Sometimes I get stuck on films, either in having to start watching them or to finish writing about them. That happened with this year for me which is why it took so long to finish. Plus, I think I got a little burnt out and wanted to watch some Netflix shows and do some other things after work for a change. Eager to get into 1981 and close out the 80s soon. I've seen a couple of these films but it's been awhile so I'm excited to revisit them and see the new ones.
1982 Best Picture
Gandhi
I know this film sometimes gets shit on because it's such an obvious choice that everyone just calls it Oscar bait and moves on but I want to say that I really, really enjoy this film. Well, most of this film anyway. Ben Kinglsey was perfectly cast as Gandhi because he IS Gandhi. He looks so much like the Indian leader that it's scary. The Indian people thought they were seeing a ghost it was so uncanny. His performance isn't just pure looks, either. Kingsley becomes Gandhi and delivers a great acting job on top of the looks which is needed for the film to actually work. Kingsley grows into the role and is why the beginning of the film works so well for me. He's this idealistic young man who has become fed up with being racially segregated and persecuted. And this is all being done in South Africa which we forget is where he spent a lot of time. The idea then grows and changes into non-violence and it's interesting to watch Kingsley become the man we typically know of as Gandhi with his white robe and bald head. I'm not naive enough to think that Gandhi was a perfect man and that this film is 100% truth. I know it glosses over or fails to mention some of his more human qualities and that's okay. I know this is a movie and not a documentary. That seems to be a common complaint for the film. My complaint, however, is that the film essentially falls off a cliff near the end. Once Gandhi has grown old, it becomes more about the political maneuvering of the Hindus and Muslims and it just loses steam and my interest. If the last part was tightened up, this would be an even better film no doubt. This epic is all about the great acting of Kingsley, so once that is effectively ended by having him play the hunger striking, old man Gandhi, the film just doesn't work. Besides that, there are so many great scenes of India in this, which is something I said about for A Passage to India - it's hard to make a film about India look bad. There are good arguments for other films in this group to be Best Picture, but I am okay with Gandhi being the choice by the Academy. It's definitely worth watching at least once for Kingsley's performance.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
I really like when the Academy chooses to reward films like this with a nomination because not every Best Picture film needs to be super serious or a strictly adult film. You can go down the years and find other examples like Babe, Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws that all make you feel good about watching movies. E.T. is no exception to that fact. Other facts you may not know is that E.T. was the highest grossing film of the 80s and was the highest grossing film ever at one point. Also of note is that E.T. was actually considered a favorite to win Best Picture this year until fatigue over E.T. mania set in. The marketing was everywhere and places were selling anything and everything E.T. related that people just got sick of seeing it. Whether it actually could have won Best Picture remains to be seen but it was Spielberg and was a huge moneymaker and I feel like the Academy would have loved to have a box office smash win. You should probably know what this film is about already but if not it's about an alien who comes to Earth, gets left behind, befriends a kid, and tries to make his way home without getting caught by the big bad government. There are so many iconic moments from the Reese's Pieces, to the red finger, to E.T. phone home, to the bike ride. The practical effects help make these scenes so memorable along with the childhood sense of wonderment. I mean, E.T. is such a gentle creature that adults just don't understand and therein lies part of the message. The film is so heartfelt and warm and good for the whole family that it really does deserve to be here. This film is awesome and I can't wait to show it to my future non children or more likely my cool nephews. This is an easy watch.
Missing
I was very interested in watching this film because it stars Jack Lemmon, who I love, and Sissy Spacek in a politically charged thriller of sorts. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly tepid political thriller. Missing is a film about Lemmon going down to Chile to help find his son after he disappears following the coup in that nation. Spacek is the missing man's wife and she helps Lemmon navigate the area and the government red tape. It sounds like it could be really intriguing but Spacek might as well have phoned it in because she seems to go through the motions. She's not bad just doesn't stand out. Lemmon is good but the film doesn't give him much else to do but look worried and go around and talk to people about if they know anything about his son. There's not even much conflict because it never shows the violence that's going on except is sanitized moments. Even when Lemmon gets stonewalled he just waltzes into the American consul to redress the Ambassador or whatever government lackey and proclaim he wants answers because he's an American. The film is directed by Costa-Gavras who I know directed Z, which was highly regarded and well received (nominated for Best Picture), and Music Box, a Jessica Lange film that I thought was boring. This film leans closer to the Lange film than his Best Picture nominee. Maybe in 1982 this film had more importance surrounding its subject matter but nowadays, the Chile coup thing is not even in the minds of the American public. Not that that means you should completely disregard this film, just that it might explain why the Academy seemed to latch onto it then and nominate it for Best Picture. I was hoping for something more along the lines of Oliver Stone's Salvador, which had way more tension and held my interest more. I feel like this film could have been so much more compelling and better served its characters instead of hanging them out to dry. This just seems like the Academy voting for one of its political causes. I just wish they'd make sure the film is good enough to vote for!
Tootsie
I am writing this a couple weeks after watching the film because life gets in the way of things too often. But, time doesn't diminish that this is a very enjoyable film and if you go into it without expectations or even just expecting a drag film, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised that it's much deeper than the premise would indicate. This is more than just Dustin Hoffman dressing up like a woman. It actually takes a look into what it's like to step into someone else's shoes and does it in a very funny way. Sometimes that's an issue with older comedies is that the actual comedy is rather tepid when viewed 30 plus years later but the comedy in Tootsie still made me laugh. A large part of that is Hoffman comedic timing in the role and also the supporting players in the film. I didn't even remember that Bill Murray plays Hoffman's buddy in this and Sydney Pollack is great as Hoffman's agent. The women are good and you can include Hoffman as Dorothy in that statement. What could be a shrill, disastrous take on being a woman ends up being a warm, caring, and strong woman. In the same year that there were three big films nominated for Oscars that dealt with cross dressing or trans sort of issues (The World According to Garp and Victor/Victoria), this is the film that represents them all in the Best Picture race. It's also interesting in that it made something like cross dressing, even if played up for laughs, into a palatable thing for a broad audience. Not many negative things to say about it besides Hoffman's male role is not that pleasant but it makes his female role stronger. It's not a perfect film, but Tootsie is just a really enjoyable and funny film that stands up strong 30 years later. I feel like you could call this one a classic and not be wrong. I'll have to see how it stands up to the other films of this year for the win.
The Verdict
This is one of those films that completely holds your interest. Other Best Picture films can find your mind wandering and thinking how much longer while watching, but this one sucked me in from the start. I admit that I love Paul Newman so it had that going for it but as the story unraveled, I was hooked as to what was going to happen. This is a courtroom drama that also focuses on the lead up. This film is renowned for the courtroom aspect and is usually tops in courtroom drama lists. It has a reputation that precedes it if you are looking into it and I'd say it matches it. Newman is basically an ambulance chaser who was once a top attorney but now is a drunk opportunist who takes a case because he thinks he can get the Catholic archdiocese to settle and avoid trial. Newman looks into the case and is offended at the settlement offer and feels like he can win the case at trial. Then it's about him dealing with issues that pop up like a missing witness, finding new evidence, and believing in himself after moments of self doubt. Newman is the big draw as he's as good as ever in his performance. The writing and directing are pretty great from legends David Mamet and Sidney Lumet, respectively. Just look up their body of work and realize that all three of those legends coming together was a perfect storm for Oscar glory. It's a super well done film that just sucks you in completely and doesn't let go until the end. It's one of those powerful down and out person takes on a tough assignment versus a big entity in hopes that redemption for their past might come about type of films. It's solid all the way through with some pretty good supporting performances, too. This is a film you watch and say yeah, this is Oscar worthy and possibly good enough to win. I feel it's a film that you could put on and end up watching the whole thing or see it's on TCM and stop whatever you were doing and watch it. At risk of sounding like a broken record - it's solid and you'll most likely enjoy it and understand why it's so beloved. Just gotta see if it'll be a winner with me.
This is actually a pretty good group! Honestly, Missing is the only misstep by the Academy here. That film just fails to grab me and lacks tension to make a political thriller thrilling. Lemmon is good but can't save it. The next three are really interchangeable. Tootsie is a classic and a very funny film with some great acting. The Verdict is a really great trial film with some great acting, also. Both are easy to rewatch and I don't think I'd get sick of them. Both are worthy of being on this list. E.T. is a great family film and tugs on my nostalgia bone. It, too, is a film that is fun to watch over and over. All three of these have valid arguments to being Best Picture and I honestly would not be upset one way or another if any of them were. I'm going with Gandhi just because of Kingsley and because it feels like an 80s prestige picture, ya know? So I'm fine with that choice. But the fact that 4 of the 5 films could easily be Best Picture means this is a pretty damn good BP group. I do know that I'm just glad to be done with this year. I don't want to take as long with 81! Hopefully it is as good as 82.
Oscar Winner: Gandhi
My Winner: Gandhi
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
The Verdict
Tootsie
Missing
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Leading Actor 1982
Wow. Look at the names on this list. Each one is a powerhouse actor and all have multiple nominations and at least one win (with O' Toole getting an Honorary Oscar because the Academy foolishly never rewarded him for acting). By name alone this is a heavy hitting group so I fully expect every single performance to be amazing. Anything less and I'll be let down.
1982 Best Actor
Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Has there been another role that married so perfectly with its actor? Kingsley is the spitting image of Gandhi and it was said that even the Indian people thought they were seeing his ghost. It's a perfect casting choice that might disturb you to learn that there were a bunch of old white men who were considered for the part like Alec Guinness, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Peter Finch, even Dustin Hoffman! That blows my mind that a non-Indian would even be considered so I'm glad that they found Kingsley. I think what I like a lot about his performance is that Kingsley grows into it. I know that these aren't filmed in sequence but I'm impressed with how Kingsley gains confidence and calmness as the film goes on. It's the mark of a great actor that he can do that while shooting this out of sequence. I shouldn't have to really say anything besides pointing to a portrait of Kingsley as Gandhi because that's more than enough. Kingsley is Gandhi. It stretches over three hours and might not be the most exciting thing, but Kingsley is beyond phenomenal as the world icon. When Kingsley starts talking, you pay attention and every scene carries an authenticity that seems wholly earned. I think my only real issue with the performance has to do with the film/story. It labors hard in the last hour when Gandhi is old and sometimes on a hunger strike. Kingley is fine acting old and decrepit but the story doesn't give him all that much to do as the story swirls around him. But the rest of the performance is tremendous and this was an easy no-brainer for the Academy to choose as the winner and I wholeheartedly agree with their choice.
Dustin Hoffman - Tootsie
I was eager to see this performance again (watched it a long time ago) since I didn't remember too much about Hoffman's female performance. Would I enjoy it now as an adult? Would I find it sexist or demeaning? Yes and no. Hoffman is actually really strong in this performance. This role is an actor's wet dream personified because not only is it a dual role where one of the roles is a man playing a woman, but the other role is Hoffman playing a struggling actor who also teaches acting and is surrounding by beautiful women. Any actor would kill for that kind of role. Hoffman's male role is basically a douchebag who thinks he's more important and better than others in the profession and is difficult to work with. It's a very New York acting role that allows for Hoffman to ham it up at times and act very loudly and broadly. If we had to spend all of the film with this Michael role, we'd hate the character and probably the film by association. It's not a very likable character and Hoffman does a good job in showing how disconnected he is from being in tune with other people, especially women. All of that makes Hoffman's Dorothy almost a revelation. Just the way Hoffman moves and the Southern accent he uses helps completely transform Michael into a believable woman (if you don't worry about the looks part so much). Hoffman dove headfirst into the female role and it shows with how convincing he is and how empathetic and warm Dorothy is even though she can be very forthright and feisty, as well. The film succeeds because Hoffman succeeds as Dorothy. If it was a sexist caricature or an awful mess of a "woman" performance, Tootsie would be a failure. Instead, Hoffman is hilarious at times and has great comedic timing both verbal and physical. When Dorothy has to deal with Charles Durning hitting on her, Hoffman is a hoot and the scenes even have a bit of poignancy to them. Hoffman's dedication to being female really elevates the performance and makes it a memorable one. I also think Hoffman's Michael being so self centered and awful at times really helps Dorothy by being such a stark contrast to the goodness and joy that is Dorothy. I was surprised that I liked Hoffman in this so much probably because I was still annoyed at his Rain Man performance. But also probably because his Dorothy is so real and authentic that he makes it easy to root for her and laugh at her all the same. I'm unsure if this will be my winner but I'm glad that Hoffman gave a performance that I genuinely enjoyed even though it could have easily devolved into blatant shtick.
Jack Lemmon - Missing
Hey, my first Jack Lemmon write up! I was absolutely blown away by him in Glengarry Glen Ross and was eagerly anticipating actually watching one of his performances for the project (which makes it seem like I didn't know who he was and hadn't seen anything by him before - I have). This was his 8th and final nomination so I guess his last one maybe not being a powerhouse makes sense. Missing is about Lemmon who goes down to Chile after their coup to search for his son who is, get this, missing. The film itself is kind of conventional even though it's a political film. Lemmon goes down and searches for his son with his daughter-in-law and gets stonewalled at every turn before finally getting the info that his son is dead. But at least Lemmon does his best to make the film worth something by giving a very sincere and polished performance. I know polished can be a bad thing but I use it here to mean that Lemmon knows what is necessary for his character and efficiently gets the emotions of frustration, concern, anger, sadness across for the viewer. It's interesting to see Lemmon go from the man who believes his government can help and doesn't believe a thing about coverups and denials and the murkier political machinations going on to being the guy who has seen first hand his government and Chile's lie to his face and string him along and straight up tell him that his son deserved it because he poked his nose where it didn't belong. That gradual realization from Lemmon is great acting and why I'm excited to watch the rest of his nominations. It's too much of a plodding film yet Lemmon makes you pay attention. I love how he adds in these little, what feel like unscripted, tics and accidents and words that enhance the realism in his performance. I just really like his acting style, honestly. He tries to do his best for the film but it's a tepid political thriller. His chemistry with Sissy Spacek is lacking but they are unfamiliar father/daughter-in-law relatives and the two eventually warm up by the end. I wouldn't say this is Lemmon's strongest effort but he certainly gives it a good try. A good introduction to the man if you're going backwards through the Oscar history like a crazy person.
Paul Newman - The Verdict
There are a lot of people who felt that this was the year and the performance that Paul Newman would finally win his Oscar. But then he ran into the Gandhi buzzsaw and was a forgotten participant by the end of awards season. Obviously, Newman got a well deserved Oscar win a couple years later and it's kinda crazy that it took so long for one of the greatest actors of all time to even get a win, period. But then ask Peter O' Toole about deserving an Oscar, right? Anyway, Newman plays an alcoholic, ambulance chasing lawyer who hasn't won a case in like three years. He used to be a top lawyer before his life fell apart. He agrees to take on what he thinks is any easy settlement case of malpractice after a couple doctors give the wrong anesthetic to a woman in delivery and turn her into a vegetable. The Catholic Archdiocese who run the hospital want to settle, too, but Newman is offended by the amount and after digging into the case a bit, decides to go to trial. Newman goes through all kinds of trials and tribulations (bad pun fully intended) in the lead up to trial whether it's a missing star witness, new bombshell evidence, self doubt, and lots of other things. The story is richly compelling and a lot of that is because of Newman's performance (and Lumet's direction and Mamet's writing). Newman portrays his lawyer with a ton of self doubt on whether he can be a good enough lawyer again and win. He doesn't rely on the alcoholic thing, either, which is too easy to use as a crutch. This is a man who is tormented inside because of his past failings and is unsure if he's doing the right thing and can do a good enough job. That's where the appeal for the performances comes from for me, watching Newman wrangle with himself internally. We know he's going to give a solid performance no matter what but he doesn't just go through the court room drama motions so to speak. We have seen a million of those types of films and performances and it's something Newman could do in his sleep. Here, he actually brings a little more to the cliche role. He doesn't just stand up in trial and deliver some eloquent speech that changes everyone's mind. He doesn't just whip out some obscure law ruling that helps his client win. He doesn't know everything in a convenient manner for the plot. He actually fails in getting his bombshell evidence heard because it gets stricken from the record after the fact. One of his expert witnesses isn't very good on the stand. He faces challenges that are more interesting than him being a hotshot, perfect lawyer. And Newman makes his flawed character into a believably flawed character. That's why I like the performance and understand why people thought he'd win his Oscar for it.
Peter O' Toole - My Favorite Year
I was trying to figure out how to start this review off but all I could think was that this was a very expected performance and not in a good way. Granted, Peter (because I hate having to type O' Toole so much) is decent and charming and mostly funny, but it's a performance that is exactly what you think it would be. If you read the description of the role, it's an Errol Flynn like actor who is set to appear on a comedy variety show kinda like SNL in 1954 but is an alcoholic, womanizing, and unreliable actor. I feel like you can picture this performance in your mind before you even see it and after you do actually see it, it matches up almost note for note. I expected a proper British actor who says dry, funny things with an accent that makes them seem more charming. He fucks things up with his drinking but all is forgiven because he's a charming actor and then it throws in the more serious, dramatic aspect of whatever - in this case it's a daughter he doesn't see and being afraid of failing on live TV. The focus is on the comedy part because this is a Mel Brooks produced film that's based loosely on something from his early career/life. So O' Toole (okay I'll stick with that because writing just Peter seems weird) does a fine enough job with the character and role and material but it's just nothing that seems ground breaking or revelatory or out of his comfort zone. This is what you think of when you think of O' Toole in the later years. It's not a big stretch and the film isn't all that great or interesting and is entirely forgettable. This feels more like the Academy trying to reward him because he was overdue and because he is essentially acting royalty without an Oscar and this was a good chance to fix that. O' Toole is clearly having fun with the role but sometimes that's not enough to warrant a Best Actor nomination which I hate to say about such a renowned actor.
What should have been a very impressive Best Actor group actually lives up to my expectation - how about that! When Peter O' Toole is bringing up the rear, you know it's a good year. His was the only performance I really felt let down by because it was so expected and by the numbers that I wish he'd have done something different with it. He was good but he was also obvious. You know the role you're getting before you even see it. Lemmon is next because his film is kinda boring though he does his best to make it not so. He's very earnest and compelling but he can't overcome such a blase film that should actually be super riveting. Here is where I'm unsure of how to rank Hoffman and Newman. Newman is great as a lawyer seeking redemption and really does a lot more with what could have been just a cliche role. He also makes me want to watch his film again because he's so great and because the film is so compelling and fun to watch. Hoffman has the added bonus of playing two roles, one of which is a woman. It's because he knocks that woman role out of the park that I feel he's a good runner up this year. His Dorothy is so funny and fun to watch that it makes the film so much better, too. Kingsley is the obvious winner because he IS Gandhi. Simple as that. It's the perfect role for him and he was great. A very strong group even if I didn't like a couple of the films. Hopefully 81 is even better.
Oscar Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
My Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Dustin Hoffman
Paul Newman
Jack Lemmon
Peter O' Toole
1982 Best Actor
Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Has there been another role that married so perfectly with its actor? Kingsley is the spitting image of Gandhi and it was said that even the Indian people thought they were seeing his ghost. It's a perfect casting choice that might disturb you to learn that there were a bunch of old white men who were considered for the part like Alec Guinness, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Peter Finch, even Dustin Hoffman! That blows my mind that a non-Indian would even be considered so I'm glad that they found Kingsley. I think what I like a lot about his performance is that Kingsley grows into it. I know that these aren't filmed in sequence but I'm impressed with how Kingsley gains confidence and calmness as the film goes on. It's the mark of a great actor that he can do that while shooting this out of sequence. I shouldn't have to really say anything besides pointing to a portrait of Kingsley as Gandhi because that's more than enough. Kingsley is Gandhi. It stretches over three hours and might not be the most exciting thing, but Kingsley is beyond phenomenal as the world icon. When Kingsley starts talking, you pay attention and every scene carries an authenticity that seems wholly earned. I think my only real issue with the performance has to do with the film/story. It labors hard in the last hour when Gandhi is old and sometimes on a hunger strike. Kingley is fine acting old and decrepit but the story doesn't give him all that much to do as the story swirls around him. But the rest of the performance is tremendous and this was an easy no-brainer for the Academy to choose as the winner and I wholeheartedly agree with their choice.
Dustin Hoffman - Tootsie
I was eager to see this performance again (watched it a long time ago) since I didn't remember too much about Hoffman's female performance. Would I enjoy it now as an adult? Would I find it sexist or demeaning? Yes and no. Hoffman is actually really strong in this performance. This role is an actor's wet dream personified because not only is it a dual role where one of the roles is a man playing a woman, but the other role is Hoffman playing a struggling actor who also teaches acting and is surrounding by beautiful women. Any actor would kill for that kind of role. Hoffman's male role is basically a douchebag who thinks he's more important and better than others in the profession and is difficult to work with. It's a very New York acting role that allows for Hoffman to ham it up at times and act very loudly and broadly. If we had to spend all of the film with this Michael role, we'd hate the character and probably the film by association. It's not a very likable character and Hoffman does a good job in showing how disconnected he is from being in tune with other people, especially women. All of that makes Hoffman's Dorothy almost a revelation. Just the way Hoffman moves and the Southern accent he uses helps completely transform Michael into a believable woman (if you don't worry about the looks part so much). Hoffman dove headfirst into the female role and it shows with how convincing he is and how empathetic and warm Dorothy is even though she can be very forthright and feisty, as well. The film succeeds because Hoffman succeeds as Dorothy. If it was a sexist caricature or an awful mess of a "woman" performance, Tootsie would be a failure. Instead, Hoffman is hilarious at times and has great comedic timing both verbal and physical. When Dorothy has to deal with Charles Durning hitting on her, Hoffman is a hoot and the scenes even have a bit of poignancy to them. Hoffman's dedication to being female really elevates the performance and makes it a memorable one. I also think Hoffman's Michael being so self centered and awful at times really helps Dorothy by being such a stark contrast to the goodness and joy that is Dorothy. I was surprised that I liked Hoffman in this so much probably because I was still annoyed at his Rain Man performance. But also probably because his Dorothy is so real and authentic that he makes it easy to root for her and laugh at her all the same. I'm unsure if this will be my winner but I'm glad that Hoffman gave a performance that I genuinely enjoyed even though it could have easily devolved into blatant shtick.
Jack Lemmon - Missing
Hey, my first Jack Lemmon write up! I was absolutely blown away by him in Glengarry Glen Ross and was eagerly anticipating actually watching one of his performances for the project (which makes it seem like I didn't know who he was and hadn't seen anything by him before - I have). This was his 8th and final nomination so I guess his last one maybe not being a powerhouse makes sense. Missing is about Lemmon who goes down to Chile after their coup to search for his son who is, get this, missing. The film itself is kind of conventional even though it's a political film. Lemmon goes down and searches for his son with his daughter-in-law and gets stonewalled at every turn before finally getting the info that his son is dead. But at least Lemmon does his best to make the film worth something by giving a very sincere and polished performance. I know polished can be a bad thing but I use it here to mean that Lemmon knows what is necessary for his character and efficiently gets the emotions of frustration, concern, anger, sadness across for the viewer. It's interesting to see Lemmon go from the man who believes his government can help and doesn't believe a thing about coverups and denials and the murkier political machinations going on to being the guy who has seen first hand his government and Chile's lie to his face and string him along and straight up tell him that his son deserved it because he poked his nose where it didn't belong. That gradual realization from Lemmon is great acting and why I'm excited to watch the rest of his nominations. It's too much of a plodding film yet Lemmon makes you pay attention. I love how he adds in these little, what feel like unscripted, tics and accidents and words that enhance the realism in his performance. I just really like his acting style, honestly. He tries to do his best for the film but it's a tepid political thriller. His chemistry with Sissy Spacek is lacking but they are unfamiliar father/daughter-in-law relatives and the two eventually warm up by the end. I wouldn't say this is Lemmon's strongest effort but he certainly gives it a good try. A good introduction to the man if you're going backwards through the Oscar history like a crazy person.
Paul Newman - The Verdict
There are a lot of people who felt that this was the year and the performance that Paul Newman would finally win his Oscar. But then he ran into the Gandhi buzzsaw and was a forgotten participant by the end of awards season. Obviously, Newman got a well deserved Oscar win a couple years later and it's kinda crazy that it took so long for one of the greatest actors of all time to even get a win, period. But then ask Peter O' Toole about deserving an Oscar, right? Anyway, Newman plays an alcoholic, ambulance chasing lawyer who hasn't won a case in like three years. He used to be a top lawyer before his life fell apart. He agrees to take on what he thinks is any easy settlement case of malpractice after a couple doctors give the wrong anesthetic to a woman in delivery and turn her into a vegetable. The Catholic Archdiocese who run the hospital want to settle, too, but Newman is offended by the amount and after digging into the case a bit, decides to go to trial. Newman goes through all kinds of trials and tribulations (bad pun fully intended) in the lead up to trial whether it's a missing star witness, new bombshell evidence, self doubt, and lots of other things. The story is richly compelling and a lot of that is because of Newman's performance (and Lumet's direction and Mamet's writing). Newman portrays his lawyer with a ton of self doubt on whether he can be a good enough lawyer again and win. He doesn't rely on the alcoholic thing, either, which is too easy to use as a crutch. This is a man who is tormented inside because of his past failings and is unsure if he's doing the right thing and can do a good enough job. That's where the appeal for the performances comes from for me, watching Newman wrangle with himself internally. We know he's going to give a solid performance no matter what but he doesn't just go through the court room drama motions so to speak. We have seen a million of those types of films and performances and it's something Newman could do in his sleep. Here, he actually brings a little more to the cliche role. He doesn't just stand up in trial and deliver some eloquent speech that changes everyone's mind. He doesn't just whip out some obscure law ruling that helps his client win. He doesn't know everything in a convenient manner for the plot. He actually fails in getting his bombshell evidence heard because it gets stricken from the record after the fact. One of his expert witnesses isn't very good on the stand. He faces challenges that are more interesting than him being a hotshot, perfect lawyer. And Newman makes his flawed character into a believably flawed character. That's why I like the performance and understand why people thought he'd win his Oscar for it.
Peter O' Toole - My Favorite Year
I was trying to figure out how to start this review off but all I could think was that this was a very expected performance and not in a good way. Granted, Peter (because I hate having to type O' Toole so much) is decent and charming and mostly funny, but it's a performance that is exactly what you think it would be. If you read the description of the role, it's an Errol Flynn like actor who is set to appear on a comedy variety show kinda like SNL in 1954 but is an alcoholic, womanizing, and unreliable actor. I feel like you can picture this performance in your mind before you even see it and after you do actually see it, it matches up almost note for note. I expected a proper British actor who says dry, funny things with an accent that makes them seem more charming. He fucks things up with his drinking but all is forgiven because he's a charming actor and then it throws in the more serious, dramatic aspect of whatever - in this case it's a daughter he doesn't see and being afraid of failing on live TV. The focus is on the comedy part because this is a Mel Brooks produced film that's based loosely on something from his early career/life. So O' Toole (okay I'll stick with that because writing just Peter seems weird) does a fine enough job with the character and role and material but it's just nothing that seems ground breaking or revelatory or out of his comfort zone. This is what you think of when you think of O' Toole in the later years. It's not a big stretch and the film isn't all that great or interesting and is entirely forgettable. This feels more like the Academy trying to reward him because he was overdue and because he is essentially acting royalty without an Oscar and this was a good chance to fix that. O' Toole is clearly having fun with the role but sometimes that's not enough to warrant a Best Actor nomination which I hate to say about such a renowned actor.
What should have been a very impressive Best Actor group actually lives up to my expectation - how about that! When Peter O' Toole is bringing up the rear, you know it's a good year. His was the only performance I really felt let down by because it was so expected and by the numbers that I wish he'd have done something different with it. He was good but he was also obvious. You know the role you're getting before you even see it. Lemmon is next because his film is kinda boring though he does his best to make it not so. He's very earnest and compelling but he can't overcome such a blase film that should actually be super riveting. Here is where I'm unsure of how to rank Hoffman and Newman. Newman is great as a lawyer seeking redemption and really does a lot more with what could have been just a cliche role. He also makes me want to watch his film again because he's so great and because the film is so compelling and fun to watch. Hoffman has the added bonus of playing two roles, one of which is a woman. It's because he knocks that woman role out of the park that I feel he's a good runner up this year. His Dorothy is so funny and fun to watch that it makes the film so much better, too. Kingsley is the obvious winner because he IS Gandhi. Simple as that. It's the perfect role for him and he was great. A very strong group even if I didn't like a couple of the films. Hopefully 81 is even better.
Oscar Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
My Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Dustin Hoffman
Paul Newman
Jack Lemmon
Peter O' Toole
Leading Actress 1982
There is a performance in this bunch that many consider to be one of the greatest of all time, so to say I'm eager to finally watch it is an understatement. I haven't seen any of these but these are all big names so I fully expect this to be an impressive group. I'll be let down if not!
1982 Best Actress
Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
This is one of those performances that even casual movie goers seem to know or at least be familiar with. It gets talked about as one of the greatest performances of all time, regardless of sex, and has been hyped up to me just from reading and talking to people about the Oscars. I have purposefully stayed away from even really knowing what the film was about and was surprised when I saw that Kevin Kline was in this (his film debut). Honestly, I thought the film might be about abortion or something like that but I was definitely wrong which is okay because I went into this one almost entirely cold. It was nice not knowing where the film was going. As for Streep's performance, I feel she won this based on two things: the raw emotion she displays as a mother sent to a concentration camp and her Polish accent and speaking a large portion of the film in Polish/German. By now, we all know how great Streep is with accents and foreign languages and that is on full display here. And it certainly is impressive the amount of dedication that took. It lends itself to making the character feel real and authentic and helps the film feel not so oddly done. The present day scenes show Sophie as this giggling, personable, easy to please woman who is with Kline and takes up a friendship with a Southern writer who has moved to NYC. Their dynamic can be a little odd at times with Kline being somewhat schizophrenic and the Southern writer being overly portective and in quasi love with Sophie. I say all that to juxtapose that part of the film with the flashbacks for Sophie in the concentration camp and how serious and emotional and stark they are. Streep is good in both parts but is clearly at her best in the emotional flashback scenes. She famously did the "choice" scene in one take and refused to do it again due to it being so emotionally draining and you can see that in the scene itself. I do feel that Streep earns the hype and reputation this performance has received over the years and agree that it is very strong and compelling and a work of art. I just don't think that this is a performance that I'd like to watch over and over partially due to how intense it is but mostly due to it not personally being a favorite of hers - if that makes any sense to you. This was an easy choice for the Academy given the other performances in the group and definitely should have won anyway.
Julie Andrews - Victor/Victoria
Obviously when you think of Julie Andrews, you think of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music and rightfully so. She was nominated for both and won her Oscar for the first one. Her legacy is one of accomplished and beautiful singing and dancing. That legacy is on full display in her performance here though the film is not as wholesome as her most memorable work. Andrews plays a scraggly woman who wants to be a performer but can't get hired. She meets a man (Robert Preston) who has been recently fired from his performing gig and the two hit off as friends and share similarities in their personality. They hatch a plan to have Andrews, a woman, play a man impersonating a woman for a club show. So Andrews is a woman playing a man playing a woman. I loved this film and part of the reason is just how great Andrews is in the role. She sings and dances wonderfully, yes, but she is also brilliantly funny with (as I've said in the other nominations for this film) impeccable comedic timing. The script is hilarious but the actors, especially Andrews, bring it to life in a way that knocks you over the head. Andrews almost has to take on three roles with the various stages of her character playing the female impersonator who is singing and dancing on stage, to the man who is pretending for everyone around them including James Garner's gangster type character, and to her original woman who wants to make it any way she can. The film and the character are farcical in nature but Andrews never lets the character(s) get away from her or out of control. She maintains her presence on each one and they are all enjoyable to watch as Andrews does her thing. The chemistry Andrews has with Preston is also part of what makes the film so good to me because they feed off each other like they were a longtime comedy duo and are a hoot to watch together. Mostly the reason I really like this performance from Andrews is that we all know she can sing and dance but she blows me away with her comedy which I wasn't expecting at all. Couple that with a film that really surprised me with how much I loved it and you've got a recipe for a film and performance that I would definitely recommend checking out.
Jessica Lange - Frances
Ah, Jessica Lange. This is my last go around with you and it's left me in a weird state. I think Lange is a great actress and is a fierce woman, yet I haven't really cared for most of her Oscar nominations and this one is no different. I think it's probably because her acting style makes it look like she's gunning for an Oscar every time because she brings an intensity to the roles in what are usually underwhelming films. I was so bored with Frances from the start even though I tried to get into it. But the story/film does itself no favors and lets down a very intense and melodramatic Lange. Melodramatic being the keyword on how I felt about her performance as a whole. Frances Farmer was a controversial young girl writing essays about God being dead and going to Russia before becoming an actress who didn't acquiesce to the studios and suffering mental health issues. That actually sounds like a really interesting topic for a biopic but man, is this film boring! Lange and fellow nominee Kim Stanley can't save the film even though they try to bring some fire to their performances. Lange is all over the map, in a good way mostly, as she gets to portray all these different emotions from extreme spit flying from the mouth anger, to sultry teasing, to fierce independent woman, to vulnerable young idealistic woman, to smartass heroine and on and on and on. You get the idea and understand that Lange has incredible acting range and is putting it all on show here. I can't deny that is true, but it just seems like a wasted effort for such a boring film that even Lange trying her hardest doesn't make it all that interesting. You'll read in a lot of the reviews for the film that she is fearless and breathtaking and exhilarating and I can see how people feel that way, but I still think her performance is more melodramatic than one of the greatest performances ever (according to Anthony Hopkins). I also failed to mention that a lot of the performance is Lange acting as a mental patient so there's a lot of the theatrics associated with that type of performance. Anyway, Lange does a very good job but not good enough to win, especially this year. Which is probably why the Academy went ahead and also put her in Supporting for Tootsie where she won.
Sissy Spacek - Missing
This performance is actually one of those tough ones to write about. I don't feel strongly one way or another about Spacek's performance. The film is about a guy who is married to Spacek goes missing during the coup down in Chile where they live. Jack Lemmon is the guy's father and he comes down there to help find his son and they both run into interference from both governments and other people. It's one of those performances where the person nominated doesn't really stand out or have any Oscar moments but also isn't bad at all, doing average to solid work. And that really describes Spacek in this film. We know she's a pretty great actress but she just kinda goes through the motions here no matter how well intentioned. There is no big moment for her as the film is mostly Spacek and Lemmon talking with each other about the missing son/husband and the two going out and trying to gather information looking through morgues and talking to people. The performance basically is what it is - no frills, no excitement, by the numbers political film wife role. I'd love to hear what others think of this one and if anyone feels passionately about it being a nominee because I can only see it being here because it's Sissy Spacek, no other reason. She was a recent winner and is in that window where if they are in a prestige picture or do work people can appreciate, they get nominated easily especially in Best Actress. I can't even say I really feel too sorry Spacek's character which I feel like Spacek should have done for the audience. She's sad and angry, yes, but never to the point where you feel like Spacek is connecting with the character so the performance almost feels sterile. I wish that I would have loved or hated this performance but it really is just a big 'ol meh for me, which sucks because I know Spacek can do some really good work.
Debra Winger - An Officer and a Gentleman
As I stated for Winger's review in 1983, I have become a very big Debra Winger fan because of this project. I just really like her as an actress and that holds true for her Netflix series (The Ranch), too. This was her breakout hit and I do feel like this was a star making nomination for the Academy. Now, I don't mean that in the way of some other choices by the Academy where the performance took a backseat to star quality and potential. No, Winger is clearly a strong actress here even with a very cliche and familiar role. Winger plays a woman who meets a Naval officer candidate (Richard Gere) who wants to be a pilot. They hit it off before some turmoil pops up in the relationship that complicates things and then eventually there is a Cinderella ending while a hit pop song plays underneath. It's stuff you've seen countless times but it's always about how does the woman differentiate herself from the similar roles. I think that Winger brings a confidence and independent woman type feeling to her character which is reflected in her not kowtowing to Gere and being more of a realist than maybe some other women in other films would be. While the role doesn't let Winger stretch herself all that much, she does bring her own take to it. She's not just a woman who wants to bag a military man and do whatever he wants. We do see some qualities that show up in her Terms of Endearment character and you can see that Winger could do a ton more with the role if given the chance. Unfortunately, it still is mostly a stock role. We only briefly see Winger working in a factory and she quickly gets back with Gere even though she should hold him more accountable for his behavior. Interesting thing I read was that apparently she and Gere didn't get along on set, yet Winger doesn't let that show through in the performance which is the mark of a professional. This is obviously not going to win and maybe the Academy knew that and nominated her to get her exposure. It's clear that Winger would go on to do some pretty great acting work in the coming years, too. I'm just sad that there are no more Winger nominations to watch.
On paper, this should be a stupidly strong year for Best Actress given the names and how everyone but Winger has at least one Oscar. Unfortunately, the group doesn't hit as hard as it should. I think we can all agree that Streep is the obvious winner and does a world class job with her performance whether you really want to watch it again or not. It's an all-timer. Spacek, though, doesn't really do much in her role. It's a political film but she never makes her character seem important or all that interesting. She's just kinda there and this reeks of the Academy just going to it's well of previous winners when they don't know what to nominate. Lange lands near the bottom for me because I feel like her performance is so melodramatic and done to possibly win an Oscar that it turns me off. I know a lot of people love this and feel it's so great but I don't see it because I'm not blinded by overacting. She'd get her win anyway in Supporting so she wasn't going to win here. Then we get to Winger who you can clearly see does a bit more with a stock role even though she is bound by the story and character. It's not amazing but Winger brings an authentic style to her work and I like that. Andrews surprises me with a super funny role that I wasn't expecting and made me want to watch her film again. I'd recommend watching her for some laughs. So this year was very underwhelming when I went in really expecting some great stuff. I guess I'll move on to 81 and see how that group does for me.
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
Julie Andrews
Debra Winger
Jessica Lange
Sissy Spacek
1982 Best Actress
Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
This is one of those performances that even casual movie goers seem to know or at least be familiar with. It gets talked about as one of the greatest performances of all time, regardless of sex, and has been hyped up to me just from reading and talking to people about the Oscars. I have purposefully stayed away from even really knowing what the film was about and was surprised when I saw that Kevin Kline was in this (his film debut). Honestly, I thought the film might be about abortion or something like that but I was definitely wrong which is okay because I went into this one almost entirely cold. It was nice not knowing where the film was going. As for Streep's performance, I feel she won this based on two things: the raw emotion she displays as a mother sent to a concentration camp and her Polish accent and speaking a large portion of the film in Polish/German. By now, we all know how great Streep is with accents and foreign languages and that is on full display here. And it certainly is impressive the amount of dedication that took. It lends itself to making the character feel real and authentic and helps the film feel not so oddly done. The present day scenes show Sophie as this giggling, personable, easy to please woman who is with Kline and takes up a friendship with a Southern writer who has moved to NYC. Their dynamic can be a little odd at times with Kline being somewhat schizophrenic and the Southern writer being overly portective and in quasi love with Sophie. I say all that to juxtapose that part of the film with the flashbacks for Sophie in the concentration camp and how serious and emotional and stark they are. Streep is good in both parts but is clearly at her best in the emotional flashback scenes. She famously did the "choice" scene in one take and refused to do it again due to it being so emotionally draining and you can see that in the scene itself. I do feel that Streep earns the hype and reputation this performance has received over the years and agree that it is very strong and compelling and a work of art. I just don't think that this is a performance that I'd like to watch over and over partially due to how intense it is but mostly due to it not personally being a favorite of hers - if that makes any sense to you. This was an easy choice for the Academy given the other performances in the group and definitely should have won anyway.
Julie Andrews - Victor/Victoria
Obviously when you think of Julie Andrews, you think of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music and rightfully so. She was nominated for both and won her Oscar for the first one. Her legacy is one of accomplished and beautiful singing and dancing. That legacy is on full display in her performance here though the film is not as wholesome as her most memorable work. Andrews plays a scraggly woman who wants to be a performer but can't get hired. She meets a man (Robert Preston) who has been recently fired from his performing gig and the two hit off as friends and share similarities in their personality. They hatch a plan to have Andrews, a woman, play a man impersonating a woman for a club show. So Andrews is a woman playing a man playing a woman. I loved this film and part of the reason is just how great Andrews is in the role. She sings and dances wonderfully, yes, but she is also brilliantly funny with (as I've said in the other nominations for this film) impeccable comedic timing. The script is hilarious but the actors, especially Andrews, bring it to life in a way that knocks you over the head. Andrews almost has to take on three roles with the various stages of her character playing the female impersonator who is singing and dancing on stage, to the man who is pretending for everyone around them including James Garner's gangster type character, and to her original woman who wants to make it any way she can. The film and the character are farcical in nature but Andrews never lets the character(s) get away from her or out of control. She maintains her presence on each one and they are all enjoyable to watch as Andrews does her thing. The chemistry Andrews has with Preston is also part of what makes the film so good to me because they feed off each other like they were a longtime comedy duo and are a hoot to watch together. Mostly the reason I really like this performance from Andrews is that we all know she can sing and dance but she blows me away with her comedy which I wasn't expecting at all. Couple that with a film that really surprised me with how much I loved it and you've got a recipe for a film and performance that I would definitely recommend checking out.
Jessica Lange - Frances
Ah, Jessica Lange. This is my last go around with you and it's left me in a weird state. I think Lange is a great actress and is a fierce woman, yet I haven't really cared for most of her Oscar nominations and this one is no different. I think it's probably because her acting style makes it look like she's gunning for an Oscar every time because she brings an intensity to the roles in what are usually underwhelming films. I was so bored with Frances from the start even though I tried to get into it. But the story/film does itself no favors and lets down a very intense and melodramatic Lange. Melodramatic being the keyword on how I felt about her performance as a whole. Frances Farmer was a controversial young girl writing essays about God being dead and going to Russia before becoming an actress who didn't acquiesce to the studios and suffering mental health issues. That actually sounds like a really interesting topic for a biopic but man, is this film boring! Lange and fellow nominee Kim Stanley can't save the film even though they try to bring some fire to their performances. Lange is all over the map, in a good way mostly, as she gets to portray all these different emotions from extreme spit flying from the mouth anger, to sultry teasing, to fierce independent woman, to vulnerable young idealistic woman, to smartass heroine and on and on and on. You get the idea and understand that Lange has incredible acting range and is putting it all on show here. I can't deny that is true, but it just seems like a wasted effort for such a boring film that even Lange trying her hardest doesn't make it all that interesting. You'll read in a lot of the reviews for the film that she is fearless and breathtaking and exhilarating and I can see how people feel that way, but I still think her performance is more melodramatic than one of the greatest performances ever (according to Anthony Hopkins). I also failed to mention that a lot of the performance is Lange acting as a mental patient so there's a lot of the theatrics associated with that type of performance. Anyway, Lange does a very good job but not good enough to win, especially this year. Which is probably why the Academy went ahead and also put her in Supporting for Tootsie where she won.
Sissy Spacek - Missing
This performance is actually one of those tough ones to write about. I don't feel strongly one way or another about Spacek's performance. The film is about a guy who is married to Spacek goes missing during the coup down in Chile where they live. Jack Lemmon is the guy's father and he comes down there to help find his son and they both run into interference from both governments and other people. It's one of those performances where the person nominated doesn't really stand out or have any Oscar moments but also isn't bad at all, doing average to solid work. And that really describes Spacek in this film. We know she's a pretty great actress but she just kinda goes through the motions here no matter how well intentioned. There is no big moment for her as the film is mostly Spacek and Lemmon talking with each other about the missing son/husband and the two going out and trying to gather information looking through morgues and talking to people. The performance basically is what it is - no frills, no excitement, by the numbers political film wife role. I'd love to hear what others think of this one and if anyone feels passionately about it being a nominee because I can only see it being here because it's Sissy Spacek, no other reason. She was a recent winner and is in that window where if they are in a prestige picture or do work people can appreciate, they get nominated easily especially in Best Actress. I can't even say I really feel too sorry Spacek's character which I feel like Spacek should have done for the audience. She's sad and angry, yes, but never to the point where you feel like Spacek is connecting with the character so the performance almost feels sterile. I wish that I would have loved or hated this performance but it really is just a big 'ol meh for me, which sucks because I know Spacek can do some really good work.
Debra Winger - An Officer and a Gentleman
As I stated for Winger's review in 1983, I have become a very big Debra Winger fan because of this project. I just really like her as an actress and that holds true for her Netflix series (The Ranch), too. This was her breakout hit and I do feel like this was a star making nomination for the Academy. Now, I don't mean that in the way of some other choices by the Academy where the performance took a backseat to star quality and potential. No, Winger is clearly a strong actress here even with a very cliche and familiar role. Winger plays a woman who meets a Naval officer candidate (Richard Gere) who wants to be a pilot. They hit it off before some turmoil pops up in the relationship that complicates things and then eventually there is a Cinderella ending while a hit pop song plays underneath. It's stuff you've seen countless times but it's always about how does the woman differentiate herself from the similar roles. I think that Winger brings a confidence and independent woman type feeling to her character which is reflected in her not kowtowing to Gere and being more of a realist than maybe some other women in other films would be. While the role doesn't let Winger stretch herself all that much, she does bring her own take to it. She's not just a woman who wants to bag a military man and do whatever he wants. We do see some qualities that show up in her Terms of Endearment character and you can see that Winger could do a ton more with the role if given the chance. Unfortunately, it still is mostly a stock role. We only briefly see Winger working in a factory and she quickly gets back with Gere even though she should hold him more accountable for his behavior. Interesting thing I read was that apparently she and Gere didn't get along on set, yet Winger doesn't let that show through in the performance which is the mark of a professional. This is obviously not going to win and maybe the Academy knew that and nominated her to get her exposure. It's clear that Winger would go on to do some pretty great acting work in the coming years, too. I'm just sad that there are no more Winger nominations to watch.
On paper, this should be a stupidly strong year for Best Actress given the names and how everyone but Winger has at least one Oscar. Unfortunately, the group doesn't hit as hard as it should. I think we can all agree that Streep is the obvious winner and does a world class job with her performance whether you really want to watch it again or not. It's an all-timer. Spacek, though, doesn't really do much in her role. It's a political film but she never makes her character seem important or all that interesting. She's just kinda there and this reeks of the Academy just going to it's well of previous winners when they don't know what to nominate. Lange lands near the bottom for me because I feel like her performance is so melodramatic and done to possibly win an Oscar that it turns me off. I know a lot of people love this and feel it's so great but I don't see it because I'm not blinded by overacting. She'd get her win anyway in Supporting so she wasn't going to win here. Then we get to Winger who you can clearly see does a bit more with a stock role even though she is bound by the story and character. It's not amazing but Winger brings an authentic style to her work and I like that. Andrews surprises me with a super funny role that I wasn't expecting and made me want to watch her film again. I'd recommend watching her for some laughs. So this year was very underwhelming when I went in really expecting some great stuff. I guess I'll move on to 81 and see how that group does for me.
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
Julie Andrews
Debra Winger
Jessica Lange
Sissy Spacek
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Supporting Actor 1982
Yeah, I know, another little delay in finishing these but life gets in the way. Of course, if anyone is reading this a year or two from now, they won't even know I took a couple weeks to finish this year! This is my favorite category and I'm always excited to see what it has to offer. I haven't seen any of the films so I've got a clean slate to review!
1982 Best Supporting Actor
Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
Sometimes context is important when reviewing these performances. If you watch Gossett and this film, you'll inevitably be reminded of other military films and drill instructor (or sergeant if you're Army like me) roles. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind for me because R. Lee Ermey is so iconic and memorable that you can forget he wasn't the first to do a role like that. In comes Gossett in a similar type of role, although way less profane and way more humane. Important to note that Ermey's performance was in 1987, so Gossett's performance was first and that apparently Ermey helped advise Gossett for the film. So with that in mind, it's easy to see how Gossett was nominated for a tough as nails Marine sergeant who threw out quotable lines while whipping his officer candidates into shape. I don't know if there are any performances like this one that came before Gossett but he definitely leaves a memorable mark while also showing some humanity in the process and that he's not just a heartless robot. Gossett looks and feels every bit the part which is half the performance right there. If you don't look or sound the part, your believability is toast. A drill sergeant is a pretty straightforward role, so you have to stand out at being the military guy while also going above and beyond just calling cadence and shouting insults. Gossett does this by actually wanting to see the officer candidates succeed even if this isn't explicitly shown or told to us in the film. Gossett does this in subtle ways that don't belie his tough exterior. I think that's why the performance works so well because it's not just a meathead yelling at people, there's an actual human quality to Gossett's work. There's also the fun fact that this is the first time a black man won Best Supporting Actor and was the first win for a black person since Sidney Poitier in 1963. That's crazy to think about but also lends some historical value to this win. The good thing is that the win is very much deserved and not solely because he's black. Gossett delivers a performance that is easily worth an Oscar.
Charles Durning - The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
This was the first of Durning's two straight nominations in this category (along with Lithgow) and I think it should be obvious after watching this that he was not nominated solely for this performance. Durning was also in Tootsie this year and was pretty good in that as Jessica Lange's father who becomes interested in Dustin Hoffman's woman. A well liked film but maybe not a nomination worthy performance on its own, either. Combine that with his turn here as the Texas Governor who sings a song about obfuscating the public and you can kinda see why he's nominated on having the two roles. This one doesn't look all that strong because he doesn't show up until the last 30 minutes and then only really does the one song and has another short scene and that's it. I guess it can be somewhat memorable and is definitely funny in that he sings about committing to an answer to the reporters' questions. But I think when you watch this film, if you were to pick a Supporting Actor nominee from the bunch, you'd go with Dom DeLuise who is much more memorable and funny in his role as the television watchdog. I'd honestly rather see him with the nomination because Durning is too slight. I know we see this time and again with people campaigning for nominations or the Academy using someone's work in an entire year instead of rewarding based on just one good performance. No big deal really since I did get to watch this film which was funny at times and kinda risque at others with all the working girls. Anyway, Durning isn't winning for this one.
John Lithgow - The World According to Garp
As I said for his second nomination (remember, I'm going backwards!), I felt that Lithgow was strong in his small role but ultimately overshadowed by Jack Nicholson because Lithgow's story just kinda trailed off. But it was easy to see that he was an actor to pay attention to. That's even more clear in this film as Lithgow plays a transwoman who hangs out with Garp. What I liked about the performance is that Lithgow doesn't bring attention to being transsexual at all. If you didn't know any better, you might think his character was just a tall, ugly woman. His role isn't used a cheap laugh and Lithgow gives it the sincerity it needs to become a heartfelt performance in a very strange and quirky film. It's not stereotypical at all, which I find refreshing, and Lithgow doesn't play it up in some super gay way with all the affectations. Lithgow's transwoman is a normal character and it's interesting to see this going on in 1982, although maybe it's not surprising with this year having three Oscar nominated films dealing with gender switching and identities. There are times, though, where Lithgow seems more like a peripheral character who steps into the forefront every now and then. I don't feel like there's any Oscar moments, just Lithgow delivering a good performance. It's very inclusive of the Academy and maybe that's what they were going for when they nominated Lithgow but it's still a nice little surprise. His Roberta Muldoon is kind and sweet and a positive, hopeful presence in the film - not a bad way to be nominated.
James Mason - The Verdict
James Mason is a name I did not recognize when going down the list, but having finally come to his first nomination for me I looked into his filmography and was very impressed. Without listing all those films, just know that he's been in a lot of really famous films and was doing steady good work for decades. This was his third Oscar nomination on top of some other BAFTA and Golden Globe nods. After watching the performance, I can easily see why he had a lot of awards consideration. Mason plays the defense attorney that Paul Newman is going up against and Mason represents the Catholic Archdiocese and the doctors from their private hospital in Boston. He's a high powered attorney, one that you know right away is brilliant, ruthless, and highly respected/feared. We first see him with a team of lawyers preparing the defense in a sophisticated, professional way which contrasts to Newman's mess of a process. Mason is the kind of lawyer that can quickly turn witnesses statements against themselves and influence the jury without doing too much other than asking the right questions. He's slick and powerful and has a workman's like attitude to getting the job done. Mason encapsulates all of that well with his performance. Again, the word I use for that film and Mason here is solid. It really is solid work and Mason is fun to watch glide through his performance while Newman struggles with his character's flaws and demons (in a good way, mind you). Mason's performance is the second one that you really notice and gravitate towards after Newman (though Newman's partner, Jack Warden, would also get some consideration from me because he was very good, also) and a respected veteran actor putting in good work in a really well done and liked film is a no brainer for a nomination.
Robert Preston - Victor/Victoria
Wow, I really love this character and performance! I think it's natural to dismiss or be wary of names you aren't familiar with, but I'm learning more and more to just ignore that feeling. Which I think is a must because as I keep going back, I'm going to run into whole categories of names I don't know. So I need to be more open to new names instead of assuming I won't enjoy them because Preston was frankly awesome. Preston plays a performer at a club who gets fired after causing a brawl and happens upon Julie Andrews and the two eventually hatch a plan to have her play a man playing a woman with him as the sort of manager. As I've already said for the other reviews on this film, the whole cast has impeccable comedic timing and Preston is probably the best of the bunch with his dry, snappy lines. Almost everything he says is hilarious and he actually reminds me a great deal of F. Murray Abraham with his deep voice and large head and facial features. I could easily see Abraham playing this part as well as Preston did. Preston makes the film entertaining and I feel he really carries the comedy aspect of the film while Andrews does the singing and dancing. Though Preston does have a scene at the end where he takes Andrews' place in her show that is seriously hysterical. It just seems like Preston was made for the part as he really makes it his own. I think the main knock against the performance is that it kinda feels more like a leading part but I guess the film considers James Garner the male lead (and he's pretty good in this, too). But to me, I can't really find much wrong with his performance. He's great at the slapstick physical comedy aspect and both he and Andrews have excellent chemistry together as if they were a longtime comedy duo. It also makes me excited to see his most well known film, The Music Man, which was nominated for Best Picture in 1962 as well as anything else he did - that's his impact on me from this performance.
Another tough group to try and rank because all of the performances are pretty good with a couple contenders for the win. Durning brings up the rear because he doesn't really get much to do other than sing one song in his two major scenes at the end of his film. He's good, but it's not nearly enough for me. Lithgow is also pretty great at really humanizing his transsexual character and not making it about his sex. At times, though, he is more of a background character instead of truly supporting. Mason is also very good in his role as the defense attorney who is clearly smart and accomplished as an attorney. It's a strong performance from a veteran and shows off Mason's acting skill. Now the big question for me is do I stay with the historical win by Gossett who does a great job in his role? Or go with Preston who blew me away with his comedic sensibilities? It's a tough choice and honestly I've seen people online who have had those two win plus Lithgow and Mason as winners, so it's a strong group that is diverse and has it's individual backers. I think I'd like to stay with Gossett as the winner but Preston might grow on me enough to force me to change that. That's a pretty good dilemma to have.
Oscar Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
My Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
Robert Preston
James Mason
John Lithgow
Charles Durning
1982 Best Supporting Actor
Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
Sometimes context is important when reviewing these performances. If you watch Gossett and this film, you'll inevitably be reminded of other military films and drill instructor (or sergeant if you're Army like me) roles. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind for me because R. Lee Ermey is so iconic and memorable that you can forget he wasn't the first to do a role like that. In comes Gossett in a similar type of role, although way less profane and way more humane. Important to note that Ermey's performance was in 1987, so Gossett's performance was first and that apparently Ermey helped advise Gossett for the film. So with that in mind, it's easy to see how Gossett was nominated for a tough as nails Marine sergeant who threw out quotable lines while whipping his officer candidates into shape. I don't know if there are any performances like this one that came before Gossett but he definitely leaves a memorable mark while also showing some humanity in the process and that he's not just a heartless robot. Gossett looks and feels every bit the part which is half the performance right there. If you don't look or sound the part, your believability is toast. A drill sergeant is a pretty straightforward role, so you have to stand out at being the military guy while also going above and beyond just calling cadence and shouting insults. Gossett does this by actually wanting to see the officer candidates succeed even if this isn't explicitly shown or told to us in the film. Gossett does this in subtle ways that don't belie his tough exterior. I think that's why the performance works so well because it's not just a meathead yelling at people, there's an actual human quality to Gossett's work. There's also the fun fact that this is the first time a black man won Best Supporting Actor and was the first win for a black person since Sidney Poitier in 1963. That's crazy to think about but also lends some historical value to this win. The good thing is that the win is very much deserved and not solely because he's black. Gossett delivers a performance that is easily worth an Oscar.
Charles Durning - The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
This was the first of Durning's two straight nominations in this category (along with Lithgow) and I think it should be obvious after watching this that he was not nominated solely for this performance. Durning was also in Tootsie this year and was pretty good in that as Jessica Lange's father who becomes interested in Dustin Hoffman's woman. A well liked film but maybe not a nomination worthy performance on its own, either. Combine that with his turn here as the Texas Governor who sings a song about obfuscating the public and you can kinda see why he's nominated on having the two roles. This one doesn't look all that strong because he doesn't show up until the last 30 minutes and then only really does the one song and has another short scene and that's it. I guess it can be somewhat memorable and is definitely funny in that he sings about committing to an answer to the reporters' questions. But I think when you watch this film, if you were to pick a Supporting Actor nominee from the bunch, you'd go with Dom DeLuise who is much more memorable and funny in his role as the television watchdog. I'd honestly rather see him with the nomination because Durning is too slight. I know we see this time and again with people campaigning for nominations or the Academy using someone's work in an entire year instead of rewarding based on just one good performance. No big deal really since I did get to watch this film which was funny at times and kinda risque at others with all the working girls. Anyway, Durning isn't winning for this one.
John Lithgow - The World According to Garp
As I said for his second nomination (remember, I'm going backwards!), I felt that Lithgow was strong in his small role but ultimately overshadowed by Jack Nicholson because Lithgow's story just kinda trailed off. But it was easy to see that he was an actor to pay attention to. That's even more clear in this film as Lithgow plays a transwoman who hangs out with Garp. What I liked about the performance is that Lithgow doesn't bring attention to being transsexual at all. If you didn't know any better, you might think his character was just a tall, ugly woman. His role isn't used a cheap laugh and Lithgow gives it the sincerity it needs to become a heartfelt performance in a very strange and quirky film. It's not stereotypical at all, which I find refreshing, and Lithgow doesn't play it up in some super gay way with all the affectations. Lithgow's transwoman is a normal character and it's interesting to see this going on in 1982, although maybe it's not surprising with this year having three Oscar nominated films dealing with gender switching and identities. There are times, though, where Lithgow seems more like a peripheral character who steps into the forefront every now and then. I don't feel like there's any Oscar moments, just Lithgow delivering a good performance. It's very inclusive of the Academy and maybe that's what they were going for when they nominated Lithgow but it's still a nice little surprise. His Roberta Muldoon is kind and sweet and a positive, hopeful presence in the film - not a bad way to be nominated.
James Mason - The Verdict
James Mason is a name I did not recognize when going down the list, but having finally come to his first nomination for me I looked into his filmography and was very impressed. Without listing all those films, just know that he's been in a lot of really famous films and was doing steady good work for decades. This was his third Oscar nomination on top of some other BAFTA and Golden Globe nods. After watching the performance, I can easily see why he had a lot of awards consideration. Mason plays the defense attorney that Paul Newman is going up against and Mason represents the Catholic Archdiocese and the doctors from their private hospital in Boston. He's a high powered attorney, one that you know right away is brilliant, ruthless, and highly respected/feared. We first see him with a team of lawyers preparing the defense in a sophisticated, professional way which contrasts to Newman's mess of a process. Mason is the kind of lawyer that can quickly turn witnesses statements against themselves and influence the jury without doing too much other than asking the right questions. He's slick and powerful and has a workman's like attitude to getting the job done. Mason encapsulates all of that well with his performance. Again, the word I use for that film and Mason here is solid. It really is solid work and Mason is fun to watch glide through his performance while Newman struggles with his character's flaws and demons (in a good way, mind you). Mason's performance is the second one that you really notice and gravitate towards after Newman (though Newman's partner, Jack Warden, would also get some consideration from me because he was very good, also) and a respected veteran actor putting in good work in a really well done and liked film is a no brainer for a nomination.
Robert Preston - Victor/Victoria
Wow, I really love this character and performance! I think it's natural to dismiss or be wary of names you aren't familiar with, but I'm learning more and more to just ignore that feeling. Which I think is a must because as I keep going back, I'm going to run into whole categories of names I don't know. So I need to be more open to new names instead of assuming I won't enjoy them because Preston was frankly awesome. Preston plays a performer at a club who gets fired after causing a brawl and happens upon Julie Andrews and the two eventually hatch a plan to have her play a man playing a woman with him as the sort of manager. As I've already said for the other reviews on this film, the whole cast has impeccable comedic timing and Preston is probably the best of the bunch with his dry, snappy lines. Almost everything he says is hilarious and he actually reminds me a great deal of F. Murray Abraham with his deep voice and large head and facial features. I could easily see Abraham playing this part as well as Preston did. Preston makes the film entertaining and I feel he really carries the comedy aspect of the film while Andrews does the singing and dancing. Though Preston does have a scene at the end where he takes Andrews' place in her show that is seriously hysterical. It just seems like Preston was made for the part as he really makes it his own. I think the main knock against the performance is that it kinda feels more like a leading part but I guess the film considers James Garner the male lead (and he's pretty good in this, too). But to me, I can't really find much wrong with his performance. He's great at the slapstick physical comedy aspect and both he and Andrews have excellent chemistry together as if they were a longtime comedy duo. It also makes me excited to see his most well known film, The Music Man, which was nominated for Best Picture in 1962 as well as anything else he did - that's his impact on me from this performance.
Another tough group to try and rank because all of the performances are pretty good with a couple contenders for the win. Durning brings up the rear because he doesn't really get much to do other than sing one song in his two major scenes at the end of his film. He's good, but it's not nearly enough for me. Lithgow is also pretty great at really humanizing his transsexual character and not making it about his sex. At times, though, he is more of a background character instead of truly supporting. Mason is also very good in his role as the defense attorney who is clearly smart and accomplished as an attorney. It's a strong performance from a veteran and shows off Mason's acting skill. Now the big question for me is do I stay with the historical win by Gossett who does a great job in his role? Or go with Preston who blew me away with his comedic sensibilities? It's a tough choice and honestly I've seen people online who have had those two win plus Lithgow and Mason as winners, so it's a strong group that is diverse and has it's individual backers. I think I'd like to stay with Gossett as the winner but Preston might grow on me enough to force me to change that. That's a pretty good dilemma to have.
Oscar Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
My Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
Robert Preston
James Mason
John Lithgow
Charles Durning
Supporting Actress 1982
I both like and dislike when this category has nominees from films that have multiple nominations that I get to review. On one hand, it kinda makes the year go by quicker knowing that each of these films has at least two or more reviews attached to them. Finish this category and you've finished a bunch of other reviews, too. On the other hand, it's kinda nice to ease into a year with a one off nominee from a little film, almost like a break after closing out the year after which usually means watching the last film I probably didn't want to watch or had the most nominees or something. Anyway, both are fine I guess and I'm ready to dive in. I've seen Tootsie before but I don't remember the actual ladies from it and haven't seen any of the others.
1982 Best Supporting Actress
Jessica Lange - Tootsie
Well, the obvious thing here is this is Lange's consolation prize, so to speak. She wasn't winning Best Actress from Meryl for what some consider to be one of the best performances ever. Tootsie was well received and Lange was the lead in that film so naturally the Academy put her in Supporting to reward her because, well, Academy things. But seriously, Lange is the lead actress of Tootsie so this is very obvious category fraud. And admittedly Lange is pretty good in the role. You certainly remember her as Hoffman's love interest. She is an actress on a soap opera who gravitates towards Hoffman's Dorothy Michaels as someone to confide in and treat as a much needed friend. She sorta plays the straight role while Hoffman hams it up and Garr provides some comedic relief, as well. It's just solid acting from a good actress that will be an Oscar mainstay for awhile but it isn't really supporting. That's really the main gripe for the performance. It definitely wouldn't win Best Actress so this was the only shot Lange had at the win. Coupled with her other nomination, there was no way she was going home empty handed. Lange does a good job at showing a woman wanting to break free and be her own woman and showing her emotional, internal conflicts. She also balances out Hoffman, who is good no doubt, but can also be a bit much at times. Lange brings a stabilizing force to the film and the other characters. She also grounds the film where Hoffman could possibly take into farce territory, Lange makes her character feel real and authentic to women of the time period. So yes, Lange is very good in the role and brings a lot to the performance and film which is why it's easy to see why she won for this.
Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
This is a really strange film. There's a lot of people who find it endearing and quirky and fun but I can understand someone really hating this film, too. For one, it's very sexual, often in frank terms. That can set a lot of people on edge and turn them off to the film as a whole. But two, it's just strange overall. Close plays a woman who raped an anonymous airman because he had a boner and she wanted a child. She had Garp (Robin Williams) and then raises him in a weird moral stance. Doesn't want him wrestling but will go out and buy him a hooker and interview her to make sure she's okay for her son. There's also a lot of people who really love this Close performance. I haven't really thought her last couple nominations were all that worthy because there wasn't much to them. At least I feel like this one is earned with a solid enough performance. Her Jenny is odd as hell, yes, but it's a performance that she actually has something to do. She's motherly in her own strange way and supportive to Garp. She is definitely kooky and that's where the rub lies, can you stand that kind of performance or does it annoy you? I kinda fall in the middle. It's a strange one but it has some heart like the film itself does and can annoy me at times but at others I'm glad to see Close eating up a meaty role. I completely get why it was nominated and I don't mind the nomination at all since the Academy loves to nominate a ton of unworthy performances in this category. I say watch it and judge for yourself whether it appeals to you or not.
Teri Garr - Tootsie
I was reading the Inside Oscar book about this year and they mentioned that Garr was pretty pissed off that Lange was slotted in Supporting, essentially taking away her chance to win anything by siphoning votes from her. Which is something I totally understand from her perspective. Lange is clearly Leading in Tootsie. But that's the Academy for you. Now I'm not so certain it would have mattered for Garr anyway but it's possible if the Academy really loved Tootsie enough. Garr plays Hoffman's roommate and sometimes lover and she brings some comedic relief to the film as well as some female frustration. When reading about her online, the bloggers all go nuts for this performance and claim it's so great and all that but I'm left wondering what they saw. Now, I'm not saying Garr is bad because her performance is enjoyable enough, just not to the level of effusive flowery adjectives describing it. She's truly supporting and charmingly funny in her role. She's this bundle of hyper anxiety with moments of self loathing and self doubt, just super insecure. Garr makes it work and forms it into an actual performance and not just spastic, unconnected acting choices. But still, I don't find it as amazing as the bloggers and don't see it as a winner no matter Lange's involvement in the category. It's a nice little performance that captures what Garr is like and nothing more.
Kim Stanley - Frances
When I think of Kim Stanley, I think of the sci-fi writer Kim Stanley Robinson and I can't really help it. I need to read his Mars Trilogy some day. Anyway, Stanley plays the mother of the eponymous Frances Farmer, a controversial young girl who goes on to be an actress and deal with mental health issues. That's a simplification of the story but what is not is Stanley's impact on the film. The mother is intermittently shown and it involves Stanley yelling at her daughter and being gruff and just being an obnoxious mother and person. Stanley's life never amounted to much so she groomed Frances to be her nest egg, so to speak, and is the impetus of the mental health issues Frances faces throughout her life. Stanley is domineering and she clearly relishes in the infamy of her daughter, maneuvering to send her back to the loony bin when she fears she might lose her control over Frances. The role itself is interesting in seeing how a mother can be such a sycophant with her own daughter and screw her up so bad in the head. It's just that the story kinda lets the role down and Stanley is decent enough but she can't quite overcome the melodramatic nature of the film. There's lots of screaming and yelling and softer emotional moments but it's sort of expected. I felt like Stanley could have stood out more just by playing it slightly differently. I was mostly bored with the film but at least the moments where Lange and Stanley are together have some life to them. I don't want to make it seem like I hate this performance. Stanley is good but I was left wanting for more from her because there was something deeper there. I am intrigued to watch her other Oscar nomination in 1964, though, which is a good thing.
Lesley Ann Warren - Victor/Victoria
This film really surprised me with how much I thoroughly enjoyed it. It sags a bit towards the end but overall is really entertaining and downright hilarious. Part of what makes it so funny is the amazing job that all three nominated actors do with their comedic timing. Their timing is impeccable and Warren is no exception. She plays the nasally blonde moll who is somewhat dumb but a whole lot sexy. The role is a typical one for what it is but Warren goes all in with it and zealously makes the performance work despite it being mostly one note. I can't stress enough, though, how funny, sexy, goofy Warren is and how well the performance and role fit within the film. If everyone else wasn't as talented in their roles, this would probably stick out like a sore thumb but Warren brings the funny just like her co-stars. She's also not used all that much which helps the performance since we don't get annoyed with the character and get her comedy bits drop by drop instead of in a deluge. This is where less is more, Warren is used only when needed. It is one note like I said and isn't exactly pushing any boundaries but sometimes just being good at that one note is enough. She's very funny and attacks the role with a definite vitality that comes across onscreen. This film just really struck a chord in me somewhere because I laughed a lot while watching it and Warren is part of the reason why. Others might find it shrill and annoying and I get that but I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked it. That said, I'm not sure this will be a winner but at least it'll be something I recommend.
Honestly, I was expecting a really bad group and was glad that wasn't the case. Even my bottom two are still okay to watch. Garr is good for what she is and delivers some funny moments and fits well into the film. It was just too slight to leap anyone else on the list. Stanley actually could have been 5th but I feel like there was something a bit deeper in the role that the story just wouldn't let out and Stanley didn't get the chance to show us. It's an interesting role that I would have liked to be expanded. The top 3 is where I'm not too sure of where to place everyone. Lange is a leading role forced into supporting because the Academy wanted her to win and because they also liked her turn in Frances. She's solid enough in the role and is a definite plus to her film. Close gives a sincere performance in a weird as hell film and really takes it to heart and gives us something interesting. Warren is downright hilarious but a little too slight and one note. I think Warren falls in the middle for me just because I wanted a little more of her. But I could easily bump her up tomorrow if you ask me. Lange would be my second because of category fraud (but I know that hasn't stopped me before from making someone a winner or keeping them from the win and will continue to happen as I go back) and because Close gave us something interesting and different and something worthy, for me. I'm fine with the Lange win but if Close would have won, would they both have been continuously nominated in the coming years? Would Lange have won her second Oscar? Lots of questions coming from this year based off who won. Something to think about from a surprising year.
Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Tootsie
My Winner: Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
Jessica Lange
Lesley Ann Warren
Kim Stanley
Teri Garr
1982 Best Supporting Actress
Jessica Lange - Tootsie
Well, the obvious thing here is this is Lange's consolation prize, so to speak. She wasn't winning Best Actress from Meryl for what some consider to be one of the best performances ever. Tootsie was well received and Lange was the lead in that film so naturally the Academy put her in Supporting to reward her because, well, Academy things. But seriously, Lange is the lead actress of Tootsie so this is very obvious category fraud. And admittedly Lange is pretty good in the role. You certainly remember her as Hoffman's love interest. She is an actress on a soap opera who gravitates towards Hoffman's Dorothy Michaels as someone to confide in and treat as a much needed friend. She sorta plays the straight role while Hoffman hams it up and Garr provides some comedic relief, as well. It's just solid acting from a good actress that will be an Oscar mainstay for awhile but it isn't really supporting. That's really the main gripe for the performance. It definitely wouldn't win Best Actress so this was the only shot Lange had at the win. Coupled with her other nomination, there was no way she was going home empty handed. Lange does a good job at showing a woman wanting to break free and be her own woman and showing her emotional, internal conflicts. She also balances out Hoffman, who is good no doubt, but can also be a bit much at times. Lange brings a stabilizing force to the film and the other characters. She also grounds the film where Hoffman could possibly take into farce territory, Lange makes her character feel real and authentic to women of the time period. So yes, Lange is very good in the role and brings a lot to the performance and film which is why it's easy to see why she won for this.
Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
This is a really strange film. There's a lot of people who find it endearing and quirky and fun but I can understand someone really hating this film, too. For one, it's very sexual, often in frank terms. That can set a lot of people on edge and turn them off to the film as a whole. But two, it's just strange overall. Close plays a woman who raped an anonymous airman because he had a boner and she wanted a child. She had Garp (Robin Williams) and then raises him in a weird moral stance. Doesn't want him wrestling but will go out and buy him a hooker and interview her to make sure she's okay for her son. There's also a lot of people who really love this Close performance. I haven't really thought her last couple nominations were all that worthy because there wasn't much to them. At least I feel like this one is earned with a solid enough performance. Her Jenny is odd as hell, yes, but it's a performance that she actually has something to do. She's motherly in her own strange way and supportive to Garp. She is definitely kooky and that's where the rub lies, can you stand that kind of performance or does it annoy you? I kinda fall in the middle. It's a strange one but it has some heart like the film itself does and can annoy me at times but at others I'm glad to see Close eating up a meaty role. I completely get why it was nominated and I don't mind the nomination at all since the Academy loves to nominate a ton of unworthy performances in this category. I say watch it and judge for yourself whether it appeals to you or not.
Teri Garr - Tootsie
I was reading the Inside Oscar book about this year and they mentioned that Garr was pretty pissed off that Lange was slotted in Supporting, essentially taking away her chance to win anything by siphoning votes from her. Which is something I totally understand from her perspective. Lange is clearly Leading in Tootsie. But that's the Academy for you. Now I'm not so certain it would have mattered for Garr anyway but it's possible if the Academy really loved Tootsie enough. Garr plays Hoffman's roommate and sometimes lover and she brings some comedic relief to the film as well as some female frustration. When reading about her online, the bloggers all go nuts for this performance and claim it's so great and all that but I'm left wondering what they saw. Now, I'm not saying Garr is bad because her performance is enjoyable enough, just not to the level of effusive flowery adjectives describing it. She's truly supporting and charmingly funny in her role. She's this bundle of hyper anxiety with moments of self loathing and self doubt, just super insecure. Garr makes it work and forms it into an actual performance and not just spastic, unconnected acting choices. But still, I don't find it as amazing as the bloggers and don't see it as a winner no matter Lange's involvement in the category. It's a nice little performance that captures what Garr is like and nothing more.
Kim Stanley - Frances
When I think of Kim Stanley, I think of the sci-fi writer Kim Stanley Robinson and I can't really help it. I need to read his Mars Trilogy some day. Anyway, Stanley plays the mother of the eponymous Frances Farmer, a controversial young girl who goes on to be an actress and deal with mental health issues. That's a simplification of the story but what is not is Stanley's impact on the film. The mother is intermittently shown and it involves Stanley yelling at her daughter and being gruff and just being an obnoxious mother and person. Stanley's life never amounted to much so she groomed Frances to be her nest egg, so to speak, and is the impetus of the mental health issues Frances faces throughout her life. Stanley is domineering and she clearly relishes in the infamy of her daughter, maneuvering to send her back to the loony bin when she fears she might lose her control over Frances. The role itself is interesting in seeing how a mother can be such a sycophant with her own daughter and screw her up so bad in the head. It's just that the story kinda lets the role down and Stanley is decent enough but she can't quite overcome the melodramatic nature of the film. There's lots of screaming and yelling and softer emotional moments but it's sort of expected. I felt like Stanley could have stood out more just by playing it slightly differently. I was mostly bored with the film but at least the moments where Lange and Stanley are together have some life to them. I don't want to make it seem like I hate this performance. Stanley is good but I was left wanting for more from her because there was something deeper there. I am intrigued to watch her other Oscar nomination in 1964, though, which is a good thing.
Lesley Ann Warren - Victor/Victoria
This film really surprised me with how much I thoroughly enjoyed it. It sags a bit towards the end but overall is really entertaining and downright hilarious. Part of what makes it so funny is the amazing job that all three nominated actors do with their comedic timing. Their timing is impeccable and Warren is no exception. She plays the nasally blonde moll who is somewhat dumb but a whole lot sexy. The role is a typical one for what it is but Warren goes all in with it and zealously makes the performance work despite it being mostly one note. I can't stress enough, though, how funny, sexy, goofy Warren is and how well the performance and role fit within the film. If everyone else wasn't as talented in their roles, this would probably stick out like a sore thumb but Warren brings the funny just like her co-stars. She's also not used all that much which helps the performance since we don't get annoyed with the character and get her comedy bits drop by drop instead of in a deluge. This is where less is more, Warren is used only when needed. It is one note like I said and isn't exactly pushing any boundaries but sometimes just being good at that one note is enough. She's very funny and attacks the role with a definite vitality that comes across onscreen. This film just really struck a chord in me somewhere because I laughed a lot while watching it and Warren is part of the reason why. Others might find it shrill and annoying and I get that but I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked it. That said, I'm not sure this will be a winner but at least it'll be something I recommend.
Honestly, I was expecting a really bad group and was glad that wasn't the case. Even my bottom two are still okay to watch. Garr is good for what she is and delivers some funny moments and fits well into the film. It was just too slight to leap anyone else on the list. Stanley actually could have been 5th but I feel like there was something a bit deeper in the role that the story just wouldn't let out and Stanley didn't get the chance to show us. It's an interesting role that I would have liked to be expanded. The top 3 is where I'm not too sure of where to place everyone. Lange is a leading role forced into supporting because the Academy wanted her to win and because they also liked her turn in Frances. She's solid enough in the role and is a definite plus to her film. Close gives a sincere performance in a weird as hell film and really takes it to heart and gives us something interesting. Warren is downright hilarious but a little too slight and one note. I think Warren falls in the middle for me just because I wanted a little more of her. But I could easily bump her up tomorrow if you ask me. Lange would be my second because of category fraud (but I know that hasn't stopped me before from making someone a winner or keeping them from the win and will continue to happen as I go back) and because Close gave us something interesting and different and something worthy, for me. I'm fine with the Lange win but if Close would have won, would they both have been continuously nominated in the coming years? Would Lange have won her second Oscar? Lots of questions coming from this year based off who won. Something to think about from a surprising year.
Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Tootsie
My Winner: Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
Jessica Lange
Lesley Ann Warren
Kim Stanley
Teri Garr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)