Finally getting to see this winner after years of wanting to and never doing so. Also get to check out a film I've never heard of before this project in The Accidental Tourist. The others are interesting because they seem to receive both positive and negative reviews for various reasons so it'll be good to watch them and form my own opinion. I expect this to be entertaining at the very least.
1988 Best Picture
Rain Man
There is an expectation that goes along with watching a Best Picture winner that you are going to see the very best film of the year and a film that should be a classic, amazing piece of cinema. Sometimes the Academy gets it right and sometimes the Academy gets it really wrong (like Driving Miss Daisy). Rain Man falls somewhere in the middle for me. I knew what it was about, had seen all the quotable and played out scenes, but had an expectation that this would be really good. I was really disappointed with the film. I honestly don't think it's all that great or Best Picture winner worthy. I was expecting a lot more and I realize that having inflated expectations for films isn't quite fair, but this is Best Picture. I was quite bored watching this at times. Once the novelty of Raymond's autistic behavior wears off, what exactly are we left with? Tom Cruise goes from being a massive asshole to still kind of a douchebag by the end of the film. That part actually feels authentic. He warms up to his brother but not in any grand fashion or big histrionic scenes. He still wants the money and Raymond is still going to go back to his disabled home for care. So we get a film where Cruise is annoyed and angry at his autistic brother for most of their road trip and then Cruise takes advantage of Hoffman by going to Vegas and having him count cards and win him money to get him out of his financial jam. Hoffman's performance stays the same throughout the film, so after awhile you're not really affected by his autism. He doesn't change which is why at the end we see him not comprehending the difference in staying at the disabled home and staying with his brother, because he is always going to be that way and a week with his brother isn't going to cure him. I was never fully invested in the characters and never all that interested in their journey. That's why I found it to be boring at times because after awhile it's the same interactions over and over. I dunno, it's just really underwhelming when you hold it up to other Best Picture winners. I wanted to like it and was excited to finally watch the thing from start to finish but I was really let down. Maybe too much expectations but it should at least still be entertaining and this film was not. I'll have to see what else could dethrone it for this year.
The Accidental Tourist
This is quite an odd film. I had never heard of this film before the project and was interested to finally watch it and see how a film I'd never heard of was nominated for Best Picture in 1988. Did I mention it was an odd film? Because it really is, to the point where I was a bit confused at times about what all was happening. William Hurt plays a man in a deep depression because his son was killed and he writes travel books for people that only want to get through their travels without seeing much of where they are going or interacting with people. He's married but the marriage is crumbling due to the recent tragedy and he meets Geena Davis' kooky, quirky character who basically stalks him. Hurt's family is also pretty eccentric and his editor likes his sister who is an odd duck herself and the tone of the film is all over the place. When I was watching this, I felt that with a few minor changes the whole film could have been done as a horror story. As it is, the beginning is kinda dark at times with punctuations of absurd comedy here and there, mostly from Davis and her character. Davis' performance could have been a real terrifying psychopath with some minor changes and the whole film just feels off and weird. I get that Hurt is deeply scarred from his son's death and Davis' warm, eccentric behavior is supposed to be endearing and the fact that she tries to get him out of his funk is a nice touch, but it's still odd. And I'll keep saying it's odd over and over because it is. Hurt's wife comes back into the picture later and he flip flops about being with her or Davis and I'm left wondering why after awhile. If this were a group of 10 like in later years, this might have been a really interesting, inspired, quirky choice that would have been like an 8-10th place nominee. Here in a group of 5 it stands out like a sore thumb after watching it. I wish I had a lot of great things to say about it besides the score is pretty good. I mean, the acting is decent enough and Hurt is great in the role, it's just such an uneven film for me that I couldn't become more invested in the characters and don't find Hurt's redemption all that compelling. This might very easily be my 5th choice this year.
Dangerous Liaisons
Oh man, is the plot to this film a little complex. Glenn Close and John Malkovich are French nobles who challenge each other with sexual conquests and Malkovich wants to bang Michelle Pfeiffer who is a very frigid, religious woman and Close wants him to take Uma Thurman's virginity, with the reward being a night with her. Malkovich succeeds eventually and kinda falls for Pfeiffer but keeps toying with her emotions because he still enjoys and respects Close. Close is also banging a stiff Keanu Reeves which makes Malkovich jealous and oh, Keanu is in love with Uma. So yes, this film is all about dirty, sexual intrigue and it's quite delicious. This is certainly not a film everyone will like but Close and Malkovich are so catty and sleazy and slimy and incredible in their interactions that it's a lot of fun to watch them challenge each other. Every word is dripping with innuendo and the back and forth interplay at the beginning between Close and Malkovich is so fun. Their performances are what make the film. Without them both being equally strong, the film would be an awful, melodramatic mess. I found the film to be pretty hilarious at times with all the quips and looks from the characters, though I'm sure some of the humor will be lost on a lot people. The plot bogs down a bit near the end once Malkovich falls for Pfeiffer and it's really just a brief stretch where it turns into a typical period piece drama. But then it gets back on track at the end when Close and Malkovich go head to head and get all angry and yell at each other. This is a highly entertaining film that is probably best when you don't take it too seriously and enjoy the crazy, sex infused ride. I don't know if this would be as well received in 2016 but I feel it perfectly fits in 1988 with all the sexual thrillers and other similar films. This is probably something I would have avoided if not for the project so I'm glad I watched and really enjoyed this film.
Mississippi Burning
I went into this film with apprehension. I knew that it was controversial from its release and that a lot of people label this a Civil Rights film that relegates black people to the background. I've also read a lot of people that really find this to be an important, if flawed, film and that it is better than its reputation. I can understand this being controversial back in 1988. The South was still sensitive to the reality that it was a backwards, racist shithole. It still mostly is in 2016. This film is about three men - two white, one black - that get killed because they are in Mississippi trying to register blacks to vote. The FBI are called in and begin investigating a small, racist town for covering up their disappearance and murder. We watch as the two FBI agents - Willem Dafoe and Gene Hackman - try to penetrate the veil of silence in the town and figure out what happened. It is a film indeed that focuses on white people dealing with civil rights issues without much prominent black people in it. I concede that fact to the detractors. But it is really engaging and at least speaks to the violence and atrocities committed at the time with a critical eye. It doesn't really sugarcoat anything, nor does it allow the KKK and the white racists to come off looking sympathetic. The black folk are clearly the victims and this film should stir people to feel shame and embarrassment that they were ever treated this way. I really enjoy the interplay between Dafoe and Hackman who are almost polar opposites. Dafoe is very proper and very idealistic and by the book. Hackman is more of a realist and unorthodox kind of guy. Hackman is from Mississippi and better understands how to go about nailing the racist perpetrators by thumping some heads. The two give really strong performances and balance the film out. They keep it from being too noble and moral and too gritty and unrealistic. I think it's an important film that could have absolutely done more with the black people who were most affected in the film. I think it's still relevant even in today's world and would be a good film for 2016, though I'm sure it would be derided as too white centric. I'm glad that the Academy highlighted this film because subjects like this are important to remember and put on film. The South - and America - still has a long way to go. This film is a good addition to the Best Picture category.
Working Girl
This is like a super 80s film. It just really captures that vibe so perfectly from the seriously big, crazy hair to the musical choices to the inclusion of Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, a young, skinny Alec Baldwin, and wonderful Melanie Griffith. It's got the look of a perfectly New York City 80s film and the subject about working on Wall Street and a woman trying to become a better, stronger, more independent version of herself while also making money is suited only for that time period. For all those reasons, it's an intriguing Best Picture nominee. The main thing the film has going for it is the strong female characters. It's female driven in 1988 and is funny and serious and sexy and entertaining and I assume that was a rarity while also being a powerful and irresistible combination. I'm surprised I liked it as much as I did. Maybe I'm feeling very nostalgic for the late 80s, I dunno, but it was a lot of fun to watch this film explore that period and to explore the themes of the independent woman. The film has some pretty good female performances and a charming Harrison Ford to boot. Hell, it's even got a young Kevin Spacey in a brief scene! I think it's just a really likable film and that's why it resonated so much with the Academy. Is it truly Best Picture worthy, though? I think for 1988 it is, as it just seems to fit the era as I say this from 2016. Others might really hate this film being here but it charmed me. Sure, it's basically a romantic dramedy but it's pretty entertaining and makes you long for simple films like this again. I'd say it's worth watching for the feminine angle itself, as strong female films can be hard to come by so might as well watch one that holds your attention and was nominated for Best Picture. Not a winner, but a good enough film to watch when you're bored.
Another year, another blah Best Picture winner for me. I really was lukewarm on Rain Man, putting it just ahead of the uneven, unexciting The Accidental Tourist. Yes, I'd rather watch both Working Girl and Dangerous Liaisons again over Rain Man. At least those films are interesting and offer more than a one note handicapped performance to buoy it. I really don't understand why that film won BP. It's a weaker year, certainly. Mississippi Burning would be my only winner from the group. I'd have to go look and see what else came out this year that wasn't nominated to find a replacement. I do think my choice is the best of the bunch based on importance, performances, and story. Not a banner year for Oscar, that's for sure.
Oscar Winner: Rain Man
My Winner: Mississippi Burning
Dangerous Liaisons
Working Girl
Rain Man
The Accidental Tourist
Showing posts with label 1988. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1988. Show all posts
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Leading Actor 1988
Quite a diverse group when you really look at it. I've wanted to see Hoffman's performance for so long. Then you get a foreign nomination in von Sydow, a hispanic Best Actor nominee which are few and far between, Tom Hanks in what is kind of a kids movie, and Hackman who is always great. Lots to look forward to in this group so I can't wait!
1988 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
Sometimes it's really hard to come up with things to say about a performance. Usually that's because I just wasn't moved by it or didn't find it all that interesting. That applies here which is probably shocking because this is such a famous character and winner that everyone knows about even if they only tangentially like movies. I feel this is a performance/character that people can easily identify with having won Best Actor even if they've never seen it. I will concede that this is good acting, that's plainly obvious. My issue with the performance is that once we see the tics and mannerisms of Raymond, what else is left? It's not like he has a character arc. Raymond stays the same consistent autistic way throughout the film. There's no big scene where he becomes normal for a short period of time or something, he just does the same thing over and over. I'd like to say Hoffman imbues Raymond with a real sense of humanity and a warmth and blah blah blah but he doesn't, which I actually think is a pretty good choice by Hoffman. Raymond is an autistic savant and he can't really change into being more personable or less awkward socially. I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. It's the same performance for the whole film. Hoffman is technically great with the looks, mannerisms, and tics. It's believable in that sense. But I don't feel there is much beneath the exterior. It's why I don't really like the disabled/retarded/whatever type of roles. I need something more than just a quirk. The Academy seems to love these types of roles as they continually get nominated through the years, but I just don't get it. The novelty wears off too quickly and what you get left with is an annoying character. I'm just talking in circles now but this performance didn't do a whole lot for me and I'll have to look for an alternative.
Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Man, I really dig Gene Hackman. Most everything I've seen him in he's been great in. No exception here as he plays an FBI agent who is investigating the deaths of three young men in rural Mississippi. What I love most about the performance is how natural it is. Compare it to Willem Dafoe who is another FBI agent and you can see him acting. He dresses up for his part as a nerdy, Northern, by the book agent while Hackman is a grizzled, Mississippi native, older agent. The two are opposites but Hackman feels more real and authentic. It feels like Hackman is just improvising in every scene and that he has actually lived the life of his character. It's effortless acting and I love when an actor can pull that off. Hackman is tough and callous almost, definitely cynical and realistic. I feel he shines when he goes off on his stories of his youth in order to establish himself as being a Mississippi native. It shows that he has a good grasp on the climate in the South and understands what all is at stake. Also, the way he plays Frances McDormand's character is superb. I can't tell if he realizes she is a weak link and attacks that weakness or recognizes that she's actually quite smart and doesn't belong and exploits her compassion. I understand it's done for the convenience of the story but it's still pretty fascinating how they build a rapport and relationship. Hackman's character is pretty fearless, as well, going into the "social club" and antagonizing the KKK members in order to tell them a story and let them know he's on to them. It's strong acting and really speaks to his character's mindset of doing anything to get his guys. It is also such an assured piece of acting that it makes me like Hackman even more. I'm excited that I get 4 more chances to watch his performances for this blog.
Tom Hanks - Big
I remember the first time I watched this film and was blown away by how good Hanks was in what is seemingly a kids fantasy film. It was a comedic performance, sure, but brought a lot of nuance that I didn't expect. He also brought his Tom Hanks charm and made it into such a warm, feel good performance. The film is hilarious at times, where I legit laughed out loud because Hanks is so funny. He nails the comedy and does it in a way that makes it seem like he is channeling his inner 12 year old and not just reciting the jokes from the script. He also did his patented Tom Hanks acting thing where he models his performance after the kid he portrays instead of coming up with something on his own. He did the same thing in Forrest Gump with imitating the kid's accent among other things and that tactic made that performance, and this performance, stand out even more as very authentic and real. The film is much better for that choice. It helps that Hanks is so relatable and has such an every man quality to him. You can watch him in this role and imagine yourself in the same situations. It's this gentle naivete that makes you feel good which is obviously the point of the film but Hanks has to make it believable and he certainly does. Even when he starts to become more adult-like, focusing on his job and enjoying his relationship with the woman and forgetting about his best friend, it drives home the point of the film even more. We should never lose our sense of self and remember where we came from and not forget about what it means to enjoy life. Hanks is so terrific in what could have easily been a simple performance, something like his work in Splash or Dragnet or Turner and Hooch. He elevates it with a performance that goes beyond comedy and beyond a kids film, imbuing it with such heart and soul that I genuinely love watching this film because of Hanks.
Edward James Olmos - Stand and Deliver
Yes, this is one of those inspirational teacher films. Yes, he teaches in an unorthodox style that gets results for his students. Yes, he reaches minority students who everyone else has given up on and realizes if someone would just try to connect with them that they'd be great students. Yes, you've seen all of this before, probably even parodied, and know exactly how it's going to play out before you even watch it. Yes, you're going to enjoy Olmos' performance. Really, you have to sort of separate the performance from the story and decide whether it's good and whether you like it. Olmos in this instance plays a math teacher who teaches Spanish kids in East Los Angeles and guides them from basic math to passing the AP Calculus exam. It's standard, feel good inspirational stuff but Olmos makes it worth watching. He's really funny in a sly way, saying all kinds of weird things, insulting the students in a nice way. He's also a bit of a hard ass, making the students want to please him and not let him down, in a teacherly sort of way. It's entertaining and you grow to like Olmos as the teacher. My main issue is that we never really know anything about Olmos. Why does he quit a good job to teach? Why does he work the students so hard to pass the exam and learn? Why does he care about these students at all? We barely even know about his home life other than his wife seems to support him but is also fed up that he works with the kids so much. I would have loved to understand why Olmos was drawn to teaching. He's good at it and can certainly connect with the kids but what motivates him? That's what holds this back from being seriously considered for a win. It's a good performance, but there is something deeper that we are missing out on.
Max von Sydow - Pelle the Conqueror
Bonus points if you know what this film is about without looking it up. No, it's not a Conan the Barbarian type film much to my chagrin. I wish it was! Instead, it's about a Swedish man who goes to Denmark with his young son in hopes of a better life. I had no idea that Swedes were treated so poorly by the Danes way back when but I guess it proves that every country has people they don't like because of nationality, race, or language. It's kind of interesting because of that. The film won the Best Foreign Language Film for 1988 and I can see why. It tells the story of Lasse (von Sydow) and his son, Pelle, who come to Denmark and find work on a farm. It's not glamorous and not the most friendly. They are treated lower than the animals by the Danish people and have to put up with the elements, the abuse, and the bleakness of life. The story is really about Pelle as he drives the narrative. Von Sydow is the father and he is pretty good in the role. He must be a father to the boy, stand up reluctantly to the bosses, and try to find love. When he addresses authority, von Sydow crumbles into stutters and platitudes, this after usually talking up a big game of confronting the farmer or whoever in some grand way. Von Sydow cares for his son and makes that obvious and only, truly wants for him to have food, clothing, and care. It's a good fatherly performance, nothing is lost in the translation. He might be the elder but he is really not the focus of the film. I can agree this is Lead but only to a certain degree. I feel that this was a way to reward a respected actor who was in a lot of foreign films, as well as Hollywood films, with an Oscar nomination. It's a solid performance, one that will stay with you because of the gruff nature of the Swedish/Danish language which fits Lasse's tough life. I'm actually really glad I got to watch this film because I need this kind of foreign film education. It was interesting and I watched 2 hours straight of it before I got bored. Von Sydow does a lot to make you pay attention to his performance and it definitely should be watched.
This is a pretty good group and I'm always thankful that Best Actor has some good films to watch. I like that we are thrown a couple curveballs here with Hanks nominated for a fantasy/comedy film and von Sydow getting his first nomination for a little scene foreign film. I seriously debated putting Hoffman in 5th because his performance is so one note. He nails that one note but I just don't find the repetition all that interesting. Once you see 20 minutes of it, that's all you need to see because nothing changes. I pushed him just above von Sydow, who I like in this performance, because he's not a true lead and because of the foreign factor. I could easily make von Sydow 4th, though. Olmos really surprised me with his cool nerdy teacher shtick and I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Hanks is absolutely wonderful in Big. I could watch that film and performance over and over and not get sick of it. But Hackman tops my list because he's so natural and creates such an interesting character. He and Dafoe make a great team and make a great film, too. This is a strong group with a winner that was unnecessary. Wish they would have made a better choice.
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Tom Hanks
Edwards James Olmos
Dustin Hoffman
Max von Sydow
1988 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
Sometimes it's really hard to come up with things to say about a performance. Usually that's because I just wasn't moved by it or didn't find it all that interesting. That applies here which is probably shocking because this is such a famous character and winner that everyone knows about even if they only tangentially like movies. I feel this is a performance/character that people can easily identify with having won Best Actor even if they've never seen it. I will concede that this is good acting, that's plainly obvious. My issue with the performance is that once we see the tics and mannerisms of Raymond, what else is left? It's not like he has a character arc. Raymond stays the same consistent autistic way throughout the film. There's no big scene where he becomes normal for a short period of time or something, he just does the same thing over and over. I'd like to say Hoffman imbues Raymond with a real sense of humanity and a warmth and blah blah blah but he doesn't, which I actually think is a pretty good choice by Hoffman. Raymond is an autistic savant and he can't really change into being more personable or less awkward socially. I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. It's the same performance for the whole film. Hoffman is technically great with the looks, mannerisms, and tics. It's believable in that sense. But I don't feel there is much beneath the exterior. It's why I don't really like the disabled/retarded/whatever type of roles. I need something more than just a quirk. The Academy seems to love these types of roles as they continually get nominated through the years, but I just don't get it. The novelty wears off too quickly and what you get left with is an annoying character. I'm just talking in circles now but this performance didn't do a whole lot for me and I'll have to look for an alternative.
Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Man, I really dig Gene Hackman. Most everything I've seen him in he's been great in. No exception here as he plays an FBI agent who is investigating the deaths of three young men in rural Mississippi. What I love most about the performance is how natural it is. Compare it to Willem Dafoe who is another FBI agent and you can see him acting. He dresses up for his part as a nerdy, Northern, by the book agent while Hackman is a grizzled, Mississippi native, older agent. The two are opposites but Hackman feels more real and authentic. It feels like Hackman is just improvising in every scene and that he has actually lived the life of his character. It's effortless acting and I love when an actor can pull that off. Hackman is tough and callous almost, definitely cynical and realistic. I feel he shines when he goes off on his stories of his youth in order to establish himself as being a Mississippi native. It shows that he has a good grasp on the climate in the South and understands what all is at stake. Also, the way he plays Frances McDormand's character is superb. I can't tell if he realizes she is a weak link and attacks that weakness or recognizes that she's actually quite smart and doesn't belong and exploits her compassion. I understand it's done for the convenience of the story but it's still pretty fascinating how they build a rapport and relationship. Hackman's character is pretty fearless, as well, going into the "social club" and antagonizing the KKK members in order to tell them a story and let them know he's on to them. It's strong acting and really speaks to his character's mindset of doing anything to get his guys. It is also such an assured piece of acting that it makes me like Hackman even more. I'm excited that I get 4 more chances to watch his performances for this blog.
Tom Hanks - Big
I remember the first time I watched this film and was blown away by how good Hanks was in what is seemingly a kids fantasy film. It was a comedic performance, sure, but brought a lot of nuance that I didn't expect. He also brought his Tom Hanks charm and made it into such a warm, feel good performance. The film is hilarious at times, where I legit laughed out loud because Hanks is so funny. He nails the comedy and does it in a way that makes it seem like he is channeling his inner 12 year old and not just reciting the jokes from the script. He also did his patented Tom Hanks acting thing where he models his performance after the kid he portrays instead of coming up with something on his own. He did the same thing in Forrest Gump with imitating the kid's accent among other things and that tactic made that performance, and this performance, stand out even more as very authentic and real. The film is much better for that choice. It helps that Hanks is so relatable and has such an every man quality to him. You can watch him in this role and imagine yourself in the same situations. It's this gentle naivete that makes you feel good which is obviously the point of the film but Hanks has to make it believable and he certainly does. Even when he starts to become more adult-like, focusing on his job and enjoying his relationship with the woman and forgetting about his best friend, it drives home the point of the film even more. We should never lose our sense of self and remember where we came from and not forget about what it means to enjoy life. Hanks is so terrific in what could have easily been a simple performance, something like his work in Splash or Dragnet or Turner and Hooch. He elevates it with a performance that goes beyond comedy and beyond a kids film, imbuing it with such heart and soul that I genuinely love watching this film because of Hanks.
Edward James Olmos - Stand and Deliver
Yes, this is one of those inspirational teacher films. Yes, he teaches in an unorthodox style that gets results for his students. Yes, he reaches minority students who everyone else has given up on and realizes if someone would just try to connect with them that they'd be great students. Yes, you've seen all of this before, probably even parodied, and know exactly how it's going to play out before you even watch it. Yes, you're going to enjoy Olmos' performance. Really, you have to sort of separate the performance from the story and decide whether it's good and whether you like it. Olmos in this instance plays a math teacher who teaches Spanish kids in East Los Angeles and guides them from basic math to passing the AP Calculus exam. It's standard, feel good inspirational stuff but Olmos makes it worth watching. He's really funny in a sly way, saying all kinds of weird things, insulting the students in a nice way. He's also a bit of a hard ass, making the students want to please him and not let him down, in a teacherly sort of way. It's entertaining and you grow to like Olmos as the teacher. My main issue is that we never really know anything about Olmos. Why does he quit a good job to teach? Why does he work the students so hard to pass the exam and learn? Why does he care about these students at all? We barely even know about his home life other than his wife seems to support him but is also fed up that he works with the kids so much. I would have loved to understand why Olmos was drawn to teaching. He's good at it and can certainly connect with the kids but what motivates him? That's what holds this back from being seriously considered for a win. It's a good performance, but there is something deeper that we are missing out on.
Max von Sydow - Pelle the Conqueror
Bonus points if you know what this film is about without looking it up. No, it's not a Conan the Barbarian type film much to my chagrin. I wish it was! Instead, it's about a Swedish man who goes to Denmark with his young son in hopes of a better life. I had no idea that Swedes were treated so poorly by the Danes way back when but I guess it proves that every country has people they don't like because of nationality, race, or language. It's kind of interesting because of that. The film won the Best Foreign Language Film for 1988 and I can see why. It tells the story of Lasse (von Sydow) and his son, Pelle, who come to Denmark and find work on a farm. It's not glamorous and not the most friendly. They are treated lower than the animals by the Danish people and have to put up with the elements, the abuse, and the bleakness of life. The story is really about Pelle as he drives the narrative. Von Sydow is the father and he is pretty good in the role. He must be a father to the boy, stand up reluctantly to the bosses, and try to find love. When he addresses authority, von Sydow crumbles into stutters and platitudes, this after usually talking up a big game of confronting the farmer or whoever in some grand way. Von Sydow cares for his son and makes that obvious and only, truly wants for him to have food, clothing, and care. It's a good fatherly performance, nothing is lost in the translation. He might be the elder but he is really not the focus of the film. I can agree this is Lead but only to a certain degree. I feel that this was a way to reward a respected actor who was in a lot of foreign films, as well as Hollywood films, with an Oscar nomination. It's a solid performance, one that will stay with you because of the gruff nature of the Swedish/Danish language which fits Lasse's tough life. I'm actually really glad I got to watch this film because I need this kind of foreign film education. It was interesting and I watched 2 hours straight of it before I got bored. Von Sydow does a lot to make you pay attention to his performance and it definitely should be watched.
This is a pretty good group and I'm always thankful that Best Actor has some good films to watch. I like that we are thrown a couple curveballs here with Hanks nominated for a fantasy/comedy film and von Sydow getting his first nomination for a little scene foreign film. I seriously debated putting Hoffman in 5th because his performance is so one note. He nails that one note but I just don't find the repetition all that interesting. Once you see 20 minutes of it, that's all you need to see because nothing changes. I pushed him just above von Sydow, who I like in this performance, because he's not a true lead and because of the foreign factor. I could easily make von Sydow 4th, though. Olmos really surprised me with his cool nerdy teacher shtick and I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Hanks is absolutely wonderful in Big. I could watch that film and performance over and over and not get sick of it. But Hackman tops my list because he's so natural and creates such an interesting character. He and Dafoe make a great team and make a great film, too. This is a strong group with a winner that was unnecessary. Wish they would have made a better choice.
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Tom Hanks
Edwards James Olmos
Dustin Hoffman
Max von Sydow
Leading Actress 1988
It's always interesting when Oscar comes full circle for me. Isabelle Huppert is up for a possible Best Actress nomination this year and I was reading my Inside Oscar book recently about 1989 and she was a possible nominee back then as well along with the other French Isabelle - Adjani, who ended up getting the nomination out of nowhere. Just interesting to read with all her current buzz about her being in the race almost 30 years ago. I've seen none of these films but they are all big names so I'm hoping for a good category.
1988 Best Actress
Jodie Foster - The Accused
I was curious as to what kind of win this was going to be. Was it well deserved, the unequivocal best of the year? Or did the Academy want to rush and reward a young talented actress because that's something they like to do? After watching, I don't know just yet if it's the best of the year but it's certainly a strong contender. It's easy to call this a brave performance because it is. Foster plays a rape victim who has to portray this heinous crime in a realistic way. My guess is that this was a lot of people's first time ever really seeing the violence and terror of a rape in such a frank way and finally experiencing the anger and pain and frustration of victims. I think that plays in Foster's favor as it kind of makes the viewer perk up and pay attention because her performance is so honest and real. I would say it doesn't take much to just play a victim, but Foster brings an appropriate attitude to the character that gives the role a human quality. It's not just sad victim, she plays the character with an anger that you really feel. You aren't just sad while watching, you get angry just like her that this kind of stuff can happen. It's also a pretty fearless performance since she has to go through the rape and be naked while it's happening and endure the violence. Obviously it's not real but Foster has to get into that frame of mind and that emotional state which makes it really intense. It's definitely a strong performance and I can see exactly why it won, even if it doesn't completely wow me. It might be a performance that needs to grow on me a little more.
Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons
I was slightly worried given that this was a period piece costume drama about French nobles and that it would be a boring, stuffy, difficult watch. Boy was I wrong! A very sexual film that pits Close against John Malkovich as these sexually adventurous nobles. Close challenges him to take Uma Thurman's virginity and he wants to bang Michelle Pfeiffer because she's a prude, religious woman. Close is fantastic in the role with her wordplay and knowing looks and the way she holds her own when compared to Malkovich. She's sexy and confident and manipulative and scheming and slimy and sleazy and so many other adjectives that you realize this is a powerful performance. It's also kinda fun. She relishes the drama and sport of teasing Malkovich and getting what she wants. That power goes to the heart of the character and the performance. It's only briefly mentioned that she was previously married and that no one else would order her around. That to me seems like she is rebeling against a difficult marriage and has this freedom of being able to sleep with any man she wants and the power to manipulate others for her own pleasure. Close displays all of this with just looks and is the main reason, along with Malkovich, to watch this film. She's fierce and she delights in her own cruelty and is a ferocious presence in the film without being loud about it. It's just a really enjoyable performance to watch as she schemes to mess with Malkovich's attempts to complete his dares/conquests and then be surly and acidic and play innocent and then turn around and scream at him with conviction that they are at war with each other. There is so much to like about Close here. We might not exactly get to the real reason she or Malkovich are behaving in this manner but the ride is fun anyway. I'd say Close could bring more humanity to her Marquise but I also buy that she's a very selfish individual. It's a good performance that I'm glad was better than what I was anticipating.
Melanie Griffith - Working Girl
I wasn't too sure what I was going to get from Griffith with this performance because I'd read some other blog reviews of the film and performances and none of them were glowing. But I was relieved that I found myself liking her performance. Is it amazing Meryl Streep type stuff? Of course not, but Griffith was very entertaining. She plays a secretary who is a lot smarter than the job she has. She's incredibly ambitious and hard working and you can tell she is meant for greater things. She starts working for Sigourney Weaver's character and gets an opportunity to put into action a business plan she has. It's a pretty damn great role for a woman, one that we should see more of even today. She's a strong, independent woman who has these romantic sideplots but the main thing about the characters motivations is to prove she can be as good as any man and do the same things and be even better. That she can become a hardworking, respected businesswoman which she is absolutely capable of being. It's not just all sex and good looks and weddings and all that crap. It's about showing a woman can do the same things as a man and work her way up to becoming someone to admire and want to be. Griffith does a great job in keeping her character grounded. She is determined and smart and aggressive and clever and Griffith makes all of those qualities believable. She may have some crazy hair in the beginning and spend a little too much time in lingerie but she gives a real performance of a woman willing to try anything to get ahead in the business world because she knows she belongs there. I was surprised by this performance because I don't really know Griffith as a great or even really good actress, just a sexy actress married to Antonio Banderas and Don Johnson. It's like she really rose to the occasion in this role and delivered a worthy performance. I really enjoyed this performance when I didn't think I would. Not sure it will be my winner but I at least recommend watching for Griffith (and Harrison Ford who is pretty good).
Meryl Streep - A Cry in the Dark
I was so looking forward to this performance and film. Yes, this is Streep's 12th(!) nomination that I've seen and 8th(!) if you are going chronologically. The big reason that I wanted to see this was because this is the 'Did a dingo eat your baby?' film, and that's been in the pop lexicon forever and I've heard it for so long that I had to see the film that spawned it. I only know barely what supposedly happened. Streep plays an Australian mother whose baby is taken by a dingo but authorities don't believe her and she's put on trial. So yes, this is another Streep accent film and her Australian accent is 100% believable and really great. I think that this is a mid to upper Streep performance. She is really effective at showing the exasperation and frustration of having to go through the disappearance of her child over and over and prove her innocence. It shows that everyone grieves differently since while she was emotional at times, she also seemed indifferent and not sad enough at other times. Streep has to run the gamut of emotions from utter heartbreak and sadness to anger over Australia continually trying to say she is guilty to the press hounding her and her family to her naivete in the beginning with the press to being motherly and to adhering to her religious teachings. It's a lot and Streep balances it all perfectly and makes it seem effortless. That's one of those things, too, that people can knock Streep for is that she makes everything look easy and her acting might not be as obvious or notable because she's always so good. And while this might not be quite up to her winning standards, it's still a strong performance overall. I also feel that she elevates the story and material for what could have been a made for TV movie. Instead, she breathes some life into a story that seems pretty ridiculous on the surface. Just another typically good Streep performance that is worth watching. (Oh, and a dingo did eat her baby. Well, maybe didn't eat but it did actually take her baby, so all that making fun of her seems in bad taste now.)
Sigourney Weaver - Gorillas in the Mist
This is the other part of her two(!) nominations this year. I unfortunately feel like you could put them together and still not get something worth voting for as a winner. Nothing against Weaver, as she plays two incredibly different characters and plays both of them well. In this film, she plays Diane Fossey, a woman who ends up counting and studying gorillas in the Congo. It's actually a really great performance. I realized this after watching it when remembering how Weaver was in the beginning of the film. She's very eager and naive and is portrayed as such. But as the film goes on and the time goes on, Weaver settles in as Fossey and plays it as someone who has grown with her experiences. By the end, she is almost native. She loves the gorillas and the land more than her own life and she goes crazy in defending all of that. The character arc is what I enjoy the most about the performance. It works for the character and the film and it's enjoyable. It does feel too on the nose at times. It's like yeah, of course Weaver is getting nom'd for this. She goes into the jungle and uglifies herself and champions a cause (saving the gorillas) that is really noble and gives an interesting performance to boot. All of that helps her get nominated, no doubt. But I like when Weaver goes crazy at the end. When she threatens the German zoo collector guy, it's intense and heartfelt. When she goes all Heart of Darkness by fake hanging a poacher and then burning a village, you see the passion in Fossey and in Weaver. And her connection to the gorillas, whether the gorillas are real or fake, is undeniable. She expresses undying love that even I can see and respect. The film does suffer at times from being close to a TV movie, but saves itself with the scenery and the performances. The dialogue is so cliche that I'm sure you could guess most of it without watching it. But Weaver is truly really good as Fossey. It does feel like a role tailor made just for her. I can't see any current actress doing this and that should say something. What might look like an anthropology class movie requirement actually is something worth watching. It's not great but Weaver is very good and worth the watch.
This is actually a strong category all the way through. I wish this was the case every year. This is a really hard group to rate simply because they are all so close together and there is no clear runaway winner for me. Streep is strong with another accent role that goes deeper than just how she talks. Griffith gives a nice, strong, independent woman performance in a romantic dramedy that works. Close sizzles and is a lot of fun to watch even if it's all a bit melodramatic. Weaver goes all in as Fossey and tries her best to give the character and film some real emotion. Foster takes a difficult role and makes it look easy, even though I wasn't too into it. So what the hell do I do here? I think Weaver, Griffith, and Streep are on the outside looking in. They needed to do more or be better than they were. So it's between Close and Foster and I'm tempted to give it to Close since Foster already has a win but that's so tough to do. I think I'll give Close the edge because I enjoy her sensual, sexy craziness more than the reality and rape of Foster. Simple as that. A pretty good year overall.
Oscar Winner: Jodie Foster - The Accused
My Winner: Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons
Jodie Foster
Meryl Streep
Melanie Griffith
Sigourney Weaver
1988 Best Actress
Jodie Foster - The Accused
I was curious as to what kind of win this was going to be. Was it well deserved, the unequivocal best of the year? Or did the Academy want to rush and reward a young talented actress because that's something they like to do? After watching, I don't know just yet if it's the best of the year but it's certainly a strong contender. It's easy to call this a brave performance because it is. Foster plays a rape victim who has to portray this heinous crime in a realistic way. My guess is that this was a lot of people's first time ever really seeing the violence and terror of a rape in such a frank way and finally experiencing the anger and pain and frustration of victims. I think that plays in Foster's favor as it kind of makes the viewer perk up and pay attention because her performance is so honest and real. I would say it doesn't take much to just play a victim, but Foster brings an appropriate attitude to the character that gives the role a human quality. It's not just sad victim, she plays the character with an anger that you really feel. You aren't just sad while watching, you get angry just like her that this kind of stuff can happen. It's also a pretty fearless performance since she has to go through the rape and be naked while it's happening and endure the violence. Obviously it's not real but Foster has to get into that frame of mind and that emotional state which makes it really intense. It's definitely a strong performance and I can see exactly why it won, even if it doesn't completely wow me. It might be a performance that needs to grow on me a little more.
Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons
I was slightly worried given that this was a period piece costume drama about French nobles and that it would be a boring, stuffy, difficult watch. Boy was I wrong! A very sexual film that pits Close against John Malkovich as these sexually adventurous nobles. Close challenges him to take Uma Thurman's virginity and he wants to bang Michelle Pfeiffer because she's a prude, religious woman. Close is fantastic in the role with her wordplay and knowing looks and the way she holds her own when compared to Malkovich. She's sexy and confident and manipulative and scheming and slimy and sleazy and so many other adjectives that you realize this is a powerful performance. It's also kinda fun. She relishes the drama and sport of teasing Malkovich and getting what she wants. That power goes to the heart of the character and the performance. It's only briefly mentioned that she was previously married and that no one else would order her around. That to me seems like she is rebeling against a difficult marriage and has this freedom of being able to sleep with any man she wants and the power to manipulate others for her own pleasure. Close displays all of this with just looks and is the main reason, along with Malkovich, to watch this film. She's fierce and she delights in her own cruelty and is a ferocious presence in the film without being loud about it. It's just a really enjoyable performance to watch as she schemes to mess with Malkovich's attempts to complete his dares/conquests and then be surly and acidic and play innocent and then turn around and scream at him with conviction that they are at war with each other. There is so much to like about Close here. We might not exactly get to the real reason she or Malkovich are behaving in this manner but the ride is fun anyway. I'd say Close could bring more humanity to her Marquise but I also buy that she's a very selfish individual. It's a good performance that I'm glad was better than what I was anticipating.
Melanie Griffith - Working Girl
I wasn't too sure what I was going to get from Griffith with this performance because I'd read some other blog reviews of the film and performances and none of them were glowing. But I was relieved that I found myself liking her performance. Is it amazing Meryl Streep type stuff? Of course not, but Griffith was very entertaining. She plays a secretary who is a lot smarter than the job she has. She's incredibly ambitious and hard working and you can tell she is meant for greater things. She starts working for Sigourney Weaver's character and gets an opportunity to put into action a business plan she has. It's a pretty damn great role for a woman, one that we should see more of even today. She's a strong, independent woman who has these romantic sideplots but the main thing about the characters motivations is to prove she can be as good as any man and do the same things and be even better. That she can become a hardworking, respected businesswoman which she is absolutely capable of being. It's not just all sex and good looks and weddings and all that crap. It's about showing a woman can do the same things as a man and work her way up to becoming someone to admire and want to be. Griffith does a great job in keeping her character grounded. She is determined and smart and aggressive and clever and Griffith makes all of those qualities believable. She may have some crazy hair in the beginning and spend a little too much time in lingerie but she gives a real performance of a woman willing to try anything to get ahead in the business world because she knows she belongs there. I was surprised by this performance because I don't really know Griffith as a great or even really good actress, just a sexy actress married to Antonio Banderas and Don Johnson. It's like she really rose to the occasion in this role and delivered a worthy performance. I really enjoyed this performance when I didn't think I would. Not sure it will be my winner but I at least recommend watching for Griffith (and Harrison Ford who is pretty good).
Meryl Streep - A Cry in the Dark
I was so looking forward to this performance and film. Yes, this is Streep's 12th(!) nomination that I've seen and 8th(!) if you are going chronologically. The big reason that I wanted to see this was because this is the 'Did a dingo eat your baby?' film, and that's been in the pop lexicon forever and I've heard it for so long that I had to see the film that spawned it. I only know barely what supposedly happened. Streep plays an Australian mother whose baby is taken by a dingo but authorities don't believe her and she's put on trial. So yes, this is another Streep accent film and her Australian accent is 100% believable and really great. I think that this is a mid to upper Streep performance. She is really effective at showing the exasperation and frustration of having to go through the disappearance of her child over and over and prove her innocence. It shows that everyone grieves differently since while she was emotional at times, she also seemed indifferent and not sad enough at other times. Streep has to run the gamut of emotions from utter heartbreak and sadness to anger over Australia continually trying to say she is guilty to the press hounding her and her family to her naivete in the beginning with the press to being motherly and to adhering to her religious teachings. It's a lot and Streep balances it all perfectly and makes it seem effortless. That's one of those things, too, that people can knock Streep for is that she makes everything look easy and her acting might not be as obvious or notable because she's always so good. And while this might not be quite up to her winning standards, it's still a strong performance overall. I also feel that she elevates the story and material for what could have been a made for TV movie. Instead, she breathes some life into a story that seems pretty ridiculous on the surface. Just another typically good Streep performance that is worth watching. (Oh, and a dingo did eat her baby. Well, maybe didn't eat but it did actually take her baby, so all that making fun of her seems in bad taste now.)
Sigourney Weaver - Gorillas in the Mist
This is the other part of her two(!) nominations this year. I unfortunately feel like you could put them together and still not get something worth voting for as a winner. Nothing against Weaver, as she plays two incredibly different characters and plays both of them well. In this film, she plays Diane Fossey, a woman who ends up counting and studying gorillas in the Congo. It's actually a really great performance. I realized this after watching it when remembering how Weaver was in the beginning of the film. She's very eager and naive and is portrayed as such. But as the film goes on and the time goes on, Weaver settles in as Fossey and plays it as someone who has grown with her experiences. By the end, she is almost native. She loves the gorillas and the land more than her own life and she goes crazy in defending all of that. The character arc is what I enjoy the most about the performance. It works for the character and the film and it's enjoyable. It does feel too on the nose at times. It's like yeah, of course Weaver is getting nom'd for this. She goes into the jungle and uglifies herself and champions a cause (saving the gorillas) that is really noble and gives an interesting performance to boot. All of that helps her get nominated, no doubt. But I like when Weaver goes crazy at the end. When she threatens the German zoo collector guy, it's intense and heartfelt. When she goes all Heart of Darkness by fake hanging a poacher and then burning a village, you see the passion in Fossey and in Weaver. And her connection to the gorillas, whether the gorillas are real or fake, is undeniable. She expresses undying love that even I can see and respect. The film does suffer at times from being close to a TV movie, but saves itself with the scenery and the performances. The dialogue is so cliche that I'm sure you could guess most of it without watching it. But Weaver is truly really good as Fossey. It does feel like a role tailor made just for her. I can't see any current actress doing this and that should say something. What might look like an anthropology class movie requirement actually is something worth watching. It's not great but Weaver is very good and worth the watch.
This is actually a strong category all the way through. I wish this was the case every year. This is a really hard group to rate simply because they are all so close together and there is no clear runaway winner for me. Streep is strong with another accent role that goes deeper than just how she talks. Griffith gives a nice, strong, independent woman performance in a romantic dramedy that works. Close sizzles and is a lot of fun to watch even if it's all a bit melodramatic. Weaver goes all in as Fossey and tries her best to give the character and film some real emotion. Foster takes a difficult role and makes it look easy, even though I wasn't too into it. So what the hell do I do here? I think Weaver, Griffith, and Streep are on the outside looking in. They needed to do more or be better than they were. So it's between Close and Foster and I'm tempted to give it to Close since Foster already has a win but that's so tough to do. I think I'll give Close the edge because I enjoy her sensual, sexy craziness more than the reality and rape of Foster. Simple as that. A pretty good year overall.
Oscar Winner: Jodie Foster - The Accused
My Winner: Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons
Jodie Foster
Meryl Streep
Melanie Griffith
Sigourney Weaver
Supporting Actor 1988
There's a whopper in this category with Guinness having a 6 hour film to watch. Ugh. The rest should be interesting to watch, some names I definitely want to check out. Let's see how this all plays out.
1988 Best Supporting Actor
Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
Though this isn't really a great comparison, this reminds me of Robert Downey Jr getting nominated for Tropic Thunder. By that I mean, two comedies that don't seem like they would ever really get some Academy love get a Supporting nomination (and win here) on the strength of their actors' charisma and charm and humor. Kevin Kline is great. He is seriously very funny and reminds me a great deal of Errol Flynn. He has that swashbuckler charm and look and seems like an All-American guy. And he's extremely likable even when he plays a jewel thief with a temper as he does in this film. There's very little to no subtlety in Kline's performance and that is part of what makes it so entertaining and great. He's very sarcastic and responds to things in a very broad, exaggerated way. He pushes people's buttons and for whatever reason Kline makes it work without it ever becoming grating or offensive - it's just hilarious stuff. His comedic timing is impeccable and it helps that he has some of the Monty Python guys to act opposite from. I'm happy to see a comedic performance rewarded, especially when it's a worthy one. He's got a lot of great scenes but I like when he gets real serious anytime someone calls him stupid and during the fish eating scene when he interrogates Michael Palin's character. It's a performance you can watch and be entertained by and just enjoy that it's not trying too hard or is gunning for an Oscar. The more I see of Kline, the more I really enjoy him as an actor. I'm very glad he won an Oscar for this role.
Alec Guinness - Little Dorrit
Holy shit this "film!" This is actually a 6 hour plus miniseries that was on the BBC that got released in the States as two separate films. It was extremely hard for me to find to watch that I had to actually rent it from Amazon. Not really something I wanted to spend money on. And let's be real, this is the Academy getting one last chance to nominate Guinness and doing so for a monster of a "film." He plays Little Dorrit's father and is in a debtor's prison and has been there for 20 plus years. A man takes a liking to his youngest daughter Amy, the Little in the title, and looks into his situation. Eventually it is discovered that he has inherited a large estate worth a bunch and is let out of prison. He dies soon after, or at least in the film soon after, I don't know how much time actually passed. This is not a performance that is amazing by any means. Guinness plays an old man and does fine with it but that's all the role really is. The conceit of the film is that the first part is from the guy, Arthur Clennem's point of view and then the second part is from Little Dorrit herself's point of view. We see some of the same scenes from different views, so we get the same stuff from Guinness twice. If you ever watch this Dickens adaptation, you'll wonder what was so worthy about the performance to nominate it just like I did. I wish these veteran/career noms at least were for great performances and not ones where the actor did his job as well as he should. I like Guinness but this was non entity as far as his career goes. Don't suffer through this like I did.
Martin Landau - Tucker: The Man and His Dream
This was Landau's first Oscar nomination but doesn't it feel like he's had a few before this? With this being the first, it also feels like this was the primer for Landau's future nominations. And it really does feel like he was gunning for an Oscar in retrospect. Nothing wrong with that. Landau is pretty fantastic here. He's the businessman that helps bankroll Jeff Bridges' dream of making a futuristic car outside of the big three manufacturers. It's a pretty fascinating look at how the government and America can discredit innovation. It's happening now with Tesla. The usual suspects are fighting hard to fuck over Tesla in every way possible because they aren't Ford or Chevy or GMC. And they HATE that you can buy direct from the company and not get totally fucked buying from a dealer with their thousands of dollars in fees. Anyway, Landau is like a sidekick and sticks by Bridges through thick and thin. He kinda steers him away from excess and keeps him focused and it's a really good supporting performance. It's nothing worth getting super excited about, it just gets the job done. Thing is the performance isn't much. He's just supporting and doesn't add much overall. Landau is good but not amazing and will eventually become worthy of an Oscar - just not yet.
River Phoenix - Running on Empty
The thing about this nomination is that it is straight up category fraud. Phoenix is the lead of this film and is in almost every scene. Hardly supporting. I assume it's because he's a young actor and the Academy would rather relegate the youth to Supporting rather than bump someone from Leading. But thing is again, not sure this is good enough to compete in Leading. You look at it in this category and it sorta fits because it isn't as strong but it's still Phoenix's film. He plays a teen who is constantly on the move because his parents blew up a lab in the 70s to fight the Vietnam War like a bunch of assholes. He is also a gifted musician, playing the piano. He just wants to be normal. Phoenix is charismatic. He's like a bonafide movie star. People have compared him to James Dean and I don't quite see it here, but I get the comparison. He's very moody and doesn't say much but that shouldn't translate into a great performance, you need to do a little more. He might be the lead but he never really drives the action. The ending is touching but doesn't exactly feel too sappy which is nice. It's a decent performance just in the wrong category and it's a shame that we didn't get to see him have a long career. Worth a watch if you're interested in seeing Joaquin's older brother and see what could have been.
Dean Stockwell - Married to the Mob
Not gonna lie, I love Dean Stockwell. Quantum Leap is one of my favorite shows and I loved his character on that show. Didn't realize until this project that he was also a once nominated Oscar actor and was eager to see how he was in this one. The same can be said for a lot of TV people that I never knew had big film careers before and were nominated at times for an Oscar. It's fun going back through the years and seeing all the young actors in films that you've seen on TV shows recently. Anyway, Stockwell plays Tony 'The Tiger' Russo, a mob boss in this comedy. It's actually a similar character to his Quantum Leap one, since he keeps a cigar handy and uses it in the same way. The film is pretty funny and Matthew Modine is hilarious at times as the FBI agent that is tracking Stockwell. Stockwell doesn't exactly do anything too amazing, he plays the mob boss hits on Michelle Pfeiffer after he kills her husband, Alec Baldwin. He essentially plays the character straight while everyone else around him adds comedic effect. I like the film and the performance, though I know it's not a winner or anything special. It's just a lot of fun to watch him do his thing, ya know? Stockwell is also in Tucker: The Man and His Dream so I feel like that certainly comes into play with this nomination. Martin Landau got nominated for that one so it makes sense Stockwell is nominated for this. You are going to watch this and say I don't see the big deal and that's fine but sometimes it's just about catching lightning in a bottle and being a likable bad guy. I'm glad Stockwell was nominated here.
An alright group. Kline was a surprise on Oscar night which is always fun. I agree with the Academy on him being the winner. His performance is just a lot of fun and very funny. It's good to see comedy rewarded every now and then. Landau is my second because he's perfectly supporting and does more than Stockwell. It's nothing flashy and he does a good job which is about all you can say. Stockwell is third because I like him as an actor and he's decent enough with two others that come in behind him. Phoenix is fourth simply because he's a lead performance in supporting. He's very good but I can't vote for him in this category. Sucks he had to die so young because I would have loved to see how he evolved over the years. Guinness is last because his is a veteran nomination and not that great and it made me watch a 6 hour film. I'll hate it just because of that. Like I said, an alright group, nothing amazing and could have been better but at least an interesting performance won. Now let's move on.
Oscar Winner: Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
My Winner: Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
Martin Landau
Dean Stockwell
River Phoenix
Alec Guinness
1988 Best Supporting Actor
Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
Though this isn't really a great comparison, this reminds me of Robert Downey Jr getting nominated for Tropic Thunder. By that I mean, two comedies that don't seem like they would ever really get some Academy love get a Supporting nomination (and win here) on the strength of their actors' charisma and charm and humor. Kevin Kline is great. He is seriously very funny and reminds me a great deal of Errol Flynn. He has that swashbuckler charm and look and seems like an All-American guy. And he's extremely likable even when he plays a jewel thief with a temper as he does in this film. There's very little to no subtlety in Kline's performance and that is part of what makes it so entertaining and great. He's very sarcastic and responds to things in a very broad, exaggerated way. He pushes people's buttons and for whatever reason Kline makes it work without it ever becoming grating or offensive - it's just hilarious stuff. His comedic timing is impeccable and it helps that he has some of the Monty Python guys to act opposite from. I'm happy to see a comedic performance rewarded, especially when it's a worthy one. He's got a lot of great scenes but I like when he gets real serious anytime someone calls him stupid and during the fish eating scene when he interrogates Michael Palin's character. It's a performance you can watch and be entertained by and just enjoy that it's not trying too hard or is gunning for an Oscar. The more I see of Kline, the more I really enjoy him as an actor. I'm very glad he won an Oscar for this role.
Alec Guinness - Little Dorrit
Holy shit this "film!" This is actually a 6 hour plus miniseries that was on the BBC that got released in the States as two separate films. It was extremely hard for me to find to watch that I had to actually rent it from Amazon. Not really something I wanted to spend money on. And let's be real, this is the Academy getting one last chance to nominate Guinness and doing so for a monster of a "film." He plays Little Dorrit's father and is in a debtor's prison and has been there for 20 plus years. A man takes a liking to his youngest daughter Amy, the Little in the title, and looks into his situation. Eventually it is discovered that he has inherited a large estate worth a bunch and is let out of prison. He dies soon after, or at least in the film soon after, I don't know how much time actually passed. This is not a performance that is amazing by any means. Guinness plays an old man and does fine with it but that's all the role really is. The conceit of the film is that the first part is from the guy, Arthur Clennem's point of view and then the second part is from Little Dorrit herself's point of view. We see some of the same scenes from different views, so we get the same stuff from Guinness twice. If you ever watch this Dickens adaptation, you'll wonder what was so worthy about the performance to nominate it just like I did. I wish these veteran/career noms at least were for great performances and not ones where the actor did his job as well as he should. I like Guinness but this was non entity as far as his career goes. Don't suffer through this like I did.
Martin Landau - Tucker: The Man and His Dream
This was Landau's first Oscar nomination but doesn't it feel like he's had a few before this? With this being the first, it also feels like this was the primer for Landau's future nominations. And it really does feel like he was gunning for an Oscar in retrospect. Nothing wrong with that. Landau is pretty fantastic here. He's the businessman that helps bankroll Jeff Bridges' dream of making a futuristic car outside of the big three manufacturers. It's a pretty fascinating look at how the government and America can discredit innovation. It's happening now with Tesla. The usual suspects are fighting hard to fuck over Tesla in every way possible because they aren't Ford or Chevy or GMC. And they HATE that you can buy direct from the company and not get totally fucked buying from a dealer with their thousands of dollars in fees. Anyway, Landau is like a sidekick and sticks by Bridges through thick and thin. He kinda steers him away from excess and keeps him focused and it's a really good supporting performance. It's nothing worth getting super excited about, it just gets the job done. Thing is the performance isn't much. He's just supporting and doesn't add much overall. Landau is good but not amazing and will eventually become worthy of an Oscar - just not yet.
River Phoenix - Running on Empty
The thing about this nomination is that it is straight up category fraud. Phoenix is the lead of this film and is in almost every scene. Hardly supporting. I assume it's because he's a young actor and the Academy would rather relegate the youth to Supporting rather than bump someone from Leading. But thing is again, not sure this is good enough to compete in Leading. You look at it in this category and it sorta fits because it isn't as strong but it's still Phoenix's film. He plays a teen who is constantly on the move because his parents blew up a lab in the 70s to fight the Vietnam War like a bunch of assholes. He is also a gifted musician, playing the piano. He just wants to be normal. Phoenix is charismatic. He's like a bonafide movie star. People have compared him to James Dean and I don't quite see it here, but I get the comparison. He's very moody and doesn't say much but that shouldn't translate into a great performance, you need to do a little more. He might be the lead but he never really drives the action. The ending is touching but doesn't exactly feel too sappy which is nice. It's a decent performance just in the wrong category and it's a shame that we didn't get to see him have a long career. Worth a watch if you're interested in seeing Joaquin's older brother and see what could have been.
Dean Stockwell - Married to the Mob
Not gonna lie, I love Dean Stockwell. Quantum Leap is one of my favorite shows and I loved his character on that show. Didn't realize until this project that he was also a once nominated Oscar actor and was eager to see how he was in this one. The same can be said for a lot of TV people that I never knew had big film careers before and were nominated at times for an Oscar. It's fun going back through the years and seeing all the young actors in films that you've seen on TV shows recently. Anyway, Stockwell plays Tony 'The Tiger' Russo, a mob boss in this comedy. It's actually a similar character to his Quantum Leap one, since he keeps a cigar handy and uses it in the same way. The film is pretty funny and Matthew Modine is hilarious at times as the FBI agent that is tracking Stockwell. Stockwell doesn't exactly do anything too amazing, he plays the mob boss hits on Michelle Pfeiffer after he kills her husband, Alec Baldwin. He essentially plays the character straight while everyone else around him adds comedic effect. I like the film and the performance, though I know it's not a winner or anything special. It's just a lot of fun to watch him do his thing, ya know? Stockwell is also in Tucker: The Man and His Dream so I feel like that certainly comes into play with this nomination. Martin Landau got nominated for that one so it makes sense Stockwell is nominated for this. You are going to watch this and say I don't see the big deal and that's fine but sometimes it's just about catching lightning in a bottle and being a likable bad guy. I'm glad Stockwell was nominated here.
An alright group. Kline was a surprise on Oscar night which is always fun. I agree with the Academy on him being the winner. His performance is just a lot of fun and very funny. It's good to see comedy rewarded every now and then. Landau is my second because he's perfectly supporting and does more than Stockwell. It's nothing flashy and he does a good job which is about all you can say. Stockwell is third because I like him as an actor and he's decent enough with two others that come in behind him. Phoenix is fourth simply because he's a lead performance in supporting. He's very good but I can't vote for him in this category. Sucks he had to die so young because I would have loved to see how he evolved over the years. Guinness is last because his is a veteran nomination and not that great and it made me watch a 6 hour film. I'll hate it just because of that. Like I said, an alright group, nothing amazing and could have been better but at least an interesting performance won. Now let's move on.
Oscar Winner: Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
My Winner: Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda
Martin Landau
Dean Stockwell
River Phoenix
Alec Guinness
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Supporting Actress 1988
So here's a rarity for this category: Each of these nominees are also in Best Picture nominated films. I don't think that's happened very often so far in my project. That means I'm expecting these to be some legit performances and for this to be a really competitive category. And the bonus is that I'll be almost finished with Best Picture when I'm done with this group. Nice.
1988 Best Supporting Actress
Geena Davis - The Accidental Tourist
Hmm, having just now watched this performance I'm wondering about a lot of things for this year. I'm wondering how close this vote was. Were all of the women within a few votes and Davis squeaked by with the win? Did Weaver getting double nominations in acting doom her in this category? I'm thinking about these things because Davis' performance and role is so odd that I'm amazed the Academy loved it enough for the win. Davis plays a very kooky divorced single mother who takes care of pets and runs into William Hurt. Davis' Muriel is extremely odd and it can rub off the wrong way at times. Sometimes she is warm and endearing and you see the appeal of her character but other times she's cold and aloof and awkward to the point of unease. The film itself is so odd and uneven that I don't think it helps out Davis at all. What she tries to create works at times but is sabotaged by the film more often. She has these quirks and eccentricities that can be cute and speaks in a matter of fact, almost non-sequitur type of way. I think when you watch this performance you are either going to love it or hate it without too much middle ground. I'm not sure I like it all that much and as I said in my Best Picture review, the film with some minor tweaks could easily become a horror film with Davis as this psychopath character. That's certainly not what is intended by Davis or the film at all so the performance doesn't quite work for me. People even described Davis' character as a creepy stalker and I'd say that term fits. An odd choice to say the least for the Academy.
Joan Cusack - Working Girl
This might be a short review, I'm not sure. Last time I reviewed Cusack for her nomination for In and Out, I wasn't too impressed with her. Mostly because the character didn't really do much at all. Well, same goes for her nomination here. Cusack plays the friend of Melanie Griffith and doesn't really do all that much. She provides some comedic relief and is actually quite funny at times. She also tells Griffith to forget her dream and to accept being a secretary which isn't very best friend-like at all. She tops it all off with some wildly huge hair and clown makeup that is terrible. That's the performance. I actually kinda like it, though it is very brief and most likely came along for the ride with the film. It doesn't need to be nominated but I guess I can let it slide. I'm sure there is something better out there but it's a likable enough role. I'm honestly trying to think of anything else to say about it but that really seems like that is all there is to say about it. You watch the film and see she's there to provide the slightest amount of support to Griffith and some decent comedy and that's it. Maybe being in Married to the Mob helped her out a little more? I don't know, the Academy will always surprise us with these kinds of nominations.
Frances McDormand - Mississippi Burning
I'm a big fan of McDormand's simply because she seems like such a smart lady and delivers really good performances while not looking like a typical Leading lady, plus she's super funny. Here, she plays a Supporting role as a wife of the local sheriff's deputy who is part of the KKK. She doesn't have too much screen time, but I do feel she makes the most of it. She plays the dutiful wife but you can tell there's an independent woman screaming to get out. Gene Hackman's character sees this as well and uses her to get to her husband. McDormand is obviously quite smart and she's also compassionate to the black folk but she's in a marriage to an asshole racist that doesn't allow her to be herself. McDormand plays the character with such restraint because she could easily play it as this woman who is very progressive in a conservative world wanting to break free and voice her opinions and all that. But she doesn't and is very timid about doing anything to upset the balance. She even gets beat to a pulp for talking to Hackman. It's a performance that is begging to explode but can't because of the time period. A woman marries a man really young and can't ever be herself because of fear of her husband and society. We don't know what happens to McDormand after these events but I'd like to think she moves on somewhere else and is able to become the woman she was meant to be. That is what McDormand brings to this character, a sense of wanting her to be something more. It might be brief and convenient for the story but at least she leaves you wanting more. It's not showy in the slightest which probably works against her but it might be a contender for my winner.
Michelle Pfeiffer - Dangerous Liaisons
Not going to lie, I'm kinda glad this will end my Pfeiffer reviews. None of her three nominations have been exceptionally amazing, though none of them were bad by any means. I enjoyed her mostly in The Fabulous Baker Boys and her performance in Love Field was pretty meh to me. In this film, she plays a frigid, morally uptight, religious woman who John Malkovich wants to bang as part of a sexual conquest dare/challenge. She's the weak link of the film performance-wise because Glenn Close and Malkovich are so good in their roles. Whenever the story turns to Pfeiffer it's like a letdown. I understand her role is to be standoffish and hesitant to converse with Malkovich's playboy, but Pfeiffer just comes off as unconvincing in every way. She's supposed to be beautiful but I don't see it. She is manipulated by Malkovich and becomes very emotional at times but all the tears and wailing and labored breathing just feel like an exercise in acting. And honestly, I was never interested in her character or understood why exactly Malkovich fell for her character other than to service the story. A lot of people called this a blank performance and I'd agree with that. We don't know what's going on deep inside Pfeiffer and I don't think Pfeiffer knew exactly what to do with her character. This feels more like Pfeiffer coming along for the ride than anything else, maybe also to capture her blossoming fame in the industry. A pretty basic performance.
Sigourney Weaver - Working Girl
The second of Sigourney's two nominations this year is like the cherry on top of the sundae or the dinner roll to go with the meat and potatoes meal. Weaver gets to play a bitch of a boss and plays it well. She is very convincing of being a total asshole and when we first meet her think that she's going to be this strong, independent woman that Griffith can lean on to make her break in the finance or whatever it is world. She is the strong, independent woman, it's just that she got to her position by being ruthless and aggressive. She's going to take no shit from anyone and she's going to do whatever she has to to get ahead and stay ahead. I think part of that is finding other strong women and milking them for ideas under the guise of mentoring them. Pretty smart and Weaver makes the character into a little more than just a one dimensional stock female character. The Academy must have really loved her this year, though, to nominate her for this and for her performance in Leading Actress. I think it comes with such a female oriented film getting lots of love and the goodwill it earned translating into lots of nominations for the actresses. I'm actually okay with that because I enjoyed the film and both Supporting nominees however small they might be. Weaver plays the villain but isn't too unrelatable and you see where she's coming from in order to make it in a man's world. It's a decent performance but certainly not one that is going to make you scream and shout for her to win. You recognize it's entertaining and maybe even a bit against type and you roll with it.
I was definitely confused by the winner of this category. It's an odd performance as I've stated over and over and I don't really know where I'd put her in the rankings. Cusack is last simply because her role is so slight even though it was funny and entertaining. Pfeiffer is next because there just wasn't much to the performance for me and she's the weakest part of the film. I'd bump Cusack ahead if she had more screen time. I guess Davis would fit in the middle because her performance was so up and down on whether I liked it or not, more towards the not side. Weaver is clearly having fun with her role which makes it entertaining for us. I like it so it comes in second. My clear winner is McDormand who made me want to see more from her character and to have her around more in the film. She's a little too smart for the character but that's part of the charm. She's just a really great actress even in a minor role like this. I'd say this is a middle of the road category, which I'll take.
Oscar Winner: Geena Davis - The Accidental Tourist
My Winner: Frances McDormand - Mississippi Burning
Sigourney Weaver
Geena Davis
Michelle Pfeiffer
Joan Cusack
1988 Best Supporting Actress
Geena Davis - The Accidental Tourist
Hmm, having just now watched this performance I'm wondering about a lot of things for this year. I'm wondering how close this vote was. Were all of the women within a few votes and Davis squeaked by with the win? Did Weaver getting double nominations in acting doom her in this category? I'm thinking about these things because Davis' performance and role is so odd that I'm amazed the Academy loved it enough for the win. Davis plays a very kooky divorced single mother who takes care of pets and runs into William Hurt. Davis' Muriel is extremely odd and it can rub off the wrong way at times. Sometimes she is warm and endearing and you see the appeal of her character but other times she's cold and aloof and awkward to the point of unease. The film itself is so odd and uneven that I don't think it helps out Davis at all. What she tries to create works at times but is sabotaged by the film more often. She has these quirks and eccentricities that can be cute and speaks in a matter of fact, almost non-sequitur type of way. I think when you watch this performance you are either going to love it or hate it without too much middle ground. I'm not sure I like it all that much and as I said in my Best Picture review, the film with some minor tweaks could easily become a horror film with Davis as this psychopath character. That's certainly not what is intended by Davis or the film at all so the performance doesn't quite work for me. People even described Davis' character as a creepy stalker and I'd say that term fits. An odd choice to say the least for the Academy.
Joan Cusack - Working Girl
This might be a short review, I'm not sure. Last time I reviewed Cusack for her nomination for In and Out, I wasn't too impressed with her. Mostly because the character didn't really do much at all. Well, same goes for her nomination here. Cusack plays the friend of Melanie Griffith and doesn't really do all that much. She provides some comedic relief and is actually quite funny at times. She also tells Griffith to forget her dream and to accept being a secretary which isn't very best friend-like at all. She tops it all off with some wildly huge hair and clown makeup that is terrible. That's the performance. I actually kinda like it, though it is very brief and most likely came along for the ride with the film. It doesn't need to be nominated but I guess I can let it slide. I'm sure there is something better out there but it's a likable enough role. I'm honestly trying to think of anything else to say about it but that really seems like that is all there is to say about it. You watch the film and see she's there to provide the slightest amount of support to Griffith and some decent comedy and that's it. Maybe being in Married to the Mob helped her out a little more? I don't know, the Academy will always surprise us with these kinds of nominations.
Frances McDormand - Mississippi Burning
I'm a big fan of McDormand's simply because she seems like such a smart lady and delivers really good performances while not looking like a typical Leading lady, plus she's super funny. Here, she plays a Supporting role as a wife of the local sheriff's deputy who is part of the KKK. She doesn't have too much screen time, but I do feel she makes the most of it. She plays the dutiful wife but you can tell there's an independent woman screaming to get out. Gene Hackman's character sees this as well and uses her to get to her husband. McDormand is obviously quite smart and she's also compassionate to the black folk but she's in a marriage to an asshole racist that doesn't allow her to be herself. McDormand plays the character with such restraint because she could easily play it as this woman who is very progressive in a conservative world wanting to break free and voice her opinions and all that. But she doesn't and is very timid about doing anything to upset the balance. She even gets beat to a pulp for talking to Hackman. It's a performance that is begging to explode but can't because of the time period. A woman marries a man really young and can't ever be herself because of fear of her husband and society. We don't know what happens to McDormand after these events but I'd like to think she moves on somewhere else and is able to become the woman she was meant to be. That is what McDormand brings to this character, a sense of wanting her to be something more. It might be brief and convenient for the story but at least she leaves you wanting more. It's not showy in the slightest which probably works against her but it might be a contender for my winner.
Michelle Pfeiffer - Dangerous Liaisons
Not going to lie, I'm kinda glad this will end my Pfeiffer reviews. None of her three nominations have been exceptionally amazing, though none of them were bad by any means. I enjoyed her mostly in The Fabulous Baker Boys and her performance in Love Field was pretty meh to me. In this film, she plays a frigid, morally uptight, religious woman who John Malkovich wants to bang as part of a sexual conquest dare/challenge. She's the weak link of the film performance-wise because Glenn Close and Malkovich are so good in their roles. Whenever the story turns to Pfeiffer it's like a letdown. I understand her role is to be standoffish and hesitant to converse with Malkovich's playboy, but Pfeiffer just comes off as unconvincing in every way. She's supposed to be beautiful but I don't see it. She is manipulated by Malkovich and becomes very emotional at times but all the tears and wailing and labored breathing just feel like an exercise in acting. And honestly, I was never interested in her character or understood why exactly Malkovich fell for her character other than to service the story. A lot of people called this a blank performance and I'd agree with that. We don't know what's going on deep inside Pfeiffer and I don't think Pfeiffer knew exactly what to do with her character. This feels more like Pfeiffer coming along for the ride than anything else, maybe also to capture her blossoming fame in the industry. A pretty basic performance.
Sigourney Weaver - Working Girl
The second of Sigourney's two nominations this year is like the cherry on top of the sundae or the dinner roll to go with the meat and potatoes meal. Weaver gets to play a bitch of a boss and plays it well. She is very convincing of being a total asshole and when we first meet her think that she's going to be this strong, independent woman that Griffith can lean on to make her break in the finance or whatever it is world. She is the strong, independent woman, it's just that she got to her position by being ruthless and aggressive. She's going to take no shit from anyone and she's going to do whatever she has to to get ahead and stay ahead. I think part of that is finding other strong women and milking them for ideas under the guise of mentoring them. Pretty smart and Weaver makes the character into a little more than just a one dimensional stock female character. The Academy must have really loved her this year, though, to nominate her for this and for her performance in Leading Actress. I think it comes with such a female oriented film getting lots of love and the goodwill it earned translating into lots of nominations for the actresses. I'm actually okay with that because I enjoyed the film and both Supporting nominees however small they might be. Weaver plays the villain but isn't too unrelatable and you see where she's coming from in order to make it in a man's world. It's a decent performance but certainly not one that is going to make you scream and shout for her to win. You recognize it's entertaining and maybe even a bit against type and you roll with it.
I was definitely confused by the winner of this category. It's an odd performance as I've stated over and over and I don't really know where I'd put her in the rankings. Cusack is last simply because her role is so slight even though it was funny and entertaining. Pfeiffer is next because there just wasn't much to the performance for me and she's the weakest part of the film. I'd bump Cusack ahead if she had more screen time. I guess Davis would fit in the middle because her performance was so up and down on whether I liked it or not, more towards the not side. Weaver is clearly having fun with her role which makes it entertaining for us. I like it so it comes in second. My clear winner is McDormand who made me want to see more from her character and to have her around more in the film. She's a little too smart for the character but that's part of the charm. She's just a really great actress even in a minor role like this. I'd say this is a middle of the road category, which I'll take.
Oscar Winner: Geena Davis - The Accidental Tourist
My Winner: Frances McDormand - Mississippi Burning
Sigourney Weaver
Geena Davis
Michelle Pfeiffer
Joan Cusack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)