave and Browne, and even that is arguable, but I just can't really stand these too precious child performances. It's not natural in the slightest and no kid would ever talk like her. I just am not a fan of child performances period. Next up would be Weld, who also doesn't do much other than show the perils that young women can encounter. Drugs, abortion, therapy, men - all that stupid stuff. It's not very interesting or good and probably only gets on because the Academy couldn't nominate Keaton twice for Lead Actress. Then comes Dillon who isn't even the best supporting actress in her own film. That goes to Teri Garr who would have easily been second best in this group. Dillon just plays a frightened mother and that's about it. Meh. Browne was at least a lot better than I was anticipating. She may not be much of an actress but she does what is necessary of her character despite how shallow the character is written. She is better than you will expect but obviously not better than Redgrave. It was hers to lose and she never did. It's not really all that amazing of a performance to me, but others thought so. This is one of the weaker categories I've seen in awhile.
Oscar Winner: Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
My Winner: Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
Leslie Browne
Melinda Dillon
Tuesday Weld
Quinn Cummings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)