Finally bringing this year to a close. I feel like I've been doing this year for months and months. It's always nice to bring a year to a close and move on. I'm almost to the 80s which is a huge milestone whenever I hit it. On paper, this doesn't look like too bad of a group with some very recognizable and strong films. I'll have to see if that holds up as true!
1992 Best Picture
Unforgiven
This was kind of the no brainer winner for 1992. Look at the rest of this group and what are you going to take? Maybe Howards End but that wouldn't have held up as a good winner. Unforgiven was your winner from the beginning because it's honestly a damn good film. If you haven't seen it by now, go do that and then come back. It's essentially a dark, more realistic portrayal of life in the west or at least in a Western. It sort of turns everything that's typical about the Western genre on it's head. The man who would have been the hero in the past is a complicated, nuanced, brutal depiction of a sheriff. That's Gene Hackman, who more than deserved his Oscar win. Then you've got Eastwood's character who is really a kind of villain but Eastwood makes himself into a hero of sorts by the end, which is the main thing I dislike about the film. That's a minor thing, though, as the rest of the film is so interesting and evocative that it's a great Best Picture winner. As I said in the other reviews for this film, it is essentially a scathing take on the brutality of violence - even violence perpetrated by the so-called good guys. It's not romantic or idealistic or something to chuckle at; it's violence and murder and mayhem through and through. That's what I really love about this film is how it shines a light on all the hypocrisy of other Western films when it comes to the wanton killing and violence. I think it's a provocative message even if Eastwood and the writer say it wasn't their outright intent. It's great when a film can make you think about something like that without beating you over the head with the message at every chance. The acting is all pretty good, though Eastwood isn't my favorite. The scenes are wonderfully shot and the film has a very brisk pace that's nice to see when there are so many meandering, slow films that confuse length with quality. It's a really great ode to the end of the Westerns (at least at that time) and a really great Oscar winner.
The Crying Game
As I will say for the other nominees from this film, you should definitely watch this film first before reading anything about it because it will get spoiled for you and going in blind will allow for the moment to have a bigger impact when you don't know it's coming. And that's sort of the crux of this film. It has this big moment that is pretty shocking by even today's standards that throws the film into a different light so to speak. It makes the film about more than just an IRA member on the lam falling in love. It starts off with Forest Whitaker being kidnapped by some IRA members in hopes they can free a fellow prisoner. Big issue here is that Whitaker's accent is beyond god awful. I don't know why they couldn't find someone else to play the part because his terrible accent is very distracting. Not much happens for the first 35-40 minutes as Stephen Rea and Whitaker start to bond a little and then there's an escape attempt where Whitaker is killed and the IRA hideout is blown up. Rea flees to England and meets up with Whitaker's girl to tell her what happened but he instead falls in love with her and they date and then when about to have sex, the woman reveals her penis in full view to us. A big shocking twist of a moment that is supposed to make you question notions of love and all that. But this is really all the film has going for it. The IRA stuff is generic and boring. But the transgender reveal is a big deal and transforms the film from being by the numbers Irish-British drama to something entirely different. Except I don't think the impact lasts long enough to sustain the rest of the film. It's still mostly boring and once the film moves on from it's big reveal it goes back to being uninteresting for the most part. Rea and Davidson get back together and the IRA members find Rea and make him join a plot to kill some judge and Davidson explodes in anger and kills Miranda Richardson. It's all over the place at the end but still doesn't feel like an important Oscar film, regardless of it's shocking moment and use of a transgender character. I'm thinking that's partially why it was nominated here, that and the fact that films about Irish issues seemed to be the big rage in the early 90s. After hearing about this for awhile, I was expecting more of a classic instead of a dud. But I guess that's why you have to watch the films for yourself and form your own opinion about them.
A Few Good Men
Not going to lie, I've got a soft spot for these types of films. They are purely entertaining and not important as say a Schindler's List, but still enjoyable all the same. Like in 1993 with The Fugitive or Babe in 1995, there are those popular, entertaining, popcorn flicks that deliver an enjoyable movie watching experience. Not all make it to Oscar, of course, but I'm fine with the ones that do. I'd also probably be okay with Die Hard making it on the Best Picture list but that's another discussion. Now, don't get me wrong, this film has it's fair share of flaws but it is highly entertaining and nowhere near actual Best Picture winner worthy. So I feel like being really harsh about the film is somewhat pointless. Cruise is a little too polished and douche bro-y in the beginning before he settles into being super awesome lawyer guy. Nicholson is the typical bad guy but elevates the character with his performance. Demi Moore is the hard ass, take me seriously, eye candy who is a smart lawyer that gains everyone's respect by the end. The fun is watching them all go toe to toe and butt heads and flex their acting muscles. The story is fun and interesting as most courtroom dramas are because you spend your time trying to figure out how one side is going to win the case in the final hour. Which for this film is probably my biggest issue. If the story had let everything play out and then showing Cruise tripping up Nicholson in court and catching him in a lie, the effect would have been much more powerful. Instead, we got the tactic force fed to us in case we didn't understand what was going on, I guess. It was lazy, needlessly expository writing. The writing, by the way, came from Aaron Sorkin which I didn't realize until after I watched it again and looked it up but makes sense with it's snappy, polished feel. The best scenes are of course the courtroom scenes where Cruise and Nicholson bring their star power to a boiling point. It's a good film, I'm fine with it being nominated knowing it wasn't ever going to win, and it's something I can enjoy without using too much of my brain and thinking too hard about - a win all around.
Howards End
Always been interested in seeing if these Merchant-Ivory films were as good or as bad as people talk them up to be. Some people loathe these British films while some other people say they watch whichever one at least once a week/month. I've been fine with all the Merchant-Ivory films I've encountered so far, firmly in the middle with them. This film started out so promising that I was left wondering what the hell happened by the end. Seriously, the film starts out so interesting with the music and the shot of Vanessa Redgrave walking in a field. The characters are compelling and I want to find out more about them (Redgrave's character, for example), the direction is lively and fresh feeling, and the promises of class intrigue are numerous. But then after the beginning Redgrave's character exits the film and we start to get the stale, stuffy British class film you might expect. So for me, Howards End was a tale of two films. I was impressed with the first part and was hoping that the modern take on class struggles was going to be the entire film. Alas, the second part takes over where there is too much people sitting around talking and familial issues than what the first part led me to believe I'd be getting as far as the story goes. The lively direction is gone, in favor of boring shots of interiors and all that. The intrigue as to what is going to happen with all the different social classes interacting is gone, since the payoff was nowhere near exciting enough. I feel like Howards End could have been such a great, memorable film instead of a film that starts off exciting before turning back to the stale, stuff classical type of film we are used to seeing. I think if done today by say a Joe Wright or someone like that, this film could be electric and dazzling. It has the potential to be really interesting with all of the interplay of the social classes and whatnot. I would categorize this film as a let down for me, personally. The sad thing is that it legitimately feels like what the Academy would and should nominate for Best Picture back then. They love their big British prestige classic literature films. It's nice to have finally watched this film and I understand it's nomination but it won't be part of my consideration for the winner this year.
Scent of a Woman
Having read the Inside Oscar entry for 1992, this was never really a consideration even for Best Picture until it for some reason hit with the Golden Globes people. We all know they are star fuckers and for some reason can dictate what people in the Academy think based off of their choices which is ludicrous because they are like 45 shadow people controlling big developments in the Oscar pantheon, essentially. This had no traction before the Golden Globes and then built up steam to a surprise nomination. It's not that good of a film, though, so let's settle that right away. Al Pacino's win is a make up for his career and nothing else. The film is centered on a loud, abrasive, asshole Pacino who is a blind, ex-Army officer who wants to off himself. He enlists the care of Chris O'Donnell's insufferable, shitty, meek college kid and the two go off to New York City. I would say there is really a love-hate relationship with Pacino's performance but I think most sane people see it for what it is and hate or dislike it. Disliking it means what else are you left with? The film is too long for it's own good. Needs to be pared down by maybe an hour to really be effective. The college stuff is just so boring and cheesy and inconsequential. It's all set up so that we can have the big Pacino speech at the end to sway how we feel about him as not being such an asshole. There are some scenes that do resonate and stick out because of their tenderness like the tango scene which I do think is well done, even if a bit shoehorned in. The music is good but then you realize it was further developed into the great, transcendent scores for American Beauty and Shawshank Redemption (Thomas Newman really deserves an Oscar after 13 nominations). It's overall not the most compelling argument for a Best Picture nomination. Besides Pacino, there's just not much left to really enjoy.
This really not that bad of a Best Picture group. It's not strong, mind you, but not terrible. I'd quickly get rid of The Crying Game in favor of Glengarry Glen Ross because that film is flat out brilliant. I just feel like The Crying Game gets in on the basis of it's big reveal. Once you know it, there's not much to the film. Scent of a Woman is not very good either, buoyed mostly by Pacino. It's just very one note and not too interesting. Anything would probably have been better suited for this group. Then we get Howards End, which is actually a pretty good period piece Merchant-Ivory drama. It's watchable and fits the Oscar mold snugly so right in the middle is a perfect place for it. A Few Good Men is second purely because it's entertaining and a fun watch. It's not a masterpiece but you could do far worse for a BP nomination. The easy, undisputed winner is Unforgiven. It's a classic and something you can watch over and over without getting sick of it and holds up as a strong BP winner. Like I said not bad but not the best. A good middle of the road group with a great winner.
Oscar Winner: Unforgiven
My Winner: Unforgiven
A Few Good Men
Howards End
Scent of a Woman
The Crying Game
Showing posts with label 1992. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1992. Show all posts
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Leading Actor 1992
One thing about the Leading categories is that there's a whole lot of biopic performances. Sometimes that's awesome because you get some memorable characters and films. Other times you've got to sit through an overly long, bloated mess that is more of an actor showcase instead of a bonafide in depth look at an interesting person. I know we've got 2 here, one of which I've already seen, but it's something I've noted as I've gone through the years. I will say I enjoy completely new characters a lot more than biopic ones. I'm very interested to see which side Downey's performance falls on though.
1992 Best Actor
Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
Al Pacino's Oscar win. Nope, it's not for The Godfather Part II or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface or a couple of his later big films. No, it's for Scent of a Woman, the performance and role that everyone says was an Oscar grab and a make up for all his years of great work that went unrewarded. That's what everyone always first says about this win, that it's a make up and not really worthy. How would you like to be Al Pacino and have your win somewhat tarnished by the fact that most people don't think it's very legit? I mean, I doubt he cares very much but the fact that his win is seen as being for an inferior performance is telling. How exactly is his performance in this film? Well, it's loud and it's brash and it's pervy and it's unapologetic. Pacino plays a blind, retired Army LTC (Lieutenant Colonel for you non-Army folk) who wants a big, glorious weekend before he goes out with a bang. Pacino's character is quite funny at times with his comebacks and non-sequiturs, but the man never shuts the hell up and his shtick becomes quite grating. There's times where you might agree with his win and other times where you curse whoever decided to nominate him. That's how polarizing his character can be in the same scene, even. Most everyone who encounters him feels the same way until we are made to think he's this great, misunderstood guy because he defends Chris O'Donnell in a big ending scene and teaches him how to be a man throughout. It's just one big display for Pacino who gets to yell and say Hooah! a lot and talk about pussy (which take another look at the title of the film) and be a general creep and asshole. He knows it and wants to kill himself though O'Donnell persuades him not to do so. It's a mostly one note performance that doesn't have much subtlety. He drops his accent at random times, the yelling scenes channel too much of his previous characters, he just goes over the top for a lot of the performance. There are a couple times where Pacino tones it down and comes off charming or at least offers more depth to the character like the tango scene. All of that is overshadowed by his overall loud performance and is why this is seen as just a make up Oscar and not a truly deserved Oscar. His Supporting Actor role is much more deserving to me of getting an Oscar than this one, honestly. I think this really does hold to the notion that it's a make up Oscar which is kinda sad because it's a good performance in its own way! It takes a Pacino to pull off this character and not make him completely insufferable. It's just also not what I would consider the best of this year.
Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
I honestly didn't know what to expect going into this film because absolutely no one ever talks about Chaplin or Downey's performance. I've heard he's good and the film is only okay but that's really about it for what should be a very big biopic about a Hollywood icon. Nowadays, not a peep. So I guess you could say my expectations were a bit tempered which might be a good thing for the film overall, but Downey's performance doesn't need tempered expectations to be qualified as really flipping good. He is spot on as Chaplin the entertainer, I mean spot on. He's got the moves down like he's the one who created them. He's effortless in this part even though I'm sure it took a great deal of effort to perfect. Put Downey and Chaplin up against each other in black and white and you may have trouble figuring out which is the real Chaplin. Yeah, that's a bit of overstuffed praise but he's that good in those acrobatic, vaudevillian moments. It's also a lot of fun to watch and made me want to go watch some Chaplin films myself. Downey is tremendous in this part and it's very hard to argue that he's not worthy of a possible win here. It's not imitation, it's pure respect. I'd say where the film lets Downey down at is in getting to know the real Charles Chaplin, getting into his mind. Downey plays these serious moments just fine but they don't quite delve into who Chaplin is and so Downey doesn't get to work that side of his Chaplin much. We breeze through all the women in Chaplin's life but never feel connected to them or feel their importance in Chaplin's life. I would have been more interested in seeing how his feelings about his mother transformed his work and life and relationships but we didn't get that. So Downey flits around being charming and then serious and then charming again without much deep introspection or explanation for his motives. Downey also portrays Chaplin in his much older years and this is actually some very good acting, as well. I think Downey gets a lot out of being dressed up in old age make up than just looking the part. He brings some genuine feeling to the role and a bit of the introspection I wish was in the younger parts. This could have also been done more in depth, too, but it's a step in the right direction. Downey shows off his ability to do many different things with this complicated role and I'm very glad he was nominated here. Now if only people could remember he existed as an actor before Iron Man.
Clint Eastwood - Unforgiven
I feel like this nomination came along for the ride because the Academy was so enamored with the film itself. They loved it as evidenced by its Best Picture win and loved Eastwood as evidenced by his Best Director win and nomination here. He was the darling of the moment and finally delivered a film that he directed that connected with a wide audience after a smattering of kudos for some smaller films he directed previously. I think the Academy was just itching to nominate him for acting and were finally able to do so and this is the result. I don't think Eastwood stands out all that much here. He's good and competent and very Western, as he should be with his history. But his arc, character, and role are all pretty basic. He plays a retired bandit and killer who wants to live out his days on a pig farm with his kids and no trouble. He is convinced to take out some cowboys who roughed up some whores for some money and the film grows from their to become more than just a simple retaliation/revenge tale. Eastwood is still seen as the hero even if he's an antihero for much of the film and has a lot of the meatier parts. He gets his butt kicked and is injured yet heals up quick and then gets revenge for his partner who is killed but quite easily killing a room full of guys without a scratch and returning to his old ways but not really coming off as bad to the viewer. The film's theme is really about the brutality and reality of life in the West and how the killing isn't noble or romantic, yet Eastwood's character comes across as being just that. I don't know if Eastwood couldn't keep himself from not being the big, sympathetic hero even under complicated circumstances but it's a bad look for the film. Luckily, the film is strong enough to not really be affected by Eastwood's choices but imagine if we didn't really endear ourselves to his William Munny. The film would have been even stronger. The other characters get the lamentation of age and reputation and their own history right in a way that Eastwood doesn't. I just wish Eastwood would have played it a little more realistically and not like one of his previous action movies. Having Munny really struggle with returning to being a bad guy would have made the film even stronger. Thankfully, Unforgiven is good enough to not suffer from Eastwood's acting choices.
Stephen Rea - The Crying Game
Again I will say you should probably go watch this film before reading anything about it, whether here or anywhere else, because it will be spoiled for you and it will lessen the impact of the spoiling scene in question. I'll also say again that I'm not a big fan of this film and don't understand it's inclusion for Best Picture. I understand that it has a big moment that probably shocked viewers back then as it still does today, but it's just one moment. With all that said, I was completely underwhelmed with Stephen Rea's performance as a whole. I'd describe it as tepid, honestly. It doesn't motivate or interest me all that much and I feel like a Best Actor nominee should bring something to the table for me to point to and say aha! that's why it's an Oscar nominated performance. There's nothing I can point to in Rea's performance that does that. Rea plays an IRA member who helps kidnap Forest Whitaker, a British soldier and becomes a bit chummy with him while guarding him. There's an escape attempt that doesn't end up well for Whitaker and the IRA members and Rea eventually flees to England to hide out and meet up with a girl Whitaker liked/loved/whatever. Rea wants to tell her what happened but falls for her before that happens and then we get the big twist that Dil, the woman, is actually a man. Rea is revolted but still kinda likes her and they continue to hang out until the IRA finds him again and force him to help kill a judge. That all sounds very exciting but Rea's character never really has the heart for being an IRA extremist, seemingly just along for the ride - much like Rea is only along for the ride while his character does all the work if that makes sense. By that I mean, instead of Rea owning the character, the character owns him and he ends up reacting to various things and not standing out very much. He's chummy but boring with Whitaker, then shy and feeble with Dil, then ordered around by the IRA members and Dil even to some extent. And while that may be the way the character is and Rea is just portraying him as he should, it never excites me or moves me as a viewer. I was left thinking why this unenthusiastic performance was nominated. Strip away the big shocking moments and does the performance and film still feel Oscar worthy? The answer to me is no. Rea's performance just simply isn't good enough for me.
Denzel Washington - Malcolm X
This was the last thing I watched and reviewed for this year. I wasn't too excited about watching a three and a half hour Spike Lee film that I've already seen twice before but I powered through. It was actually a bit quicker paced than I remembered but it's still a bloated mess of a film. That's all due to Spike Lee wanting to create an epic about a pivotal figure in Black History but Denzel is fine at the titular character. But that's the thing about his performance for me. It's good, it's solid, it's fine - it just doesn't resonate with me on any emotional level. It's not something that really wowed me yet I know is a proficient performance. Denzel has the tough job of being on screen for pretty much all of the three and a half hours but never wears out his welcome. Yes, there are times where it feels we are moving in circles when it comes to the story and not exactly gleaming anything new from Malcolm but that's mostly the problem of Spike Lee. Better editing may have made Denzel's performance hit harder and resonate more for me. His performance also gets better as the film progresses through Malcolm's life, which seems only natural. In the beginning he plays a two bit, though charismatic, criminal doing drugs and sleeping with white women. You might call it a loud portrayal in the early goings but the character and the story calls for it. Denzel is fine, though I don't feel the film does him any favors here. As we go through Malcolm's life in prison and his radicalization after getting out, Denzel shines. It's a very serious role and Denzel gives it the depth and nuance it deserves. It's great acting and I wish Lee would have focused more on the later aspects of Malcolm's life instead of giving himself screen time as Denzel's early buddy and spending too much time setting it all up. The end of the film where Malcolm walks around almost in a daze, seemingly at peace with what's inevitably going to happen to him is why I like Denzel as an actor. Sure, his over the top gangster stuff is fun to watch, but the subtle, quieter moments feel more rewarding. So overall, this is a performance that ramps up in intensity and quality as the film goes on. Hard for me to get too excited about this performance based on the early parts that are underwhelming but it's a decent take on Malcolm X by Denzel.
This is kind of a blah Best Actor group, honestly. And it starts with the winner at the top with Pacino. It's a career award that the Academy was itching to give him. I guess it's fine that it was this year where there really isn't any runaway winner. Everyone has their issues and faults. Rea is just kinda there in a film that's mostly about a twist. Eastwood is okay but definitely not the best actor in his own film, too much of the Eastwood style. Pacino is just too much of the same over exaggerated mannerisms that wears thin in a film that's not all that great. Then it becomes a toss up of two actors whose films never let them realize their characters' full potential. They are half baked but still pretty tasty, maybe you can call it cookie dough performances. Denzal is solid but not amazing. Just a typical Denzel performance. Downey Jr is great in the physical aspects of Chaplin and is equally solid as Denzel, his film just doesn't allow him to dive deep into the man himself. With all that said, I think I'd give it to Downey Jr out of all of these because it's the one I liked the most. Simple as that.
Oscar Winner: Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
My Winner: Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
Denzel Washington
Al Pacino
Clint Eastwood
Stephen Rea
1992 Best Actor
Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
Al Pacino's Oscar win. Nope, it's not for The Godfather Part II or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface or a couple of his later big films. No, it's for Scent of a Woman, the performance and role that everyone says was an Oscar grab and a make up for all his years of great work that went unrewarded. That's what everyone always first says about this win, that it's a make up and not really worthy. How would you like to be Al Pacino and have your win somewhat tarnished by the fact that most people don't think it's very legit? I mean, I doubt he cares very much but the fact that his win is seen as being for an inferior performance is telling. How exactly is his performance in this film? Well, it's loud and it's brash and it's pervy and it's unapologetic. Pacino plays a blind, retired Army LTC (Lieutenant Colonel for you non-Army folk) who wants a big, glorious weekend before he goes out with a bang. Pacino's character is quite funny at times with his comebacks and non-sequiturs, but the man never shuts the hell up and his shtick becomes quite grating. There's times where you might agree with his win and other times where you curse whoever decided to nominate him. That's how polarizing his character can be in the same scene, even. Most everyone who encounters him feels the same way until we are made to think he's this great, misunderstood guy because he defends Chris O'Donnell in a big ending scene and teaches him how to be a man throughout. It's just one big display for Pacino who gets to yell and say Hooah! a lot and talk about pussy (which take another look at the title of the film) and be a general creep and asshole. He knows it and wants to kill himself though O'Donnell persuades him not to do so. It's a mostly one note performance that doesn't have much subtlety. He drops his accent at random times, the yelling scenes channel too much of his previous characters, he just goes over the top for a lot of the performance. There are a couple times where Pacino tones it down and comes off charming or at least offers more depth to the character like the tango scene. All of that is overshadowed by his overall loud performance and is why this is seen as just a make up Oscar and not a truly deserved Oscar. His Supporting Actor role is much more deserving to me of getting an Oscar than this one, honestly. I think this really does hold to the notion that it's a make up Oscar which is kinda sad because it's a good performance in its own way! It takes a Pacino to pull off this character and not make him completely insufferable. It's just also not what I would consider the best of this year.
Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
I honestly didn't know what to expect going into this film because absolutely no one ever talks about Chaplin or Downey's performance. I've heard he's good and the film is only okay but that's really about it for what should be a very big biopic about a Hollywood icon. Nowadays, not a peep. So I guess you could say my expectations were a bit tempered which might be a good thing for the film overall, but Downey's performance doesn't need tempered expectations to be qualified as really flipping good. He is spot on as Chaplin the entertainer, I mean spot on. He's got the moves down like he's the one who created them. He's effortless in this part even though I'm sure it took a great deal of effort to perfect. Put Downey and Chaplin up against each other in black and white and you may have trouble figuring out which is the real Chaplin. Yeah, that's a bit of overstuffed praise but he's that good in those acrobatic, vaudevillian moments. It's also a lot of fun to watch and made me want to go watch some Chaplin films myself. Downey is tremendous in this part and it's very hard to argue that he's not worthy of a possible win here. It's not imitation, it's pure respect. I'd say where the film lets Downey down at is in getting to know the real Charles Chaplin, getting into his mind. Downey plays these serious moments just fine but they don't quite delve into who Chaplin is and so Downey doesn't get to work that side of his Chaplin much. We breeze through all the women in Chaplin's life but never feel connected to them or feel their importance in Chaplin's life. I would have been more interested in seeing how his feelings about his mother transformed his work and life and relationships but we didn't get that. So Downey flits around being charming and then serious and then charming again without much deep introspection or explanation for his motives. Downey also portrays Chaplin in his much older years and this is actually some very good acting, as well. I think Downey gets a lot out of being dressed up in old age make up than just looking the part. He brings some genuine feeling to the role and a bit of the introspection I wish was in the younger parts. This could have also been done more in depth, too, but it's a step in the right direction. Downey shows off his ability to do many different things with this complicated role and I'm very glad he was nominated here. Now if only people could remember he existed as an actor before Iron Man.
Clint Eastwood - Unforgiven
I feel like this nomination came along for the ride because the Academy was so enamored with the film itself. They loved it as evidenced by its Best Picture win and loved Eastwood as evidenced by his Best Director win and nomination here. He was the darling of the moment and finally delivered a film that he directed that connected with a wide audience after a smattering of kudos for some smaller films he directed previously. I think the Academy was just itching to nominate him for acting and were finally able to do so and this is the result. I don't think Eastwood stands out all that much here. He's good and competent and very Western, as he should be with his history. But his arc, character, and role are all pretty basic. He plays a retired bandit and killer who wants to live out his days on a pig farm with his kids and no trouble. He is convinced to take out some cowboys who roughed up some whores for some money and the film grows from their to become more than just a simple retaliation/revenge tale. Eastwood is still seen as the hero even if he's an antihero for much of the film and has a lot of the meatier parts. He gets his butt kicked and is injured yet heals up quick and then gets revenge for his partner who is killed but quite easily killing a room full of guys without a scratch and returning to his old ways but not really coming off as bad to the viewer. The film's theme is really about the brutality and reality of life in the West and how the killing isn't noble or romantic, yet Eastwood's character comes across as being just that. I don't know if Eastwood couldn't keep himself from not being the big, sympathetic hero even under complicated circumstances but it's a bad look for the film. Luckily, the film is strong enough to not really be affected by Eastwood's choices but imagine if we didn't really endear ourselves to his William Munny. The film would have been even stronger. The other characters get the lamentation of age and reputation and their own history right in a way that Eastwood doesn't. I just wish Eastwood would have played it a little more realistically and not like one of his previous action movies. Having Munny really struggle with returning to being a bad guy would have made the film even stronger. Thankfully, Unforgiven is good enough to not suffer from Eastwood's acting choices.
Stephen Rea - The Crying Game
Again I will say you should probably go watch this film before reading anything about it, whether here or anywhere else, because it will be spoiled for you and it will lessen the impact of the spoiling scene in question. I'll also say again that I'm not a big fan of this film and don't understand it's inclusion for Best Picture. I understand that it has a big moment that probably shocked viewers back then as it still does today, but it's just one moment. With all that said, I was completely underwhelmed with Stephen Rea's performance as a whole. I'd describe it as tepid, honestly. It doesn't motivate or interest me all that much and I feel like a Best Actor nominee should bring something to the table for me to point to and say aha! that's why it's an Oscar nominated performance. There's nothing I can point to in Rea's performance that does that. Rea plays an IRA member who helps kidnap Forest Whitaker, a British soldier and becomes a bit chummy with him while guarding him. There's an escape attempt that doesn't end up well for Whitaker and the IRA members and Rea eventually flees to England to hide out and meet up with a girl Whitaker liked/loved/whatever. Rea wants to tell her what happened but falls for her before that happens and then we get the big twist that Dil, the woman, is actually a man. Rea is revolted but still kinda likes her and they continue to hang out until the IRA finds him again and force him to help kill a judge. That all sounds very exciting but Rea's character never really has the heart for being an IRA extremist, seemingly just along for the ride - much like Rea is only along for the ride while his character does all the work if that makes sense. By that I mean, instead of Rea owning the character, the character owns him and he ends up reacting to various things and not standing out very much. He's chummy but boring with Whitaker, then shy and feeble with Dil, then ordered around by the IRA members and Dil even to some extent. And while that may be the way the character is and Rea is just portraying him as he should, it never excites me or moves me as a viewer. I was left thinking why this unenthusiastic performance was nominated. Strip away the big shocking moments and does the performance and film still feel Oscar worthy? The answer to me is no. Rea's performance just simply isn't good enough for me.
Denzel Washington - Malcolm X
This was the last thing I watched and reviewed for this year. I wasn't too excited about watching a three and a half hour Spike Lee film that I've already seen twice before but I powered through. It was actually a bit quicker paced than I remembered but it's still a bloated mess of a film. That's all due to Spike Lee wanting to create an epic about a pivotal figure in Black History but Denzel is fine at the titular character. But that's the thing about his performance for me. It's good, it's solid, it's fine - it just doesn't resonate with me on any emotional level. It's not something that really wowed me yet I know is a proficient performance. Denzel has the tough job of being on screen for pretty much all of the three and a half hours but never wears out his welcome. Yes, there are times where it feels we are moving in circles when it comes to the story and not exactly gleaming anything new from Malcolm but that's mostly the problem of Spike Lee. Better editing may have made Denzel's performance hit harder and resonate more for me. His performance also gets better as the film progresses through Malcolm's life, which seems only natural. In the beginning he plays a two bit, though charismatic, criminal doing drugs and sleeping with white women. You might call it a loud portrayal in the early goings but the character and the story calls for it. Denzel is fine, though I don't feel the film does him any favors here. As we go through Malcolm's life in prison and his radicalization after getting out, Denzel shines. It's a very serious role and Denzel gives it the depth and nuance it deserves. It's great acting and I wish Lee would have focused more on the later aspects of Malcolm's life instead of giving himself screen time as Denzel's early buddy and spending too much time setting it all up. The end of the film where Malcolm walks around almost in a daze, seemingly at peace with what's inevitably going to happen to him is why I like Denzel as an actor. Sure, his over the top gangster stuff is fun to watch, but the subtle, quieter moments feel more rewarding. So overall, this is a performance that ramps up in intensity and quality as the film goes on. Hard for me to get too excited about this performance based on the early parts that are underwhelming but it's a decent take on Malcolm X by Denzel.
This is kind of a blah Best Actor group, honestly. And it starts with the winner at the top with Pacino. It's a career award that the Academy was itching to give him. I guess it's fine that it was this year where there really isn't any runaway winner. Everyone has their issues and faults. Rea is just kinda there in a film that's mostly about a twist. Eastwood is okay but definitely not the best actor in his own film, too much of the Eastwood style. Pacino is just too much of the same over exaggerated mannerisms that wears thin in a film that's not all that great. Then it becomes a toss up of two actors whose films never let them realize their characters' full potential. They are half baked but still pretty tasty, maybe you can call it cookie dough performances. Denzal is solid but not amazing. Just a typical Denzel performance. Downey Jr is great in the physical aspects of Chaplin and is equally solid as Denzel, his film just doesn't allow him to dive deep into the man himself. With all that said, I think I'd give it to Downey Jr out of all of these because it's the one I liked the most. Simple as that.
Oscar Winner: Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
My Winner: Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
Denzel Washington
Al Pacino
Clint Eastwood
Stephen Rea
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Leading Actress 1992
I swear I'm not dead! Just get bogged down with life and then stuck on watching certain films or stuck having to write about them. I've seen none of these films so I'm eager to see what they are exactly since I'm not really familiar with any of them. Let's get to it.
1992 Best Actress
Emma Thompson - Howards End
I have always liked Emma Thompson as an actress and I've stated that in my other reviews for her. She is just a thoroughly charming and pleasant actress who makes her craft look effortless. We got exactly that for this performance, but for some reason it just never grabbed me like her others did. I'm glad that she is an Oscar winning actress (and writer!) but I was very underwhelmed by this performance. She plays a middle class woman who becomes friends with Redgrave's character and is promised Howards End (an estate) when she dies but the children of Redgrave block that and then Anthony Hopkins' character falls in love with her and marries her and dies and Thompson gets Howards End after all. There's a lot of class stuff going on and Howards End is meant as a representation of what the different classes are all aspiring to. Maybe I had too high of expectations for her but I was really left wanting more from her and the film itself. Like I said she's her usual great self, making her character look completely effortless. The big thing I like about her acting is that it's as if she's coming up with her words on the fly or as if she was the one who wrote them. She's very natural in that respect which impresses me greatly. Other actors look as if they have memorized lines and are only reciting them and make it look labored and too much like acting. Thompson makes you forget she's acting and just a character speaking from a script. So all of that is found in this performance but I don't feel like Thompson ever took over the film and gave a truly marvelous performance. It's solid but not amazing. She's clearly done better work since which isn't fair to compare to her work in this one. I really thought I was going to react a lot differently to her Oscar winning performance than what I'm writing here but I can't find the motivation to say anything other than she's a great actress who gave a good, not great performance. Maybe it's because I've seen better performances from Thompson that I'm so underwhelmed or that I thought this was going to be a truly great all time winner but I'm a bit disappointed. Without having seen any of the other nominees yet, I'm already okay with her win and she seems like the obvious choice for a winner but we will see as I watch the others.
Catherine Deneuve - Indochine
This was a little bit of a struggle to find with English subtitles. It was plenty easy to find the French version, though. I've been getting more and more into foreign films, sprinkling them in among the Oscar films I watch for the project and it's been a nice change of pace. This film fell directly in the middle of both those wheelhouses and I was intrigued about what kind of film it would be. It's about a French woman who is raising a Vietnamese princess in Vietnam and the woman, Deneuve, falls for a French Navy officer and they bone but then the officer saves the Vietnamese girl and they fall in love and they eventually find each other out in a remote area and then bone. It's very French. It's also not that great of a film. It's somewhat hokey at times, or at least forced to try to provide drama. Deneuve's character is the owner of a rubber tree plantation and seems to have the respect of her local laborers. Deneuve is good in this aspect, portraying someone that's lived there her whole life and is comfortable as a female boss to Vietnamese workers. It's good and capable and doesn't pander to any stereotypes of a lesser woman or a super heroine. Meaning she just exists as she should in the role. My beef is that the film makes her fall almost instantly for the Navy officer without any real reason for her to do so. He confronts her at an auction and kinda tries to woo her and then she just gives herself to him and it's all done so quickly and sloppily that it drags the performance down. It's completely unbelievable. On the plus side, the relationship between Deneuve and her Vietnamese adopted daughter is very believable. They have a very natural relationship and it doesn't feel like white woman with minority kid. It makes for a more realistic performance minus the absurd romance part but it's only a decent performance, nowhere near great. I think the Academy wanted to take the opportunity to reward Deneuve with a nomination as they seem to love to do with certain French actresses. I understand it's place here and don't begrudge it. This was a lot better than some previous Best Actress nominees.
Mary McDonnell - Passion Fish
This is another review that I already wrote but then somehow Blogger ate it and it disappeared after I worked on it for like a couple hours. It's always pretty cool when that happens. Anyway, I had no idea who Mary McDonnell was when I finally got to this year. I know that's going to happen more and more as I go back in time but it's still a little jarring to not know who they are but also exciting at possibly finding a hidden gem. The beginning of the film McDonnell's acting is very labored and TV movie like, but she does eventually settle into the role. Those first few scenes, though, are really, truly awful displays of acting which makes me not want to vote for her based on that alone and because Alfre Woodard is by comparison immensely better. McDonnell plays a TV soap opera star who gets in an accident and is paralyzed and goes to her home in Louisiana. She goes through a bunch of nurses before getting stuck with Alfre Woodard and the two eventually come to respect each other after a rough start. The biggest thing about this performance is that it's fine and all but Woodard is so much more interesting and compelling as a character. I'd even say she's a co-lead and should have been nominated here instead of McDonnell. It's just plain as day when you watch the film. Woodard has just as much, if not more of, an arc than McDonnell and makes the most out of her performance. It's bad acting to start out with that settles into an average performance and somehow it got nominated over a much more deserving Woodard. Maybe McDonnell was riding the wave of goodwill from Dances with Wolves two years prior, I don't know. Not to say McDonnell is horrible by any means, the beginning issue is a very small part of the whole performance. The two actresses actually have really good chemistry and you warm up to McDonnell's cold, callous woman right along with Woodard. I just don't see how anyone that watches this film doesn't gravitate more toward Woodard for being the better performance and actress. I'd love to hear someone give me a good reason as to why the Academy did choose her besides the disability factor. I think that Alfre Woodard would have been a much better choice and I wish the Academy would have seen it that way, too.
Michelle Pfeiffer - Love Field
I have never been a Michelle Pfeiffer fan. My only explanation to that is that I don't find her attractive at all while everyone else seems to think she is drop dead gorgeous. She's not. And I feel like that's where a lot of her love as an actress comes from, her beauty first then whatever talent she has. I've never liked that when it comes to actresses. Show us what you can do despite your good looks and go from there. Of course, this is a bit unfair because Pfeiffer can't exactly help being considered beautiful, so it's not her fault. Love Field does kinda feel like the Academy loves her and wants to nominate her because she's a star at this moment. The performance is okay to me but doesn't really stand out. She's the main focus of them, sure, but that doesn't mean she's good. Pfeiffer plays a woman who is so into the Kennedy's and worships Jackie O and when the President is assassinated in her hometown, vows to go to the funeral in Washington. Ditzy blonde, which Pfeiffer has down pat, gets on a Greyhound bus and butts her way into a black man and his daughter's life because she has no boundaries. She constantly chats him up or injects herself into his life when it's clear he wants to be left alone. The bus crashes eventually and Pfeiffer notices bruises on the little girl and thinks the father has kidnapped her because he's black and that's what black people do. She calls the FBI and then sets in motion the rest of the film where they are running from the authorities because she fucked up and he really is taking her from a home where they beat her constantly and they have to hide out. They all hide out and eventually fall in love, I shit you not. It makes no sense in the grand scheme of things and they end up happily ever after and it just feels so stupid. Pfeiffer is good at being the innocent blonde woman who cares about the daughter because she lost her own child. But that revelation is just superficial. We don't learn all that much about Pfeiffer other than she's quick to leave her other life behind without too much turmoil shown and told to us. I'd say she and Dennis Haysbert have a decent chemistry but it's almost the same thing as Far from Heaven with Julianne Moore and it's still as weird and inappropriate as that film. I'm never convinced by Pfeiffer of her drastic change and it's important that I buy her abrupt turnaround because the film depends on it. Beauty and historical time frame aside, what is left to judge? Not much at all, which is why I think this performance falls flat for me. Yes, it's competent and she does fine trying to sell the romance and the concern, it's just that it doesn't feel Oscar worthy. I feel like her popularity and sex symbol status got her this nomination because there's just not a whole lot to it. I'd much rather see someone else take her place here.
Susan Sarandon - Lorenzo's Oil
When it comes to Susan Sarandon performances and films, I always end up initially thinking the premise or the woman sounds pretty meh but then I watch them and find that Sarandon is pretty strong and her character is a decent female role. Like in this film, I wasn't overly compelled to watch it based on the premise of Sarandon being a mother whose son becomes ill and she and her husband try to find a cure against all odds. You have no doubt heard of a film like this before, probably seen it countless times before, you could probably write a screenplay about one with ease. It breaks no new ground or anything and isn't all that interesting after awhile. But...I watch and realize that Sarandon gives a pretty good to great performance which is typical of her. It's almost at Meryl Streep levels where she makes undeserving roles/performances better because of who she is. It also highlights how bad a lot of the leading actress roles truly are, they lack a lot of the diversity you get with the men. In this film, Sarandon plays a mother fighting for her son's life after he gets a rare disease or disorder or whatever. It's a very strong role that Sarandon makes more interesting and less basic. She gives it her crusader, advocate, progressive spin and push. She brings that part of her life to the role and it's definitely way better for it. She mostly avoids the cheesiness that can be found in these performances and films. Just look at her husband in the film, Nick Nolte, for an example of that. His Italian accent is so distracting and cringe worthy you wish he'd shut up. Not to overly praise Sarandon, though, as this isn't an award winning role to me. It's solid and better than it needs to be but the film does her no favors. It's great that she is so convincing as the mother fighting for her son because it's exactly what you'd think a tough, desperate woman would be in that situation. It's good, not great, but very Susan Sarandon.
Go ahead and look at the films nominated on this list. Do you think the average person in America in 1992 had heard of any of these films, let alone actually watched them? How about extending that to nowadays? It has recognizable names, sure, but besides Howards End, I've never even heard of these films and I'm a big movie nut. No one talks about these films ever, so 1992 must have been just an awful, awful year for women because Oscar makes it seem that way. I'll have to read this year in my Inside Oscar book to see what else was even in the running. It's really hard to even come up with a winner because I'm so ambivalent about them all. I mean, I guess just stay with the status quo and go with Thompson but it doesn't feel fully earned here. I wish she would have wowed. Then comes Sarandon because she plays a pretty strong female character and is good but I wouldn't want that film to be what she won for, you know what I mean? Deneuve really kinda surprised me because I thought she was solid, just let down by the film. She might even be a number 2 after this all grows on me. But still, not worth a win exactly. Then comes Pfeiffer trying hard to rise above the looks but not fully succeeding for this film, which is kind of a mess anyway. McDonnell is dead last because I'd have taken Alfre Woodard over her and probably given her the win instead of these others. That would have been a great Oscar moment! Instead we are left with this ho-hum group.
Oscar Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
My Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
Susan Sarandon
Catherine Deneuve
Michelle Pfeiffer
Mary McDonnell
1992 Best Actress
Emma Thompson - Howards End
I have always liked Emma Thompson as an actress and I've stated that in my other reviews for her. She is just a thoroughly charming and pleasant actress who makes her craft look effortless. We got exactly that for this performance, but for some reason it just never grabbed me like her others did. I'm glad that she is an Oscar winning actress (and writer!) but I was very underwhelmed by this performance. She plays a middle class woman who becomes friends with Redgrave's character and is promised Howards End (an estate) when she dies but the children of Redgrave block that and then Anthony Hopkins' character falls in love with her and marries her and dies and Thompson gets Howards End after all. There's a lot of class stuff going on and Howards End is meant as a representation of what the different classes are all aspiring to. Maybe I had too high of expectations for her but I was really left wanting more from her and the film itself. Like I said she's her usual great self, making her character look completely effortless. The big thing I like about her acting is that it's as if she's coming up with her words on the fly or as if she was the one who wrote them. She's very natural in that respect which impresses me greatly. Other actors look as if they have memorized lines and are only reciting them and make it look labored and too much like acting. Thompson makes you forget she's acting and just a character speaking from a script. So all of that is found in this performance but I don't feel like Thompson ever took over the film and gave a truly marvelous performance. It's solid but not amazing. She's clearly done better work since which isn't fair to compare to her work in this one. I really thought I was going to react a lot differently to her Oscar winning performance than what I'm writing here but I can't find the motivation to say anything other than she's a great actress who gave a good, not great performance. Maybe it's because I've seen better performances from Thompson that I'm so underwhelmed or that I thought this was going to be a truly great all time winner but I'm a bit disappointed. Without having seen any of the other nominees yet, I'm already okay with her win and she seems like the obvious choice for a winner but we will see as I watch the others.
Catherine Deneuve - Indochine
This was a little bit of a struggle to find with English subtitles. It was plenty easy to find the French version, though. I've been getting more and more into foreign films, sprinkling them in among the Oscar films I watch for the project and it's been a nice change of pace. This film fell directly in the middle of both those wheelhouses and I was intrigued about what kind of film it would be. It's about a French woman who is raising a Vietnamese princess in Vietnam and the woman, Deneuve, falls for a French Navy officer and they bone but then the officer saves the Vietnamese girl and they fall in love and they eventually find each other out in a remote area and then bone. It's very French. It's also not that great of a film. It's somewhat hokey at times, or at least forced to try to provide drama. Deneuve's character is the owner of a rubber tree plantation and seems to have the respect of her local laborers. Deneuve is good in this aspect, portraying someone that's lived there her whole life and is comfortable as a female boss to Vietnamese workers. It's good and capable and doesn't pander to any stereotypes of a lesser woman or a super heroine. Meaning she just exists as she should in the role. My beef is that the film makes her fall almost instantly for the Navy officer without any real reason for her to do so. He confronts her at an auction and kinda tries to woo her and then she just gives herself to him and it's all done so quickly and sloppily that it drags the performance down. It's completely unbelievable. On the plus side, the relationship between Deneuve and her Vietnamese adopted daughter is very believable. They have a very natural relationship and it doesn't feel like white woman with minority kid. It makes for a more realistic performance minus the absurd romance part but it's only a decent performance, nowhere near great. I think the Academy wanted to take the opportunity to reward Deneuve with a nomination as they seem to love to do with certain French actresses. I understand it's place here and don't begrudge it. This was a lot better than some previous Best Actress nominees.
Mary McDonnell - Passion Fish
This is another review that I already wrote but then somehow Blogger ate it and it disappeared after I worked on it for like a couple hours. It's always pretty cool when that happens. Anyway, I had no idea who Mary McDonnell was when I finally got to this year. I know that's going to happen more and more as I go back in time but it's still a little jarring to not know who they are but also exciting at possibly finding a hidden gem. The beginning of the film McDonnell's acting is very labored and TV movie like, but she does eventually settle into the role. Those first few scenes, though, are really, truly awful displays of acting which makes me not want to vote for her based on that alone and because Alfre Woodard is by comparison immensely better. McDonnell plays a TV soap opera star who gets in an accident and is paralyzed and goes to her home in Louisiana. She goes through a bunch of nurses before getting stuck with Alfre Woodard and the two eventually come to respect each other after a rough start. The biggest thing about this performance is that it's fine and all but Woodard is so much more interesting and compelling as a character. I'd even say she's a co-lead and should have been nominated here instead of McDonnell. It's just plain as day when you watch the film. Woodard has just as much, if not more of, an arc than McDonnell and makes the most out of her performance. It's bad acting to start out with that settles into an average performance and somehow it got nominated over a much more deserving Woodard. Maybe McDonnell was riding the wave of goodwill from Dances with Wolves two years prior, I don't know. Not to say McDonnell is horrible by any means, the beginning issue is a very small part of the whole performance. The two actresses actually have really good chemistry and you warm up to McDonnell's cold, callous woman right along with Woodard. I just don't see how anyone that watches this film doesn't gravitate more toward Woodard for being the better performance and actress. I'd love to hear someone give me a good reason as to why the Academy did choose her besides the disability factor. I think that Alfre Woodard would have been a much better choice and I wish the Academy would have seen it that way, too.
Michelle Pfeiffer - Love Field
I have never been a Michelle Pfeiffer fan. My only explanation to that is that I don't find her attractive at all while everyone else seems to think she is drop dead gorgeous. She's not. And I feel like that's where a lot of her love as an actress comes from, her beauty first then whatever talent she has. I've never liked that when it comes to actresses. Show us what you can do despite your good looks and go from there. Of course, this is a bit unfair because Pfeiffer can't exactly help being considered beautiful, so it's not her fault. Love Field does kinda feel like the Academy loves her and wants to nominate her because she's a star at this moment. The performance is okay to me but doesn't really stand out. She's the main focus of them, sure, but that doesn't mean she's good. Pfeiffer plays a woman who is so into the Kennedy's and worships Jackie O and when the President is assassinated in her hometown, vows to go to the funeral in Washington. Ditzy blonde, which Pfeiffer has down pat, gets on a Greyhound bus and butts her way into a black man and his daughter's life because she has no boundaries. She constantly chats him up or injects herself into his life when it's clear he wants to be left alone. The bus crashes eventually and Pfeiffer notices bruises on the little girl and thinks the father has kidnapped her because he's black and that's what black people do. She calls the FBI and then sets in motion the rest of the film where they are running from the authorities because she fucked up and he really is taking her from a home where they beat her constantly and they have to hide out. They all hide out and eventually fall in love, I shit you not. It makes no sense in the grand scheme of things and they end up happily ever after and it just feels so stupid. Pfeiffer is good at being the innocent blonde woman who cares about the daughter because she lost her own child. But that revelation is just superficial. We don't learn all that much about Pfeiffer other than she's quick to leave her other life behind without too much turmoil shown and told to us. I'd say she and Dennis Haysbert have a decent chemistry but it's almost the same thing as Far from Heaven with Julianne Moore and it's still as weird and inappropriate as that film. I'm never convinced by Pfeiffer of her drastic change and it's important that I buy her abrupt turnaround because the film depends on it. Beauty and historical time frame aside, what is left to judge? Not much at all, which is why I think this performance falls flat for me. Yes, it's competent and she does fine trying to sell the romance and the concern, it's just that it doesn't feel Oscar worthy. I feel like her popularity and sex symbol status got her this nomination because there's just not a whole lot to it. I'd much rather see someone else take her place here.
Susan Sarandon - Lorenzo's Oil
When it comes to Susan Sarandon performances and films, I always end up initially thinking the premise or the woman sounds pretty meh but then I watch them and find that Sarandon is pretty strong and her character is a decent female role. Like in this film, I wasn't overly compelled to watch it based on the premise of Sarandon being a mother whose son becomes ill and she and her husband try to find a cure against all odds. You have no doubt heard of a film like this before, probably seen it countless times before, you could probably write a screenplay about one with ease. It breaks no new ground or anything and isn't all that interesting after awhile. But...I watch and realize that Sarandon gives a pretty good to great performance which is typical of her. It's almost at Meryl Streep levels where she makes undeserving roles/performances better because of who she is. It also highlights how bad a lot of the leading actress roles truly are, they lack a lot of the diversity you get with the men. In this film, Sarandon plays a mother fighting for her son's life after he gets a rare disease or disorder or whatever. It's a very strong role that Sarandon makes more interesting and less basic. She gives it her crusader, advocate, progressive spin and push. She brings that part of her life to the role and it's definitely way better for it. She mostly avoids the cheesiness that can be found in these performances and films. Just look at her husband in the film, Nick Nolte, for an example of that. His Italian accent is so distracting and cringe worthy you wish he'd shut up. Not to overly praise Sarandon, though, as this isn't an award winning role to me. It's solid and better than it needs to be but the film does her no favors. It's great that she is so convincing as the mother fighting for her son because it's exactly what you'd think a tough, desperate woman would be in that situation. It's good, not great, but very Susan Sarandon.
Go ahead and look at the films nominated on this list. Do you think the average person in America in 1992 had heard of any of these films, let alone actually watched them? How about extending that to nowadays? It has recognizable names, sure, but besides Howards End, I've never even heard of these films and I'm a big movie nut. No one talks about these films ever, so 1992 must have been just an awful, awful year for women because Oscar makes it seem that way. I'll have to read this year in my Inside Oscar book to see what else was even in the running. It's really hard to even come up with a winner because I'm so ambivalent about them all. I mean, I guess just stay with the status quo and go with Thompson but it doesn't feel fully earned here. I wish she would have wowed. Then comes Sarandon because she plays a pretty strong female character and is good but I wouldn't want that film to be what she won for, you know what I mean? Deneuve really kinda surprised me because I thought she was solid, just let down by the film. She might even be a number 2 after this all grows on me. But still, not worth a win exactly. Then comes Pfeiffer trying hard to rise above the looks but not fully succeeding for this film, which is kind of a mess anyway. McDonnell is dead last because I'd have taken Alfre Woodard over her and probably given her the win instead of these others. That would have been a great Oscar moment! Instead we are left with this ho-hum group.
Oscar Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
My Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
Susan Sarandon
Catherine Deneuve
Michelle Pfeiffer
Mary McDonnell
Supporting Actor 1992
I had this thought at work the other day about what it must be like to be an actor, director, writer, whatever and have these uneducated (film wise) goobers like me writing about someone's hard work that became an Oscar nominated film. I've railed against some performances and films because they are pretty bad to me but imagine being the guy who wrote one of those films reading some idiot trash your film. Kind of weird to think about right? I don't pretend that my opinion matters any more than anyone elses - it's just my own opinion. Just interesting to think about! Does what I'm writing really matter? No, but it is pretty fun. This category offers some heavy hitters facing off and two unknowns that I'm very interested to check out.
1992 Best Supporting Actor
Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Yep, I'm totally okay with this as the winner. Hackman is indeed superb in this role and all the superlatives you've heard about it are correct. The main reason I like Hackman as the lawman Little Bill Daggett is because the performance is so understated. It would be extremely easy to play up the violent parts in a crazy or loud way. To do so would be to make those moments come across as abnormal or for show. Hackman delivers a performance that makes those moments of cruel brutality seem inherit to the character and not something that is out of place for him to do. Hackman is a great lawman because he is a violent man that stops at nothing to ensure peace in whatever place he calls home and patrols. It's great to watch because these moments are that much different from when he's being a nice guy talking about building his porch or just doing his lawful duties. This man would have been celebrated in earlier Westerns as the hero, just an every man keeping the thieves and scoundrels and killers out of his town. The brutal nature of it is merely a byproduct and we would be sad if he was killed. But in Unforgiven, all of that is turned on its head and shown for what it all really is: violence is violence no matter who it is done to. This is a very realistic Western instead of the idealistic stuff we are used to and I think it makes the characters such as Little Bill more complex which is always a good thing. He's the good guy but he's also not the good guy. You can't just blindly except he's good because he has a badge and seems like a decent guy at times. I like that this performance makes you question all of the preconceived notions of good and bad. Plus, there's no doubt that watching Gene Hackman do his thing is entertaining and the idea of him not having an Oscar is kind of ridiculous. I'm just glad he won his for a legit great performance and not because he was due.
Jaye Davidson - The Crying Game
I'll say right now that if you haven't watched the film, then maybe go watch it before reading anything about the film because a big part of it will be spoiled right away. Not that you probably couldn't figure out what the twist is, but at least you can go into it pure and not focused on when it will happen. Anyway, The Crying Game is a film that I didn't much care for, though I can see the importance of it and this nomination in the larger scheme of things. Even today, something like this would be a huge issue so seeing them nominate something like this in 1992 is really intriguing. Davidson plays Dil, a transgender woman who seems to attract drama and falls for Stephen Rea's character. Rea doesn't know and that's the big twist that's revealed two thirds of the way through when Davidson gets naked and we see his/her semi-erect penis. That obviously takes a lot of courage for Davidson to go through with and I feel like that coupled with the transgender thing is a big reason why Davidson was nominated. Not to take anything away from the performance but it's basically the main reason. Davidson's performance is only okay to me. It's sort of dramatic and sassy for most of the performance until the very end when Davidson is able to explode with all the rage that must be bottled up inside the Dil character. I didn't really like the film and Davidson didn't exactly put me over the edge into liking it. I can say Davidson accomplishes what is necessary of his character. I just don't feel all that wowed by the performance outside of the one big moment. It fits the film and that's about it. At least the Academy was enlightened enough to nominate it and that's pretty special. The Academy could certainly do worse and I don't mind it being nominated.
Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
Here's something you might not have known about Jack Nicholson: he's a pretty good actor. So good that him being in a supporting role is almost unfair to everyone else. Of course he's going to get nominated for playing a memorable villain type role with an even more remembered court room scene. Mention A Few Good Men to anyone and you'll probably get a bad impression of Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" and that's the lasting impression of the film - and performance. Nicholson plays a Marine commander in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where two young Marines killed another guy during a hazing incident. From the initial scene where we first meet Nicholson, we get the sense that he's kind of a bad guy and not just a hardcore Marine. Despite the overt villainy, Nicholson does a fine job with the material. He even tones down the usual Nicholson mannerisms and tics that would be completely out of place for a high ranking Marine officer. Probably what helped Nicholson get nominated is the court room scene where he and Tom Cruise battle it out, mano a mano. It's very entertaining with Nicholson at first getting the better of Cruise and acting all smug and untouchable. But then Cruise catches Nicholson in a lie and the change when Nicholson realizes he has been caught is pretty solid acting. He becomes defensive and arrogant so quickly that it's pathetic to watch, which means Nicholson is very effective in the scene. There can be times in the performance where Nicholson is too on the nose with his sort of evil Marine commander, but it doesn't damage the performance really. And really, the film lends itself to having a character like Colonel Jessup be so overbearing and a bad guy and needs the character to succeed as a story. If he was a pushover, we wouldn't care about the story and the court room scenes wouldn't be so memorable. So this is a decent enough Nicholson performance and has some indelible moments but it's certainly not top shelf, vintage Nicholson (though I'm sure others would argue that it is).
Al Pacino - Glengarry Glen Ross
Holy shit, this movie is awesome! Seriously, this is a new favorite that I'm going to watch again really soon, it's that good. It appeals to what I often like in a film: great acting performances and characters, a minimalist style, snappy dialogue that doesn't feel overly written, and I love the whole rainy background of the beginning of the film. There's a lot more to it that I like but that's the basics. Anyway, great film that everyone should watch. Now, here we have Pacino nominated for his second performance of the year after his Best Actor winning turn in Scent of a Woman. I don't understand when the Academy deems it necessary to do shit like this. They obviously really wanted to get Pacino an Oscar, that was quite obvious. But I feel like the double nomination takes away from another actor getting the credit he deserves instead. Pacino is fantastic in the role of Ricky Roma, a cleverly devious salesman full of bravado and balls, there's no doubt about this. His intro where he lays the groundwork for selling property to a lonely, dejected guy at the bar is masterful. You fully believe he's a great salesman with a unique style. He's a showman and we see glimpses of the loud, frantic, later years Pacino begging to come out. When he gets real angry you think that he might burst into full on Scarface mode but he pulls it back in. You might think this makes the performance redundant of his past work but it absolutely works for the character of Roma. Pacino is deft enough to not let the character get out of control and that restraint makes the performance. He comes off like an asshole salesman who will do anything to make a sale which makes him seem like an amoral scumbag but he shows a bit of humanity and reverence when talking with Jack Lemmon's character, a sort of mentor for him. I think that shows that outside of the world of sales and leads he probably is a somewhat decent guy and really shows the depth of the character. Also of note is how he can shred apart someone with his insults and make them feel so tiny that it's kind of awesome to watch in a twisted way. Now, Pacino is great but I feel like Jack Lemmon - or even Alec Baldwin in his one scene - could have been a good choice here instead of Pacino. If you're going to call it an ensemble film and give a Supporting nom to Pacino, they could have done the same for Lemmon, though some might argue he's Lead. Either way, he should have been nominated because his performance blew me away. I did not expect that from Lemmon and it may be one of the best performances I've ever seen, no joke. That's why I think a double nomination is so silly. Just reward someone once because no one is ever, EVER, going to win two acting awards in the same year. Pacino could have shared the wealth here and still won an Oscar.
David Paymer - Mr. Saturday Night
Even if you don't know the name, you know the face. Paymer is a character actor that you've seen countless times but never knew his name. I like that he's getting his due here, because character actors make the world go round. Paymer plays Stan, the older brother to Billy Crystal's Buddy Young, a once famous comedian. The film, which was supposed to be a star vehicle for Crystal that he wrote, directed and produced by himself is unfortunately a bit on the overly sentimental side. I'd say Crystal has no sense of subtlety or nuance, instead hitting us over the head with moments intended to elicit an emotional response whether earned or not. Immediately we see Paymer's character as this sad sack manager for Buddy who has forgone his own life to further his brother's and we know this because of flashbacks and treacly moments where we are supposed to feel sad and empathetic. Why, I don't know, because we only just met him. Paymer does his best with what he has to work with but the material lets him down and he's unable to really overcome it and bring something to the performance to really stand out. It's also a little repetitive. Paymer longs to be his own man but settles for being his brother's keeper and we see this pointed out time after time. He loses his act with his brother, loses the girl he likes, is unable to break away from Buddy to go off on his own journey. The beats of the performance become familiar and we stop caring for Stan because we aren't seeing anything all that different from the character. At the end, the two have a yelling match and then a tearful reunion and all you feel as the viewer is manipulated. Stan never changed and Paymer never developed the character because he wasn't allowed to. Paymer is good but the character isn't, so the performance suffers. The nomination is the reward here.
Hackman is your easy winner. I'm sure some people like Nicholson a lot, but the dude already had 3 Oscars, would you really give him a 4th for that performance? Nah. Pacino would warrant some actual votes if he wasn't already the Best Actor winner which was why he was nominated twice - to get him a win finally. I'd prefer this performance to his other one but then Hackman would be out and that's not a good compromise. Nicholson is becoming, or already is, his same performance self but with minor twists so third is good enough. Then Paymer is 4th since really the nomination is his reward and he doesn't really stand out in this group. Davidson is my 5th simply because the performance is based around the big reveal which is almost all it has going for it. Outside of that, it's not that great of a performance. The winner really makes the category stronger because after him it's not as great as previous iterations have been. I'm a little disappointed that it's so bland but I know it will return to form sooner than later.
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Al Pacino
Jack Nicholson
David Paymer
Jaye Davidson
1992 Best Supporting Actor
Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Yep, I'm totally okay with this as the winner. Hackman is indeed superb in this role and all the superlatives you've heard about it are correct. The main reason I like Hackman as the lawman Little Bill Daggett is because the performance is so understated. It would be extremely easy to play up the violent parts in a crazy or loud way. To do so would be to make those moments come across as abnormal or for show. Hackman delivers a performance that makes those moments of cruel brutality seem inherit to the character and not something that is out of place for him to do. Hackman is a great lawman because he is a violent man that stops at nothing to ensure peace in whatever place he calls home and patrols. It's great to watch because these moments are that much different from when he's being a nice guy talking about building his porch or just doing his lawful duties. This man would have been celebrated in earlier Westerns as the hero, just an every man keeping the thieves and scoundrels and killers out of his town. The brutal nature of it is merely a byproduct and we would be sad if he was killed. But in Unforgiven, all of that is turned on its head and shown for what it all really is: violence is violence no matter who it is done to. This is a very realistic Western instead of the idealistic stuff we are used to and I think it makes the characters such as Little Bill more complex which is always a good thing. He's the good guy but he's also not the good guy. You can't just blindly except he's good because he has a badge and seems like a decent guy at times. I like that this performance makes you question all of the preconceived notions of good and bad. Plus, there's no doubt that watching Gene Hackman do his thing is entertaining and the idea of him not having an Oscar is kind of ridiculous. I'm just glad he won his for a legit great performance and not because he was due.
Jaye Davidson - The Crying Game
I'll say right now that if you haven't watched the film, then maybe go watch it before reading anything about the film because a big part of it will be spoiled right away. Not that you probably couldn't figure out what the twist is, but at least you can go into it pure and not focused on when it will happen. Anyway, The Crying Game is a film that I didn't much care for, though I can see the importance of it and this nomination in the larger scheme of things. Even today, something like this would be a huge issue so seeing them nominate something like this in 1992 is really intriguing. Davidson plays Dil, a transgender woman who seems to attract drama and falls for Stephen Rea's character. Rea doesn't know and that's the big twist that's revealed two thirds of the way through when Davidson gets naked and we see his/her semi-erect penis. That obviously takes a lot of courage for Davidson to go through with and I feel like that coupled with the transgender thing is a big reason why Davidson was nominated. Not to take anything away from the performance but it's basically the main reason. Davidson's performance is only okay to me. It's sort of dramatic and sassy for most of the performance until the very end when Davidson is able to explode with all the rage that must be bottled up inside the Dil character. I didn't really like the film and Davidson didn't exactly put me over the edge into liking it. I can say Davidson accomplishes what is necessary of his character. I just don't feel all that wowed by the performance outside of the one big moment. It fits the film and that's about it. At least the Academy was enlightened enough to nominate it and that's pretty special. The Academy could certainly do worse and I don't mind it being nominated.
Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
Here's something you might not have known about Jack Nicholson: he's a pretty good actor. So good that him being in a supporting role is almost unfair to everyone else. Of course he's going to get nominated for playing a memorable villain type role with an even more remembered court room scene. Mention A Few Good Men to anyone and you'll probably get a bad impression of Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" and that's the lasting impression of the film - and performance. Nicholson plays a Marine commander in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where two young Marines killed another guy during a hazing incident. From the initial scene where we first meet Nicholson, we get the sense that he's kind of a bad guy and not just a hardcore Marine. Despite the overt villainy, Nicholson does a fine job with the material. He even tones down the usual Nicholson mannerisms and tics that would be completely out of place for a high ranking Marine officer. Probably what helped Nicholson get nominated is the court room scene where he and Tom Cruise battle it out, mano a mano. It's very entertaining with Nicholson at first getting the better of Cruise and acting all smug and untouchable. But then Cruise catches Nicholson in a lie and the change when Nicholson realizes he has been caught is pretty solid acting. He becomes defensive and arrogant so quickly that it's pathetic to watch, which means Nicholson is very effective in the scene. There can be times in the performance where Nicholson is too on the nose with his sort of evil Marine commander, but it doesn't damage the performance really. And really, the film lends itself to having a character like Colonel Jessup be so overbearing and a bad guy and needs the character to succeed as a story. If he was a pushover, we wouldn't care about the story and the court room scenes wouldn't be so memorable. So this is a decent enough Nicholson performance and has some indelible moments but it's certainly not top shelf, vintage Nicholson (though I'm sure others would argue that it is).
Al Pacino - Glengarry Glen Ross
Holy shit, this movie is awesome! Seriously, this is a new favorite that I'm going to watch again really soon, it's that good. It appeals to what I often like in a film: great acting performances and characters, a minimalist style, snappy dialogue that doesn't feel overly written, and I love the whole rainy background of the beginning of the film. There's a lot more to it that I like but that's the basics. Anyway, great film that everyone should watch. Now, here we have Pacino nominated for his second performance of the year after his Best Actor winning turn in Scent of a Woman. I don't understand when the Academy deems it necessary to do shit like this. They obviously really wanted to get Pacino an Oscar, that was quite obvious. But I feel like the double nomination takes away from another actor getting the credit he deserves instead. Pacino is fantastic in the role of Ricky Roma, a cleverly devious salesman full of bravado and balls, there's no doubt about this. His intro where he lays the groundwork for selling property to a lonely, dejected guy at the bar is masterful. You fully believe he's a great salesman with a unique style. He's a showman and we see glimpses of the loud, frantic, later years Pacino begging to come out. When he gets real angry you think that he might burst into full on Scarface mode but he pulls it back in. You might think this makes the performance redundant of his past work but it absolutely works for the character of Roma. Pacino is deft enough to not let the character get out of control and that restraint makes the performance. He comes off like an asshole salesman who will do anything to make a sale which makes him seem like an amoral scumbag but he shows a bit of humanity and reverence when talking with Jack Lemmon's character, a sort of mentor for him. I think that shows that outside of the world of sales and leads he probably is a somewhat decent guy and really shows the depth of the character. Also of note is how he can shred apart someone with his insults and make them feel so tiny that it's kind of awesome to watch in a twisted way. Now, Pacino is great but I feel like Jack Lemmon - or even Alec Baldwin in his one scene - could have been a good choice here instead of Pacino. If you're going to call it an ensemble film and give a Supporting nom to Pacino, they could have done the same for Lemmon, though some might argue he's Lead. Either way, he should have been nominated because his performance blew me away. I did not expect that from Lemmon and it may be one of the best performances I've ever seen, no joke. That's why I think a double nomination is so silly. Just reward someone once because no one is ever, EVER, going to win two acting awards in the same year. Pacino could have shared the wealth here and still won an Oscar.
David Paymer - Mr. Saturday Night
Even if you don't know the name, you know the face. Paymer is a character actor that you've seen countless times but never knew his name. I like that he's getting his due here, because character actors make the world go round. Paymer plays Stan, the older brother to Billy Crystal's Buddy Young, a once famous comedian. The film, which was supposed to be a star vehicle for Crystal that he wrote, directed and produced by himself is unfortunately a bit on the overly sentimental side. I'd say Crystal has no sense of subtlety or nuance, instead hitting us over the head with moments intended to elicit an emotional response whether earned or not. Immediately we see Paymer's character as this sad sack manager for Buddy who has forgone his own life to further his brother's and we know this because of flashbacks and treacly moments where we are supposed to feel sad and empathetic. Why, I don't know, because we only just met him. Paymer does his best with what he has to work with but the material lets him down and he's unable to really overcome it and bring something to the performance to really stand out. It's also a little repetitive. Paymer longs to be his own man but settles for being his brother's keeper and we see this pointed out time after time. He loses his act with his brother, loses the girl he likes, is unable to break away from Buddy to go off on his own journey. The beats of the performance become familiar and we stop caring for Stan because we aren't seeing anything all that different from the character. At the end, the two have a yelling match and then a tearful reunion and all you feel as the viewer is manipulated. Stan never changed and Paymer never developed the character because he wasn't allowed to. Paymer is good but the character isn't, so the performance suffers. The nomination is the reward here.
Hackman is your easy winner. I'm sure some people like Nicholson a lot, but the dude already had 3 Oscars, would you really give him a 4th for that performance? Nah. Pacino would warrant some actual votes if he wasn't already the Best Actor winner which was why he was nominated twice - to get him a win finally. I'd prefer this performance to his other one but then Hackman would be out and that's not a good compromise. Nicholson is becoming, or already is, his same performance self but with minor twists so third is good enough. Then Paymer is 4th since really the nomination is his reward and he doesn't really stand out in this group. Davidson is my 5th simply because the performance is based around the big reveal which is almost all it has going for it. Outside of that, it's not that great of a performance. The winner really makes the category stronger because after him it's not as great as previous iterations have been. I'm a little disappointed that it's so bland but I know it will return to form sooner than later.
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Al Pacino
Jack Nicholson
David Paymer
Jaye Davidson
Monday, July 25, 2016
Supporting Actress 1992
Not super excited about watching this group based on its history of under performing but I'm at least getting closer to the 80s. Let's see if this holds any hidden gems for me.
1992 Best Supporting Actress
Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Everyone always points to this as a big surprising win, but when you actually look at this category and those nominated, it looks almost like a clear winner. Now yes, her being nominated was probably very shocking because it's not exactly a typical Oscar performance or film. It's the kind of performance that maybe gets some kudos and people enjoy the film, maybe it gets some buzz but then on nomination day some other established actress in a boring film gets the nod. So Tomei being nominated AND winning is a nice change of pace. The performance is actually really good for what it is which is a purely supporting turn. Tomei plays the kind of gangster girlfriend role although Joe Pesci is a lawyer instead of a hitman this time around. She's along for the ride as he gets called to defend some college kids in Alabama who are falsely accused of murder. Tomei is funny and delightful and a lot of fun to watch her and Pesci interact. She motivates him, she grounds him, she helps him figure out some legal loopholes and abstract ways of looking at the case, and her big moment is when she is called as an expert witness on types of cars and tires, thus sealing the case for Pesci. Sometimes something as straightforward and simple as this performance can really hit the spot after watching a lot of the other supporting situations. Alliteration! But seriously, this is a pleasant performance which I can't stress enough. It's nice to watch Tomei do her thing and know she's not gunning for an Oscar, to know she's not trying too hard. And the thing is, compared to some of the other performances in this category, this is a great performance! So it shouldn't be a surprise that Tomei actually won, it should be a surprise that the Academy actually rewarded her and didn't just give the Oscar to an old/British woman for a boring role. Tomei has great comedic timing, working class smarts, and (rough) girl next door charm - what's not to love?
Judy Davis - Husbands and Wives
This is most definitely a typical Woody Allen female character which of course gets a nomination. He's very good at writing female characters and giving the actresses something to really sink their teeth into just like this one. Davis plays a woman who separates from her husband and goes on to live the single life but jealousy and heartache and loneliness ensues causing her to get back with her husband at the end. There's a lot to be said about the dynamics of the relationships being shown in this film, really a ton to be said. Davis is part of a couple who are bored with each other and want to experience the single life again (aka doing what they want and fucking whoever else they want). They are the typical successful New York couple with fantastical jobs bored because their life is so good and they need to inject drama into it to feel alive. At least, that's how a lot of Allen's relationships come off to me since I can't relate to them at all. Davis is a fiery, tempestuous woman. She's very critical and says whatever she wants and doesn't seem to grasp that her words can be hurtful. That seems to be one of the themes of the film is guys falling all over themselves to be with beautiful woman even if it means going against what they believe in and stomping on their own convictions just because they want some ass. It's a very critical film on both men and women and Davis gets to play a strong woman. She gets jealous when her husband starts sleeping and seeing a much younger woman and then reacts in a similar way to him with another "perfect" guy. Throughout this, Davis is bullheaded and extremely selfish and she pulls it off wonderfully. I don't exactly like her character but the performance is pretty good. She's abrasive and unpredictable and that fits perfectly with the tone of the character. She doesn't exactly know what she wants but she'll fight for whatever her whims might be at that moment. Like I said, a very good performance that I'll have to think long and hard on voting for.
Joan Plowright - Enchanted April
Sigh. So this was a made for British TV thing in 1991 that saw a wide US release for some reason in 1992 and garnered all kinds of nominations and awards. It actually won some Golden Globes! I cannot wrap my head around how or why. It looks like it was shot on a budget of about $200 and it's far from Oscar worthy. Plowright plays a Mrs. Fisher, who tags along with Miranda Richardson and Josie Lawrence as like an aide. She's a curmudgeonly old lady who sticks her nose in other people's business. A typical, old time supporting role. And a not very good supporting role. There's nothing to Plowright's performance. She's an old, crotchety lady for a bit and then they all get along at the end and find themselves and yadda yadda yadda. She doesn't stand out. You would have to point her out to me so that I knew who she was in order to say, really SHE got nominated? If you were to watch this and pick out who got nominated for an Academy Award, you might say Miranda Richardson or Alfred Molina or Jim Broadbent or even the random lady there but no, it's the barely heard from old, cranky lady. Go figure. What a garbage nomination this truly is! One of the most undeserving nominations ever.
Vanessa Redgrave - Howards End
This was the main supporting nomination that I was looking forward to watching the most. That's because she's a previous Oscar winner with a couple other nominations and a heavy hitter by name alone. So I wanted to know if this would have been worthy of a win to make Tomei's win so shocking like I've heard for so long. It's clear that Redgrave is a generational actress who brings immediate gravitas to her character and performance just because of who she is. That's evident here as she uses her stature to great effect for her character. She plays a sick/dying older woman of a well off English family who is bored of her place in the world. She's the kind of woman who everyone stops talking and listens to whenever she even whispers and can change the subject of a discussion to something unrelated because she can. She speaks in breathy platitudes, as if she's on autopilot and no one can switch her off. The whole time I was watching her I felt she was like an alien visiting another world. She has this wide eyed look of fascination on her face and she wishes she could be in Emma Thompson's place instead of in her current state. She's bored of the life she is living and Redgrave makes the performance seem as if it's almost from another film altogether - and I mean that as a good thing. I enjoyed whenever Redgrave was around onscreen which was only maybe 15 minutes or so in the beginning because she was such an interesting character. I don't think she blew me away or anything, but I would have preferred more time with her character to get to know her more which is obviously the mark of a pretty good performance. Her presence lingers throughout the film and really highlights how different the beginning is from the end. Not sure this should have been the winner but Redgrave is certainly part of the discussion.
Miranda Richardson - Damage
Richardson had quite the year in 1992, turning out much loved performances in this film, Enchanted April, and The Crying Game. Easy to see why she was nominated for at least one of them since the Academy loves rewarding actors for appearing in a lot of acclaimed films in the same year. The nomination alone is her reward, though it's interesting to note that she won a Golden Globe for Best Actress for Enchanted April. My guess is the Academy wanted to reward her for her year but didn't want to vote for her in Lead so she was nominated for this film. In Damage, she plays the wife to Jeremy Irons. And that's it, should end the review there. But seriously, she doesn't factor into the film at all until a very brief scene at the very end where she wails about her son who dies accidentally and then shows her tits to Irons. It's not even a big Oscar moment. It's just like they forgot she hadn't had much screen time and decided to give her some. That's why I feel like this is absolutely a nomination for the amalgamation of her work. On it's own, this is not worthy of anything. Her The Crying Game work isn't all that good, just typical villainous stuff. Enchanted April she's the lead and she's alright but the film is so unappealing that it's tough to sit through. Oh, and did I mention she's 33 in real life here yet playing an older woman with grown up kids? It simply isn't believable and she doesn't fit the part. She was a flavor of the moment and young and the Academy loves that, so here we are with a nomination.
I'm always hoping for the best but expecting the worst. This year is actually somewhat in the middle and I'm glad for that. I started off by watching Plowright and Richardson back to back and was like oh, no here we go again with an awful category. Seriously, Plowright is boring and the movie is bad and Richardson just doesn't get anything to do in her movie. She's voted in for simply having a good year with a couple films to her credit. Then I watched Tomei and really enjoyed it and was glad that she did in fact win. It's a solid performance that is something this category needs more of in spades. Then I got to the other two actual main contenders and watched Redgrave who is really great in her brief time in the film and leaves a hole when she exits the film. But it's short and I like Tomei better overall with how they fit in their respective films. So it came down to Davis and I was surprised and not surprised at Davis. It's good and I wasn't sure I'd like it as much but Woody Allen creates a lot of interesting and neurotic woman characters so I should have expected something good. Now I was left to figure out Tomei or Davis. I prefer to watch Tomei a lot more but I was certainly drawn to the fiery Davis character even if I couldn't relate to her at all. Just interesting and compelling but Tomei is equally so. So with that in mind I think I'll just stick with the Academy on this one. It's a good one though I wouldn't mind Davis winning either. Not a bad category all things considered but I wish they'd stop nominating stuff like Plowright and Richardson.
Oscar Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
My Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Judy Davis
Vanessa Redgrave
Miranda Richardson
Joan Plowright
1992 Best Supporting Actress
Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Everyone always points to this as a big surprising win, but when you actually look at this category and those nominated, it looks almost like a clear winner. Now yes, her being nominated was probably very shocking because it's not exactly a typical Oscar performance or film. It's the kind of performance that maybe gets some kudos and people enjoy the film, maybe it gets some buzz but then on nomination day some other established actress in a boring film gets the nod. So Tomei being nominated AND winning is a nice change of pace. The performance is actually really good for what it is which is a purely supporting turn. Tomei plays the kind of gangster girlfriend role although Joe Pesci is a lawyer instead of a hitman this time around. She's along for the ride as he gets called to defend some college kids in Alabama who are falsely accused of murder. Tomei is funny and delightful and a lot of fun to watch her and Pesci interact. She motivates him, she grounds him, she helps him figure out some legal loopholes and abstract ways of looking at the case, and her big moment is when she is called as an expert witness on types of cars and tires, thus sealing the case for Pesci. Sometimes something as straightforward and simple as this performance can really hit the spot after watching a lot of the other supporting situations. Alliteration! But seriously, this is a pleasant performance which I can't stress enough. It's nice to watch Tomei do her thing and know she's not gunning for an Oscar, to know she's not trying too hard. And the thing is, compared to some of the other performances in this category, this is a great performance! So it shouldn't be a surprise that Tomei actually won, it should be a surprise that the Academy actually rewarded her and didn't just give the Oscar to an old/British woman for a boring role. Tomei has great comedic timing, working class smarts, and (rough) girl next door charm - what's not to love?
Judy Davis - Husbands and Wives
This is most definitely a typical Woody Allen female character which of course gets a nomination. He's very good at writing female characters and giving the actresses something to really sink their teeth into just like this one. Davis plays a woman who separates from her husband and goes on to live the single life but jealousy and heartache and loneliness ensues causing her to get back with her husband at the end. There's a lot to be said about the dynamics of the relationships being shown in this film, really a ton to be said. Davis is part of a couple who are bored with each other and want to experience the single life again (aka doing what they want and fucking whoever else they want). They are the typical successful New York couple with fantastical jobs bored because their life is so good and they need to inject drama into it to feel alive. At least, that's how a lot of Allen's relationships come off to me since I can't relate to them at all. Davis is a fiery, tempestuous woman. She's very critical and says whatever she wants and doesn't seem to grasp that her words can be hurtful. That seems to be one of the themes of the film is guys falling all over themselves to be with beautiful woman even if it means going against what they believe in and stomping on their own convictions just because they want some ass. It's a very critical film on both men and women and Davis gets to play a strong woman. She gets jealous when her husband starts sleeping and seeing a much younger woman and then reacts in a similar way to him with another "perfect" guy. Throughout this, Davis is bullheaded and extremely selfish and she pulls it off wonderfully. I don't exactly like her character but the performance is pretty good. She's abrasive and unpredictable and that fits perfectly with the tone of the character. She doesn't exactly know what she wants but she'll fight for whatever her whims might be at that moment. Like I said, a very good performance that I'll have to think long and hard on voting for.
Joan Plowright - Enchanted April
Sigh. So this was a made for British TV thing in 1991 that saw a wide US release for some reason in 1992 and garnered all kinds of nominations and awards. It actually won some Golden Globes! I cannot wrap my head around how or why. It looks like it was shot on a budget of about $200 and it's far from Oscar worthy. Plowright plays a Mrs. Fisher, who tags along with Miranda Richardson and Josie Lawrence as like an aide. She's a curmudgeonly old lady who sticks her nose in other people's business. A typical, old time supporting role. And a not very good supporting role. There's nothing to Plowright's performance. She's an old, crotchety lady for a bit and then they all get along at the end and find themselves and yadda yadda yadda. She doesn't stand out. You would have to point her out to me so that I knew who she was in order to say, really SHE got nominated? If you were to watch this and pick out who got nominated for an Academy Award, you might say Miranda Richardson or Alfred Molina or Jim Broadbent or even the random lady there but no, it's the barely heard from old, cranky lady. Go figure. What a garbage nomination this truly is! One of the most undeserving nominations ever.
Vanessa Redgrave - Howards End
This was the main supporting nomination that I was looking forward to watching the most. That's because she's a previous Oscar winner with a couple other nominations and a heavy hitter by name alone. So I wanted to know if this would have been worthy of a win to make Tomei's win so shocking like I've heard for so long. It's clear that Redgrave is a generational actress who brings immediate gravitas to her character and performance just because of who she is. That's evident here as she uses her stature to great effect for her character. She plays a sick/dying older woman of a well off English family who is bored of her place in the world. She's the kind of woman who everyone stops talking and listens to whenever she even whispers and can change the subject of a discussion to something unrelated because she can. She speaks in breathy platitudes, as if she's on autopilot and no one can switch her off. The whole time I was watching her I felt she was like an alien visiting another world. She has this wide eyed look of fascination on her face and she wishes she could be in Emma Thompson's place instead of in her current state. She's bored of the life she is living and Redgrave makes the performance seem as if it's almost from another film altogether - and I mean that as a good thing. I enjoyed whenever Redgrave was around onscreen which was only maybe 15 minutes or so in the beginning because she was such an interesting character. I don't think she blew me away or anything, but I would have preferred more time with her character to get to know her more which is obviously the mark of a pretty good performance. Her presence lingers throughout the film and really highlights how different the beginning is from the end. Not sure this should have been the winner but Redgrave is certainly part of the discussion.
Miranda Richardson - Damage
Richardson had quite the year in 1992, turning out much loved performances in this film, Enchanted April, and The Crying Game. Easy to see why she was nominated for at least one of them since the Academy loves rewarding actors for appearing in a lot of acclaimed films in the same year. The nomination alone is her reward, though it's interesting to note that she won a Golden Globe for Best Actress for Enchanted April. My guess is the Academy wanted to reward her for her year but didn't want to vote for her in Lead so she was nominated for this film. In Damage, she plays the wife to Jeremy Irons. And that's it, should end the review there. But seriously, she doesn't factor into the film at all until a very brief scene at the very end where she wails about her son who dies accidentally and then shows her tits to Irons. It's not even a big Oscar moment. It's just like they forgot she hadn't had much screen time and decided to give her some. That's why I feel like this is absolutely a nomination for the amalgamation of her work. On it's own, this is not worthy of anything. Her The Crying Game work isn't all that good, just typical villainous stuff. Enchanted April she's the lead and she's alright but the film is so unappealing that it's tough to sit through. Oh, and did I mention she's 33 in real life here yet playing an older woman with grown up kids? It simply isn't believable and she doesn't fit the part. She was a flavor of the moment and young and the Academy loves that, so here we are with a nomination.
I'm always hoping for the best but expecting the worst. This year is actually somewhat in the middle and I'm glad for that. I started off by watching Plowright and Richardson back to back and was like oh, no here we go again with an awful category. Seriously, Plowright is boring and the movie is bad and Richardson just doesn't get anything to do in her movie. She's voted in for simply having a good year with a couple films to her credit. Then I watched Tomei and really enjoyed it and was glad that she did in fact win. It's a solid performance that is something this category needs more of in spades. Then I got to the other two actual main contenders and watched Redgrave who is really great in her brief time in the film and leaves a hole when she exits the film. But it's short and I like Tomei better overall with how they fit in their respective films. So it came down to Davis and I was surprised and not surprised at Davis. It's good and I wasn't sure I'd like it as much but Woody Allen creates a lot of interesting and neurotic woman characters so I should have expected something good. Now I was left to figure out Tomei or Davis. I prefer to watch Tomei a lot more but I was certainly drawn to the fiery Davis character even if I couldn't relate to her at all. Just interesting and compelling but Tomei is equally so. So with that in mind I think I'll just stick with the Academy on this one. It's a good one though I wouldn't mind Davis winning either. Not a bad category all things considered but I wish they'd stop nominating stuff like Plowright and Richardson.
Oscar Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
My Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Judy Davis
Vanessa Redgrave
Miranda Richardson
Joan Plowright
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)