I have seen none of these, though I have seen some of Fatal Attraction and know the story, just haven't seen the whole thing. Anyway, these all seem like pretty interesting choices and I'm especially interested in the winner because it's talked about so little, even in the online Oscar crowd. Let's see how they all stack up!
1987 Best Picture
The Last Emperor
This was a film that I'd been looking forward to watching for some time now. I would consider it one of the least well known recent Best Picture winners and probably one of the least watched. It's exactly what its name is about: the last emperor of China. I think it's a really well done film that looks beautiful which shouldn't be hard given the Chinese locations and being the first Western production to actually film at the Forbidden City. But the story is what was most fascinating to me. That will vary person to person depending on what you know about Chinese history and if you care, but I didn't know anything about the subject of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. This tells his life story in an engaging way, showing him at a communist re-education prison and flashing back to moments in his life based off things going on at the prison. We see his coronation as Emperor at 3 years old and everything else that followed in his life. I was hooked simply because this was something I had very little knowledge about and was interested to know what all had happened in his tumultuous life. The beginning might not be the most exciting stuff but then Peter O' Toole comes into the picture as a tutor for the young Emperor and the story becomes more exciting as he grows older and isn't just a young kid annoying the court people. O' Toole is fine and sort of helps bridge the early years to the later ones and then we get to the adult life of the Emperor and get to see what I think is a great performance from John Lone. It would have been great if the Academy could have rewarded him with a Best Actor nomination instead of say Robin Williams but that's the Academy for you, no love for any Asian actors. This film also seems to hearken back to the films of a few decades earlier and has a timeless quality to it while still feeling modern. I thought it was a pretty fascinating film and it felt like an Oscar film. I liked how it used Asian actors to play everything which sounds dumb but you can never put it past Hollywood to add in white characters to draw an audience. At least O' Toole had a reason to be in the film and didn't overpower the story. Anyway, is the film a little too long? I'd say a tad bit, yes. It can be slightly boring at times but I feel it powers through those scenes and keeps you paying attention to what is a pretty compelling story overall. This feels like an Oscar throwback and I'm not sure anything else could have won this year except for maybe Broadcast News if the Academy went more modern. I like the choice and I'm glad it was nominated so I could have a chance to watch what is an overlooked film nowadays.
Broadcast News
There are a couple things that stood out while watching this film. First was that this film is so dense. By that I mean I watched it for a little over 30 minutes one night before going to bed and thought I had watched an hour because there was so much going on, so many different scenes. It wasn't a bad thing because I was totally engaged and interested in the story but there was a lot going on for what seems like a simple enough story. Second thing is that because it felt so dense, it was like a sitcom or TV show in that way, which really made sense to me. I could see this being a TV show easily. And because it has that feel, the characters all feel like they've been on screen for a lot longer than we have been watching. Like we were plopped down in the middle of their lives instead of having a self contained story within the film. If that makes any sense. The characters all feel natural to the story and comfortable with each other and themselves. That's why I found most of the film so entertaining. The performances are top notch and engrossing. The story is engaging and interesting about a newsroom and a new reporter/anchor comes on board and Holly Hunter likes him and William Hurt likes her back and Albert Brooks likes Hunter and they are all competitive with their work and each other. That's a terrible description but just watch it because it's a good film. The reason I said I liked most of the film is because the ending is just dumb to me. Hurt and Hunter are going away together for a vacation after the newsroom made layoffs and everyone is dispersing and then Hunter, the producer, finds a tape where Hurt added in some tears in reaction to a story he was doing. It's played up as this huge moment where she gets really angry and decides not to go with him spouting off about ethics and feeling betrayed and all that. All I could think of was who the fuck cares? I didn't see why it was such a big deal, especially because he didn't do it maliciously. He just thought that was something he could do. It was an absurd thing to ballistic over and I just didn't buy its emotional power. The scene just left me scratching my head as to why it would matter and why the film chose to end on such a stupid idea. There's a tacked on ending of the gang a few years later but it doesn't matter. So that ending really made me bump the whole the film down because until that point I was loving it. I don't think I'm being irrational either. That whole part just felt too contrived. Other than that I really enjoyed the film. It's smart and adult and highly entertaining from a human standpoint. I was worried it might feel too 80s but it was still relevant for today which lends it a timeless quality. This would have been a pretty good Best Picture winner.
Fatal Attraction
This film is kind of messed up and I love it for that. It's definitely very 80s, which I have already said I like. This made the second most money in 1987 which is insane to think about in this time of superhero films and sequels. A sexual thriller was one of the biggest films of 1987, let that sink in. In all honesty, it's a good film! I enjoyed the hell out of it. Michael Douglas is great in his role, Glenn Close is terrifying and memorable as the crazy woman who makes Douglas' life miserable, and Anne Archer is a pretty decent supporting wife. The tension in the film ratchets up increasingly once the film gets to the end and though you may not like the ending, it's very satisfying for me. I get that it can be very unsatisfying for others, though. I read that the original ending was that Close killed herself and framed Douglas for it which seems even more diabolical and would have been the ultimate power move by Close's character although a lot less cathartic for the audience. As a guy, it has me wondering what I would do in that situation. Would I try and kill her? Would I tell my wife immediately? What would I do? It makes me think about scenarios I know I'll never be in but tells me about its staying power. The leads do carry the film because you've got to feel somewhat sympathetic for Douglas and feel Close is super sexy (though I went off on how I find her unattractive in this) and the family is an innocent victim. It's also quite the companion piece to Wall Street, which Douglas was filming at the same time and is pretty insane to think about. But link the two and I feel like you get the late 80s in a nutshell. They do feel like the behind the scenes extension of each other even if Douglas is a lawyer in this one. The film is ultimately about survival and it comments on that in a unique way. It's fun to watch Douglas squirm his way through scenes where his wife might find out and see the relief and pain and apprehension when he finally tells his wife. For what seems like such a silly, simple film there's a lot to digest with this one. I really like its inclusion in Best Picture for those reasons.
Hope and Glory
Here is a film that you've never heard of, have no idea what it's about, and one that satisfies the British film slot for the category. So with it ticking all of those boxes I was a bit worried this was going to be awful. I really shouldn't think that way since the British film slot always seems to be at the very least entertaining. This film is about the homefront during World War II. It shadows one family as they deal with the war, but it's done in a very light style even when things could be played in a very dark, dramatic way. It makes the war seem like a minor inconvenience for the family and the town which I'm not sure how to feel about. There's no doubt the war was a bigger deal than the film makes it appear to this family/town. They deal with a loved one volunteering to fight, they were going to send the kids to the country but the mother has a change of heart at the last second, they deal with air raid bombings, they deal with a burned down house. There's a lot of tough things going on and the film kinda glosses over everything. When a girl in the neighborhood's house is bombed and her mother is killed, the kids treat it like a curiosity, pestering the girl asking if her mother really died and then telling other kids who don't believe her. I think it's supposed to treat the situations as if viewing them through a kid's perspective but it doesn't totally work for me. The film also gets really bogged down towards the end when the family goes to the country to stay with relatives after their house burns down. It's just not as interesting away from the city because the family itself is mostly boring. There is a crazy old grandpa who keeps it from being a total bore but the end is where the film crashes and burns. The film is just way too light for the subject which I get is the point but it needed to make up for that in other areas and it doesn't. Cinematography and music are blah, there's no known actors, the story is too light. Maybe this really appealed to the older Academy crowd because it reminds them of their past but I'm not sure it really belongs in Best Picture.
Moonstruck
As I've said in the other reviews for this film, I was totally expecting a very broad, loud, ethnic family film filled with stereotypes and maybe lots of yelling. But this is kind of a subtle, or at least gentle, film about family and love. Cher is a widow who gets engaged to Danny Aiello who goes to Sicily to care for his dying mother. He wants Cher to reach out to his brother (Nicolas Cage) to come to their wedding. Well, Cher and Cage become involved in a very hot, spicy, animalistic way as Aiello comes home because his mother rebounded. This all sounds very serious and like a glum drama but the film itself is a comedy that is decently funny at times. I won't go so far as to say hilarious or one of the best comedies of all time/last 20-30 years like a lot of reviews of the time said. I think that's where the gentle/subtle nature comes into play where it could easily ratchet things up for cheap laughs but doesn't. I do think that Cage is brilliant. His character IS hilarious and has this overdramatic way of speaking that wouldn't work if it was anyone else. His character is really into the opera and I think that's where some of the theatrics of his demeanor come from and it's fitting and very funny. The film has a little bit to say about not settling with someone but being with the person you truly love. Instead of the safe, boring mate in Aiello, Cher is with the fiery, bombastic Cage who loves her passionately instead of mundanely. Like when we see Olympia Dukakis' character almost instantly click with a guy in a restaurant and they hit it off, but she demures when walked home because she's a dutiful, loyal wife. Her husband (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her and steps out late and is basically a slimeball, yet she stays loyal and though you can see the love they've fostered over the years, it's nothing compared to the brief scene in the restaurant. At least, that's my take on the film's message. It also focuses on the moon holding influence over lovers which is a neat little idea and plot device. The acting is mostly pretty good and if you like Dean Martin music, this film is for you. All in all, it's a nice little film that I enjoyed, just not sure it's a Best Picture winner for me.
A lot of people consider this a boring year for Best Picture, but I'm not sure I really agree with that sentiment. I think people just don't really know/watch/care about The Last Emperor but I feel like it fits being an Oscar winner to a T. It's what they like, easily. I liked it, too. It just feels right being a winner. Broadcast News is really good minus the ending I had issues with, though I know others probably find the ending just fine. It's pretty great besides that and would have made a decent 80s winner. Fatal Attraction is an interesting choice for this category and I like it being included. It feels out of the box which is refreshing. Moonstruck seems like a very safe choice for the Academy but I do appreciate its inclusion. It is a sweet film and has heart and I like that, just not enough for a win. Hope and Glory is the one film I'd rather be left off this list. I just didn't really enjoy what it was about even if it is showing the homefront from a kid's perspective. Maybe I'm biased but I feel it's too slight to a tough time and it makes everyone look like they don't give a crap that a war is going on. I don't like that sentiment and the film was kinda boring anyway, so easy choice to replace it with anything else (Full Metal Jacket, Raising Arizona, The Princess Diaries, anything!). Not a bad group as some might lead you to believe, just not much drama when it came to Oscar night when The Last Emperor went 9 for 9 without any acting noms. I am super pumped for 1986, though, my birth year!
Oscar Winner: The Last Emperor
My Winner: The Last Emperor
Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Moonstruck
Hope and Glory
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Leading Actor 1987
A couple of these I've seen before, a couple I have been wanting to see, and then we've got Mastroianni who I just hope to see since the foreign noms are so tricky to find.
1987 Best Actor
Michael Douglas - Wall Street
Gordon Gekko. Greed....is good. You know the film. It's a very 80s film and I like that about it. It's supposed to show how those on Wall Street are unscrupulous people, screwing over the American public but of course it ends up making the lifestyle look appealing and cool and makes the villain look almost like a hero. That villain is Michael Douglas and he is so good in the role. He is super intense and demanding in the role. He commands your attention any time he's on screen. We first see him wheeling and dealing, making his empire grow in a slick, measured way. From the start, Douglas is believable in the role and has the air of arrogance and swagger about him (ugh, yeah I just wrote swagger). I like how he can easy manipulate Charlie Sheen into doing some spying work so that he can get a leg up on business deals which shows the subtle power he yields next to his obvious power that his wealth and possessions show off. The one minor thing about the character is that there isn't much subtlety to Gekko. He just wants more and more money and will get it any way he can, using those around him in nefarious ways. And that's how the character is throughout the film which I kinda like that he doesn't have any change of heart or moments of emotional realizations or anything like that because it wouldn't fit who Gekko is. So to that, Douglas plays the role perfectly and makes you root against Gekko while also liking him and kinda rooting for him as well. I attribute that to Douglas being so evilly charming and slick which is how he has risen to power. Now, the other thing about this performance is that it's not exactly the true lead of the film - that would be Charlie Sheen who we follow around as he ascends to power. But Douglas so thoroughly dominates the film with his presence that even when he's not on screen we feel him hovering over everything. So I'm fine with him being considered a lead and I like that a villainous character was rewarded with a Best Actor win. Throw in the fact that Douglas was working on Fatal Attraction at the same time and, well, you can see why the Academy would go for him with a twofer like that on his resume this year.
William Hurt - Broadcast News
Hurt plays the hunky sports reporter turned anchor/regular news reporter at a bigger network and finds himself liking Holly Hunter's producer character and competing with Albert Brooks' fellow reporter for air time and Hunter's attention. A good story made better by the great acting of the three mentioned. When we first meet Hurt, he's new and looked down upon for being a sportscaster who has been promoted because he looks good on TV and can read the news really well. He tries to fit in and gain knowledge from everyone and catches the eye of Hunter which makes Brooks jealous. But there's a lot more to Hurt's character than we first suspect. He's calculating, though not ruthless. He just knows how to do his job well and is looking to get ahead. He may not be scholarly or well versed in current events or history like Brooks but he can read the news as if it's the only thing that matters and that he's a smooth expert on whatever he's talking about. Hurt's Tom may have a pretty boy demeanor but he's determined to become more than just a pretty face. That's why he takes on some emotional reportings about date rape and knows it'll further his career and gain respect of the office. I like that Hurt kind of underplays everything. He's kind of a chill dude and when he and Hunter get together it seems more casual on his end and like he can easily move on if necessary. This is not stated anywhere but communicated through the subtlety of Hurt, but it's really good acting. It's certainly not flashy which suits the role just fine. It fits into everyone else, and the film as a whole, acting naturally and being comfortable in their roles. This was his third straight Best Actor nomination and this one is earned. He was definitely on top of his game and his newsman Tom is an interesting performance to watch.
Marcello Mastroianni - Dark Eyes
I had to use some hardcore Google Fu to find this and of course the subtitles were faster than the actual voices so that was fun. I know the Academy has a love affair with Mastroianni since he's been nominated like 2-3 other times before this one so I was hoping this wasn't just a token type of nomination and that he was actually great. I will say he's good and I can see the appeal of his brand of acting and I look forward to watching some of his other performances in more well known films. But I wasn't overly wowed by this one. To try and simply sum it up, Mastroianni is telling a story of his life to another man on a ship and we see he was married to a wealthy woman but didn't quite love her, they mostly tolerated each other. Then he met a Russian woman at a spa and fell in love with her instantly. He then goes to Russia to find her after she leaves to tell her he loves her. It's that kind of film, romantic with some tragic elements and some Italian comedy thrown in for good measure. So Mastroianni has to be charming and romantic in the flashback scenes and does well enough with that. He also at times is pretty funny. I laughed out loud at some of his antics and wasn't expecting to after the first bit of the film which is kinda slow and serious, but it delved into some funny physical comedy elements which I totally wasn't expecting. With that all said, this is a very Italian performance. It has the broad physical comedy like Roberto Benigni and the serious, tragic elements like Massimo Troisi. He also is pretty good at just being plain ol charming. The performance does make me want to watch more of his work because I'm certain he's got a great performance somewhere. Overall, though, this wasn't something I'd want to watch again or feel better for having seen it. This is mostly a forgettable Best Actor nomination.
Jack Nicholson - Ironweed
Nicholson is a drifter drifting through life. I wasn't sure what to expect from Ironweed really. I knew it starred Nicholson and Streep as hobos during the depression era which seems like a producers wet dream of an idea. It also seemed very much like it would be Oscar bait. The film might be and I feel like Streep definitely is but Nicholson teeters on the edge of really owning the role and letting it own him. It's not a flashy role at all. It's very quiet and understated for the most part. I think it's just the idea of Nicholson as a bum who became that way because he was an alcoholic who accidentally dropped and killed his baby boy is a bit ludicrous when you sum it up like that. Nicholson's Francis Phelan struggles with that guilt which leads him to being this depressed, cynical, hopeless man. He's been in this state for awhile, refusing to face up to his realities and burdening himself with the memory of the tragedy. He's an alcoholic but not dependent on the stuff to live. He uses it to deal with his emotions and grief and it's really not what the film or performance is about which is refreshing. He sees visions of those he has harmed or killed in his life and they haunt Francis which speaks to the amount of guilt he's truly saddled with. I do think Nicholson does a tremendous job of wrangling all that emotion in and not letting it become a cliche or overpower the performance with big, overstated moments. There's a lot of pain in the character and Nicholson reflects that in a restrained manner which is what I think I like most about it. He just kinda trudges along devoured by his own guilt. Contrast that to when he meets his wife after so many years apart and we find out she doesn't even blame him and still loves him and wishes he were home. And he looks at ease when with her even though he seems to enjoy wallowing in his misery and drifting out on his own. The relationship with Streep is minor to me. I didn't care about it one bit and wasn't really into her performance. The main focus is Francis. I like the performance and I think it will be more of a grower that I need to let sink in for a bit and mull around in my head. This is a reserved and restrained performance that is nice to see when compared to some of his later, more crazy Nicholson roles. Can't wait to see more of his earlier stuff.
Robin Williams - Good Morning, Vietnam
This was Williams' first Oscar nomination and is the last time I'll watch him for the project and I'm kinda glad to be done with him. All of his nominations are very similar. Not that I don't like his acting or anything, but all of them being so similar, it gets old real quick. We know that Williams is going to interject his performances with his brand of comedy. Sometimes it works really well like when he's a delusional knight riding around the city. Sometimes it falls flat like in Good Will Hunting or Dead Poets Society. Here, though, it works fine because Williams plays an Air Force radio DJ who is successful and liked because of his irreverent shtick. He comes in and replaces a boring program and plays stuff that he knows the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would rather here, especially knowing it might be the last thing they here instead of some old, boring song or droll message. Williams' superiors don't like that he does his own thing and want him to stick to the approved program and he clashes with them. Williams is great for the role because it uses his talents perfectly. I read that Williams improvised his radio broadcasts which is why they are so fun and crazy and feel very real. The comedy can wear thin at times when you'd rather Williams play the character straight and not default to jokes and antics. Williams does get to show off some dramatic acting at points but it's not as polished as his future dramatic performances. If I hadn't seen anything else of Williams' besides his earlier work, this probably looks like a more mature step in his career and impresses the Academy by mixing the comedy and drama and giving a decent performance. But now it looks like more of the same (which isn't bad!) and feels like a lesser nomination. But that is all based on hindsight and knowing where his career would go. Williams' stuff works well for the character and the story even if I wanted a lot more out of it. Probably not a choice I'd make for Best Actor but can't change anything now.
A good enough group, I guess. I like that the Academy went with a villain type character for the winner. I'm totally fine with Douglas' win here as Nicholson has three total Oscars and didn't really need one for Ironweed, let's be real. Hurt was on his third Best Actor nomination in three years and had won on his first one two years prior. Williams feels like the Academy was rewarding him for giving a little more dramatic performance than maybe people were used to from him. I'm not that into his inclusion for his role here but whatever I guess. John Lone for The Last Emperor would have been a nice addition. Mastroianni seems like a safety choice for the Academy and he probably could have been replaced to make for a much strong category, but again, whatever. So that would be my order if you just switch Hurt and Nicholson for two and three, respectively. This group could have been way better but the top three are certainly good. I'm just pumped to get to 1986.
Oscar Winner: Michael Douglas - Wall Street
My Winner: Michael Douglas - Wall Street
William Hurt
Jack Nicholson
Robin Williams
Marcello Mastroianni
1987 Best Actor
Michael Douglas - Wall Street
Gordon Gekko. Greed....is good. You know the film. It's a very 80s film and I like that about it. It's supposed to show how those on Wall Street are unscrupulous people, screwing over the American public but of course it ends up making the lifestyle look appealing and cool and makes the villain look almost like a hero. That villain is Michael Douglas and he is so good in the role. He is super intense and demanding in the role. He commands your attention any time he's on screen. We first see him wheeling and dealing, making his empire grow in a slick, measured way. From the start, Douglas is believable in the role and has the air of arrogance and swagger about him (ugh, yeah I just wrote swagger). I like how he can easy manipulate Charlie Sheen into doing some spying work so that he can get a leg up on business deals which shows the subtle power he yields next to his obvious power that his wealth and possessions show off. The one minor thing about the character is that there isn't much subtlety to Gekko. He just wants more and more money and will get it any way he can, using those around him in nefarious ways. And that's how the character is throughout the film which I kinda like that he doesn't have any change of heart or moments of emotional realizations or anything like that because it wouldn't fit who Gekko is. So to that, Douglas plays the role perfectly and makes you root against Gekko while also liking him and kinda rooting for him as well. I attribute that to Douglas being so evilly charming and slick which is how he has risen to power. Now, the other thing about this performance is that it's not exactly the true lead of the film - that would be Charlie Sheen who we follow around as he ascends to power. But Douglas so thoroughly dominates the film with his presence that even when he's not on screen we feel him hovering over everything. So I'm fine with him being considered a lead and I like that a villainous character was rewarded with a Best Actor win. Throw in the fact that Douglas was working on Fatal Attraction at the same time and, well, you can see why the Academy would go for him with a twofer like that on his resume this year.
William Hurt - Broadcast News
Hurt plays the hunky sports reporter turned anchor/regular news reporter at a bigger network and finds himself liking Holly Hunter's producer character and competing with Albert Brooks' fellow reporter for air time and Hunter's attention. A good story made better by the great acting of the three mentioned. When we first meet Hurt, he's new and looked down upon for being a sportscaster who has been promoted because he looks good on TV and can read the news really well. He tries to fit in and gain knowledge from everyone and catches the eye of Hunter which makes Brooks jealous. But there's a lot more to Hurt's character than we first suspect. He's calculating, though not ruthless. He just knows how to do his job well and is looking to get ahead. He may not be scholarly or well versed in current events or history like Brooks but he can read the news as if it's the only thing that matters and that he's a smooth expert on whatever he's talking about. Hurt's Tom may have a pretty boy demeanor but he's determined to become more than just a pretty face. That's why he takes on some emotional reportings about date rape and knows it'll further his career and gain respect of the office. I like that Hurt kind of underplays everything. He's kind of a chill dude and when he and Hunter get together it seems more casual on his end and like he can easily move on if necessary. This is not stated anywhere but communicated through the subtlety of Hurt, but it's really good acting. It's certainly not flashy which suits the role just fine. It fits into everyone else, and the film as a whole, acting naturally and being comfortable in their roles. This was his third straight Best Actor nomination and this one is earned. He was definitely on top of his game and his newsman Tom is an interesting performance to watch.
Marcello Mastroianni - Dark Eyes
I had to use some hardcore Google Fu to find this and of course the subtitles were faster than the actual voices so that was fun. I know the Academy has a love affair with Mastroianni since he's been nominated like 2-3 other times before this one so I was hoping this wasn't just a token type of nomination and that he was actually great. I will say he's good and I can see the appeal of his brand of acting and I look forward to watching some of his other performances in more well known films. But I wasn't overly wowed by this one. To try and simply sum it up, Mastroianni is telling a story of his life to another man on a ship and we see he was married to a wealthy woman but didn't quite love her, they mostly tolerated each other. Then he met a Russian woman at a spa and fell in love with her instantly. He then goes to Russia to find her after she leaves to tell her he loves her. It's that kind of film, romantic with some tragic elements and some Italian comedy thrown in for good measure. So Mastroianni has to be charming and romantic in the flashback scenes and does well enough with that. He also at times is pretty funny. I laughed out loud at some of his antics and wasn't expecting to after the first bit of the film which is kinda slow and serious, but it delved into some funny physical comedy elements which I totally wasn't expecting. With that all said, this is a very Italian performance. It has the broad physical comedy like Roberto Benigni and the serious, tragic elements like Massimo Troisi. He also is pretty good at just being plain ol charming. The performance does make me want to watch more of his work because I'm certain he's got a great performance somewhere. Overall, though, this wasn't something I'd want to watch again or feel better for having seen it. This is mostly a forgettable Best Actor nomination.
Jack Nicholson - Ironweed
Nicholson is a drifter drifting through life. I wasn't sure what to expect from Ironweed really. I knew it starred Nicholson and Streep as hobos during the depression era which seems like a producers wet dream of an idea. It also seemed very much like it would be Oscar bait. The film might be and I feel like Streep definitely is but Nicholson teeters on the edge of really owning the role and letting it own him. It's not a flashy role at all. It's very quiet and understated for the most part. I think it's just the idea of Nicholson as a bum who became that way because he was an alcoholic who accidentally dropped and killed his baby boy is a bit ludicrous when you sum it up like that. Nicholson's Francis Phelan struggles with that guilt which leads him to being this depressed, cynical, hopeless man. He's been in this state for awhile, refusing to face up to his realities and burdening himself with the memory of the tragedy. He's an alcoholic but not dependent on the stuff to live. He uses it to deal with his emotions and grief and it's really not what the film or performance is about which is refreshing. He sees visions of those he has harmed or killed in his life and they haunt Francis which speaks to the amount of guilt he's truly saddled with. I do think Nicholson does a tremendous job of wrangling all that emotion in and not letting it become a cliche or overpower the performance with big, overstated moments. There's a lot of pain in the character and Nicholson reflects that in a restrained manner which is what I think I like most about it. He just kinda trudges along devoured by his own guilt. Contrast that to when he meets his wife after so many years apart and we find out she doesn't even blame him and still loves him and wishes he were home. And he looks at ease when with her even though he seems to enjoy wallowing in his misery and drifting out on his own. The relationship with Streep is minor to me. I didn't care about it one bit and wasn't really into her performance. The main focus is Francis. I like the performance and I think it will be more of a grower that I need to let sink in for a bit and mull around in my head. This is a reserved and restrained performance that is nice to see when compared to some of his later, more crazy Nicholson roles. Can't wait to see more of his earlier stuff.
Robin Williams - Good Morning, Vietnam
This was Williams' first Oscar nomination and is the last time I'll watch him for the project and I'm kinda glad to be done with him. All of his nominations are very similar. Not that I don't like his acting or anything, but all of them being so similar, it gets old real quick. We know that Williams is going to interject his performances with his brand of comedy. Sometimes it works really well like when he's a delusional knight riding around the city. Sometimes it falls flat like in Good Will Hunting or Dead Poets Society. Here, though, it works fine because Williams plays an Air Force radio DJ who is successful and liked because of his irreverent shtick. He comes in and replaces a boring program and plays stuff that he knows the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would rather here, especially knowing it might be the last thing they here instead of some old, boring song or droll message. Williams' superiors don't like that he does his own thing and want him to stick to the approved program and he clashes with them. Williams is great for the role because it uses his talents perfectly. I read that Williams improvised his radio broadcasts which is why they are so fun and crazy and feel very real. The comedy can wear thin at times when you'd rather Williams play the character straight and not default to jokes and antics. Williams does get to show off some dramatic acting at points but it's not as polished as his future dramatic performances. If I hadn't seen anything else of Williams' besides his earlier work, this probably looks like a more mature step in his career and impresses the Academy by mixing the comedy and drama and giving a decent performance. But now it looks like more of the same (which isn't bad!) and feels like a lesser nomination. But that is all based on hindsight and knowing where his career would go. Williams' stuff works well for the character and the story even if I wanted a lot more out of it. Probably not a choice I'd make for Best Actor but can't change anything now.
A good enough group, I guess. I like that the Academy went with a villain type character for the winner. I'm totally fine with Douglas' win here as Nicholson has three total Oscars and didn't really need one for Ironweed, let's be real. Hurt was on his third Best Actor nomination in three years and had won on his first one two years prior. Williams feels like the Academy was rewarding him for giving a little more dramatic performance than maybe people were used to from him. I'm not that into his inclusion for his role here but whatever I guess. John Lone for The Last Emperor would have been a nice addition. Mastroianni seems like a safety choice for the Academy and he probably could have been replaced to make for a much strong category, but again, whatever. So that would be my order if you just switch Hurt and Nicholson for two and three, respectively. This group could have been way better but the top three are certainly good. I'm just pumped to get to 1986.
Oscar Winner: Michael Douglas - Wall Street
My Winner: Michael Douglas - Wall Street
William Hurt
Jack Nicholson
Robin Williams
Marcello Mastroianni
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Leading Actress 1987
A bunch of performances that I've been looking forward to seeing finally. I'm expecting some really good stuff, too. Also, I see I've been getting like a consistent 4-5 views, so hello friends! Feel free to tell me I'm wrong!
1987 Best Actress
Cher - Moonstruck
Every time I looked at winners while creating the project I was always like really? Cher? She won Best Actress? Was this because she was actually good or was it because they liked Cher the entertainer and cultural icon? I was always intrigued by Moonstruck for this reason (and also because I knew Nicolas Cage was a spicy meatball in this) so I was definitely looking forward to watching her performance. It was not really what I expecting at all. Same as with Dukakis, I thought it would be a very loud, ethnic performance given it's about a family of Italians. But the performance was far from being a caricature or stereotype which I am very glad to see. I actually really enjoyed Cher in her role as Loretta, a widow who gets engaged again and wants to do everything right this time because she thinks she had bad luck before. She then meets her fiancee's brother and sparks up a steamy, hot romance with him and we learn about ideas of family along the way. What I like about Cher is how natural she feels in the role and in the family itself. It's a gentle performance that gives into the whims of love and doesn't feel too corny for it. She and Cage are a lot of fun to watch in their scenes together and I can believe this almost mild mannered accountant getting swept off her feet by the brutish Cage. It's such a calm, comfortable, assured performance. I like that Cher never devolves into histrionics or plays up the ethnicity thing, she just plays a normal person for the most part. There's no crazy yelling scenes or hysterical crying or anything like that. It's just enjoyable to watch. Maybe it's because I expected a lot out of the performance that I was happy with what Cher did in the film but it works for me. Granted, the romance with Cage is a bit ridiculous but even with it's suddenness I can see those two together, mostly because they have good chemistry. I don't know if I'm articulating myself well enough as to why Cher is good and why I liked it, but she is and I did. It's almost like a safe choice. Cher does a pretty good job as Loretta and I'll have to see if anyone else can challenge her for the win.
Glenn Close - Fatal Attraction
I hate to rag on someone because of their looks but man is Close really unattractive in this film. I know it's the 80s and the big frizzy hair was in, but I'm supposed to buy that Close is irresistibly hot and tempting for Michael Douglas and I don't. I can respect Close for choosing the role because she wanted to play against her type, and besides the looks thing, she is quite disturbing which is a compliment here. I like the transition from sexpot to raging crazy bitch because I appreciate that our initial introduction of her is as this seductress who is a somebody in the corporate world. Then we see her descent into becoming a psychopath when she can't handle being rejected and doesn't like being used by Douglas. After a certain point, though, Close isn't given all that much to do really. Once she becomes absolutely crazy, what else is there to do to show she's psychotic? It's like reaching the ground floor and there's no basement. Close can't do anything else to show how crazy her character is. She ends up stalling or maybe idling is a better description. Sure, it's more like how can we make her more evil with killing the pet rabbit and then trying to kill Anne Archer but Close becomes voiceless and just a way to keep the action and tension going. So the performance loses steam but it's not particularly Close's fault since that's all she can do. She is convincingly terrifying, however, which is why the role is so memorable and so scary. As a guy, I couldn't imagine having a woman like that in my life. I'd be scared shitless that she would ruin my life which is what makes her so fascinating. I'm not sure how women feel about the character which I would be very interested to hear. The performance is strong before it tapers off at the end which is a shame because it could have contended for the win if it could have kept up the intrigue. It makes for a great thriller and an interesting Close nomination.
Holly Hunter - Broadcast News
Crazy to think that Holly Hunter was a relative unknown before this film. This role was initially meant for Debra Winger but she got pregnant and then a long search led to Hunter. She is really great in this role which is obviously her breakout role. She acts the shit out of it. She has that nice, girl next door quality but can be ferocious when necessary. She plays a female (duh) producer at a network newsroom which is dominated by men. Hunter's character is a no-nonsense, strong, independent woman in love with her work but who also wants a little more in her life. The thing I like about the performance is that Hunter doesn't make this into an I am woman, hear me roar type thing. Her character, Jane, is strong from the start because that's how she got where she is and because that's how she approaches life. But there are no punctuated moments where the script or director feels it's necessary to remind us that she's a strong, independent woman. Everything seems to grow organically because of the choices Hunter makes. When she's yelling in the newsroom or when she's leading the team and taking the reins it's because that is her job and she does her job well. It feels natural and is fun to watch without being hit over the head with what her character is. She also gets these emotional moments that work well within the story and within Jane the person. She wants love and opens herself up and becomes vulnerable which makes her obviously uncomfortable. That's because Hunter gives such a measured performance where everything she does matters. Her little love triangle feels very authentic from her chasing Hurt and her reaction to Brooks telling her he loves her to her honest moments of emotion. My bone to pick is with the ending that makes her look so anal and by the book. I felt the moment was too contrived to give Jane her a big scene that highlighted her independence and ability to be her own woman while staying true to herself. It just makes Hunter look ridiculous to me, honestly. I don't get the big deal because I don't think it is a big deal. It might stay true to the character but I think that Jane would have handled it a different way than what the script made her do. I think Hunter is pretty great here and I think I like this more than her Oscar winning performance. The whole film is pretty good despite my feelings on the ending. A well deserved nomination for sure.
Sally Kirkland - Anna
So on first look you go what the hell is this film? Then you ask who the hell is Sally Kirkland. Valid questions! And then you investigate and learn that Kirkland campaigned super hard to be nominated and was. And that the film is about a washed up older actress giving it another go and she takes in a younger actress. Said younger actress eventually is discovered and goes on to be a star while Kirkland remains a nobody and doesn't look like she has any future. The little wrinkle is that Kirkland plays a Czech woman who takes in another Czech woman (Paulina Porizkova, a model in real life) and she surpasses Kirkland quickly. This easily checks off a lot of Oscar absolutes. Kirkland is an older actress who was a star in her native Czechoslovakia and came to America to escape communism. She struggles to find work and goes to auditions and her younger countrywoman does the same and Kirkland takes her in. Eventually the younger version of Kirkland is rewarded and given a shot at a major role while Kirkland has to continue to be an understudy on plays. This is obviously very relatable for Oscar voters. The struggle she faces is something all Academy members have probably faced. That's why I feel she got nominated plus the campaigning. On its own, the performance is decent. It is a very specific type of role that appeals to a specific type of person. I guess you could broaden it to mean the takeover of jobs by younger people for those pushing towards retirement but that is a huge stretch. This is just an entertainment breakdown. The very end of the film is also super cliche and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kirkland does something to Porizkova but I won't get too detailed, though I know no one will ever watch this. And that's the lasting legacy of the film is that it is more interesting for the NYC actor than for the general public. This is purely distilled Oscar bait at its finest. It obviously worked for her to score a nomination. I could see this being done today as maybe a Sundance type indie film, and with the right actress, being nominated again. I didn't hate it and I'm actually glad I got to watch this because it is so interesting from an Oscar standpoint. I'll have to let it settle and see how I feel about it later.
Meryl Streep - Ironweed
This might be the first Meryl Streep performance that I genuinely dislike. It only took like 12 nominations. The main reason this performance doesn't do anything for me and makes me kinda hate it, is that it looks like obvious acting. Which I'm not used to seeing from Streep so I was pretty surprised but it felt so labored to me. She plays a hobo in the depression era in Albany who is friendly with Jack Nicholson and is an alcoholic who used to sing in nightclubs. Usually Streep is so refined and subtle and convincing as a character but here I felt she was too much of a stretch as a bum. She just didn't work and it felt way too much like Oscar bait. She's got an old-timey accent that is out of place and she's really not all that likable. I don't care at all about any relationship between her and Nicholson because she gives me no reason to become invested in it. It might be sacrilege to say I dislike a Streep performance and think it's bad but I do think she's the worst part of the film. Plus, she doesn't feel like a true leading actress. Most likely because of her star power and name is why she is here but the film belongs to Nicholson. I really wanted to like this performance because I think Streep is a phenomenal actress but I just can't. It felt too gimmicky and I wish Streep would have approached it differently. I guess sometimes there are performances even by great actors that just don't click with me and this is an example of that. I will say she plays a decent drunk which a lot of people can't pull off, so she has that going for her, which is nice. Anyway, worst Streep performance I've seen so far - this had to happen at some point. Just not something I can ever see myself coming back to or even recommending.
I quite enjoyed this category for a change. When Meryl Streep is your worst performance, it can't really be all that bad, right? She's my 5th, just not for me. Kirkland is my 4th which is a surprise because I thought she'd be the worst. But her performance grew on me when thinking about it, possibly because the role and film seem so contemporary. Like it would be a cool indie nowadays that people love. That's my take on it. Now for the next three, I honestly have no idea the order. I'm cool with Cher after watching the film, I thought Close was pretty interesting before she lost steam, Hunter was very good before that last scene I didn't like. Soooo Close third and toss up between Cher and Hunter. I hate these choices. I think I might stick with the Academy but 5 minutes from now it might be Hunter. They are both really good. So great category and worth checking out.
Oscar Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
My Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
Holly Hunter
Glenn Close
Sally Kirkland
Meryl Streep
1987 Best Actress
Cher - Moonstruck
Every time I looked at winners while creating the project I was always like really? Cher? She won Best Actress? Was this because she was actually good or was it because they liked Cher the entertainer and cultural icon? I was always intrigued by Moonstruck for this reason (and also because I knew Nicolas Cage was a spicy meatball in this) so I was definitely looking forward to watching her performance. It was not really what I expecting at all. Same as with Dukakis, I thought it would be a very loud, ethnic performance given it's about a family of Italians. But the performance was far from being a caricature or stereotype which I am very glad to see. I actually really enjoyed Cher in her role as Loretta, a widow who gets engaged again and wants to do everything right this time because she thinks she had bad luck before. She then meets her fiancee's brother and sparks up a steamy, hot romance with him and we learn about ideas of family along the way. What I like about Cher is how natural she feels in the role and in the family itself. It's a gentle performance that gives into the whims of love and doesn't feel too corny for it. She and Cage are a lot of fun to watch in their scenes together and I can believe this almost mild mannered accountant getting swept off her feet by the brutish Cage. It's such a calm, comfortable, assured performance. I like that Cher never devolves into histrionics or plays up the ethnicity thing, she just plays a normal person for the most part. There's no crazy yelling scenes or hysterical crying or anything like that. It's just enjoyable to watch. Maybe it's because I expected a lot out of the performance that I was happy with what Cher did in the film but it works for me. Granted, the romance with Cage is a bit ridiculous but even with it's suddenness I can see those two together, mostly because they have good chemistry. I don't know if I'm articulating myself well enough as to why Cher is good and why I liked it, but she is and I did. It's almost like a safe choice. Cher does a pretty good job as Loretta and I'll have to see if anyone else can challenge her for the win.
Glenn Close - Fatal Attraction
I hate to rag on someone because of their looks but man is Close really unattractive in this film. I know it's the 80s and the big frizzy hair was in, but I'm supposed to buy that Close is irresistibly hot and tempting for Michael Douglas and I don't. I can respect Close for choosing the role because she wanted to play against her type, and besides the looks thing, she is quite disturbing which is a compliment here. I like the transition from sexpot to raging crazy bitch because I appreciate that our initial introduction of her is as this seductress who is a somebody in the corporate world. Then we see her descent into becoming a psychopath when she can't handle being rejected and doesn't like being used by Douglas. After a certain point, though, Close isn't given all that much to do really. Once she becomes absolutely crazy, what else is there to do to show she's psychotic? It's like reaching the ground floor and there's no basement. Close can't do anything else to show how crazy her character is. She ends up stalling or maybe idling is a better description. Sure, it's more like how can we make her more evil with killing the pet rabbit and then trying to kill Anne Archer but Close becomes voiceless and just a way to keep the action and tension going. So the performance loses steam but it's not particularly Close's fault since that's all she can do. She is convincingly terrifying, however, which is why the role is so memorable and so scary. As a guy, I couldn't imagine having a woman like that in my life. I'd be scared shitless that she would ruin my life which is what makes her so fascinating. I'm not sure how women feel about the character which I would be very interested to hear. The performance is strong before it tapers off at the end which is a shame because it could have contended for the win if it could have kept up the intrigue. It makes for a great thriller and an interesting Close nomination.
Holly Hunter - Broadcast News
Crazy to think that Holly Hunter was a relative unknown before this film. This role was initially meant for Debra Winger but she got pregnant and then a long search led to Hunter. She is really great in this role which is obviously her breakout role. She acts the shit out of it. She has that nice, girl next door quality but can be ferocious when necessary. She plays a female (duh) producer at a network newsroom which is dominated by men. Hunter's character is a no-nonsense, strong, independent woman in love with her work but who also wants a little more in her life. The thing I like about the performance is that Hunter doesn't make this into an I am woman, hear me roar type thing. Her character, Jane, is strong from the start because that's how she got where she is and because that's how she approaches life. But there are no punctuated moments where the script or director feels it's necessary to remind us that she's a strong, independent woman. Everything seems to grow organically because of the choices Hunter makes. When she's yelling in the newsroom or when she's leading the team and taking the reins it's because that is her job and she does her job well. It feels natural and is fun to watch without being hit over the head with what her character is. She also gets these emotional moments that work well within the story and within Jane the person. She wants love and opens herself up and becomes vulnerable which makes her obviously uncomfortable. That's because Hunter gives such a measured performance where everything she does matters. Her little love triangle feels very authentic from her chasing Hurt and her reaction to Brooks telling her he loves her to her honest moments of emotion. My bone to pick is with the ending that makes her look so anal and by the book. I felt the moment was too contrived to give Jane her a big scene that highlighted her independence and ability to be her own woman while staying true to herself. It just makes Hunter look ridiculous to me, honestly. I don't get the big deal because I don't think it is a big deal. It might stay true to the character but I think that Jane would have handled it a different way than what the script made her do. I think Hunter is pretty great here and I think I like this more than her Oscar winning performance. The whole film is pretty good despite my feelings on the ending. A well deserved nomination for sure.
Sally Kirkland - Anna
So on first look you go what the hell is this film? Then you ask who the hell is Sally Kirkland. Valid questions! And then you investigate and learn that Kirkland campaigned super hard to be nominated and was. And that the film is about a washed up older actress giving it another go and she takes in a younger actress. Said younger actress eventually is discovered and goes on to be a star while Kirkland remains a nobody and doesn't look like she has any future. The little wrinkle is that Kirkland plays a Czech woman who takes in another Czech woman (Paulina Porizkova, a model in real life) and she surpasses Kirkland quickly. This easily checks off a lot of Oscar absolutes. Kirkland is an older actress who was a star in her native Czechoslovakia and came to America to escape communism. She struggles to find work and goes to auditions and her younger countrywoman does the same and Kirkland takes her in. Eventually the younger version of Kirkland is rewarded and given a shot at a major role while Kirkland has to continue to be an understudy on plays. This is obviously very relatable for Oscar voters. The struggle she faces is something all Academy members have probably faced. That's why I feel she got nominated plus the campaigning. On its own, the performance is decent. It is a very specific type of role that appeals to a specific type of person. I guess you could broaden it to mean the takeover of jobs by younger people for those pushing towards retirement but that is a huge stretch. This is just an entertainment breakdown. The very end of the film is also super cliche and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kirkland does something to Porizkova but I won't get too detailed, though I know no one will ever watch this. And that's the lasting legacy of the film is that it is more interesting for the NYC actor than for the general public. This is purely distilled Oscar bait at its finest. It obviously worked for her to score a nomination. I could see this being done today as maybe a Sundance type indie film, and with the right actress, being nominated again. I didn't hate it and I'm actually glad I got to watch this because it is so interesting from an Oscar standpoint. I'll have to let it settle and see how I feel about it later.
Meryl Streep - Ironweed
This might be the first Meryl Streep performance that I genuinely dislike. It only took like 12 nominations. The main reason this performance doesn't do anything for me and makes me kinda hate it, is that it looks like obvious acting. Which I'm not used to seeing from Streep so I was pretty surprised but it felt so labored to me. She plays a hobo in the depression era in Albany who is friendly with Jack Nicholson and is an alcoholic who used to sing in nightclubs. Usually Streep is so refined and subtle and convincing as a character but here I felt she was too much of a stretch as a bum. She just didn't work and it felt way too much like Oscar bait. She's got an old-timey accent that is out of place and she's really not all that likable. I don't care at all about any relationship between her and Nicholson because she gives me no reason to become invested in it. It might be sacrilege to say I dislike a Streep performance and think it's bad but I do think she's the worst part of the film. Plus, she doesn't feel like a true leading actress. Most likely because of her star power and name is why she is here but the film belongs to Nicholson. I really wanted to like this performance because I think Streep is a phenomenal actress but I just can't. It felt too gimmicky and I wish Streep would have approached it differently. I guess sometimes there are performances even by great actors that just don't click with me and this is an example of that. I will say she plays a decent drunk which a lot of people can't pull off, so she has that going for her, which is nice. Anyway, worst Streep performance I've seen so far - this had to happen at some point. Just not something I can ever see myself coming back to or even recommending.
I quite enjoyed this category for a change. When Meryl Streep is your worst performance, it can't really be all that bad, right? She's my 5th, just not for me. Kirkland is my 4th which is a surprise because I thought she'd be the worst. But her performance grew on me when thinking about it, possibly because the role and film seem so contemporary. Like it would be a cool indie nowadays that people love. That's my take on it. Now for the next three, I honestly have no idea the order. I'm cool with Cher after watching the film, I thought Close was pretty interesting before she lost steam, Hunter was very good before that last scene I didn't like. Soooo Close third and toss up between Cher and Hunter. I hate these choices. I think I might stick with the Academy but 5 minutes from now it might be Hunter. They are both really good. So great category and worth checking out.
Oscar Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
My Winner: Cher - Moonstruck
Holly Hunter
Glenn Close
Sally Kirkland
Meryl Streep
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Supporting Actor 1987
I feel like part of the reason - okay, most of the reason - I've been doing a lot better with getting these categories published is because I started writing articles in my free time at work. So it's a lot easier to watch a film at night and then not worry about having to finish writing before I sleep so I don't keep putting it off over and over. It's easy to pick at it at work where I'm at for 12 hours and focus my thoughts where I'm not too distracted since at home I can do a million things. It allows me to start films I may not have before because of time constraints with having to sleep. I know, tough problems, right? Anyway, it's been nice to get these done quicker. Haven't seen any of these performances yet so I'm looking forward to them all.
1987 Best Supporting Actor
Sean Connery - The Untouchables
Okay, so I had heard how awesome this performance was and blah, blah, blah. I always dismissed that as people just loving Sean Connery and his thick accent and that's it. I always wondered if this was just a veteran win for the past Mr. Bond and because he was well liked in the industry. This was the first time they could even reward him and they went all out. Well, yes to that but yes to this being a really awesome performance. Watch this and not fall in love with the character after a minute or two. He's a no-nonsense Irish beat cop (though the accent is dodgy at best) who becomes one of Eliot Ness' handpicked men to bust up the illegal booze operations and bring down Al Capone. It's like every line he speaks is instantly quotable. He's funny and engaging and really just a treat to watch, no exaggeration. His presence is so dominant in the film that when he's not there, you feel the absence. Needless to say even if this was a veteran win, it still holds up on its own as a good performance. Whether or not it's good enough for the win, I'll have to wait and see. Shout out to Ennio Morricone's score which is terrific and obviously reminds me of his The Hateful Eight work. The role is pretty fun and light and I'm okay with the Academy rewarding him here.
Albert Brooks - Broadcast News
A couple things that jump out at me right away are that I know Brooks mostly from his Simpsons work and various minor roles in movies, so seeing how good he is with this dramatic work is nice. The second thing is that this performance is a lead performance, shared along with William Hurt. I guess they didn't want to have both compete in Best Actor and take votes away from each other. But yes, Brooks is terrific in this role. He plays a newsman who is highly intelligent and ethical but isn't too handsome or flashy when hosting the news. He also sweats a lot on camera and seems more fit for behind the camera even though he wants to be the man in front. He is contrasted with Hurt's pretty boy, smooth talking, natural TV presence. The two kind of fight over Holly Hunter's attention and affection and therein lies the story. Brooks seems perfect for his role, as he brings a nerdy touch that's not too nerdy and is more of a know it all with condescension dripping from every line. He would be a flat out douchebag if not for his charm that keeps his attitude as mostly harmless. Not to mention Brooks is great with the comedic touches which makes the performance better and makes his character more sympathetic and likable. It's like his character is territorial of his work and of Hunter and constantly gets in these verbal jabs at anyone that he doesn't deem worthy of being around. His job is the most important thing to him and he will challenge and snap at anyone who gets in the way. Now I don't want to make it seem as if Brooks is this big asshole character because he has these emotional moments like when he confesses his love for Hunter but she doesn't feel the same way then almost immediately turns that into fiery anger. It's a very natural and visceral reaction that is remarkable to watch. And then Brooks' dealings with Hurt are interesting because the two are so wary of each other but admire and respect one another even if it's all only professional. I don't think they outright hate each other, just are two accomplished men trying to get ahead with each other in the way. It's a very real, authentic performance. Brooks seems so casual but you know he's putting in work to make the character what it is. This is a really good performance even if it is a co-lead in the film. Good to see Brooks rewarded here as I felt he should have been nominated for his supporting role in Drive a few years ago.
Morgan Freeman - Street Smart
I don't really know anything about Freeman's pre Driving Miss Daisy work. I didn't even know he had an Oscar nomination before that when I started this project and had never heard of this film. I feel like I need to check out more of his work to see how he has grown as an actor, especially if this performance is any indication of things. Freeman plays a pimp who people start to think is the pimp in a feature magazine story written by Christopher Reeve that he made up to make a deadline. As an aside, it's always weird seeing Reeve acting knowing what would happen to him in the future. I would have loved to see him continue his work and see what he could have done because he's pretty interesting, if a little generic. You might think Freeman is going to be a jovial, jive talking, funny, charismatic pimp but his pimp is a real, gritty, violent person. I like that his character isn't just a neighborhood friendly, whitewashed pimp. Freeman's Fast Black is unpredictable like when he is taking Reeve around a neighborhood and starts playing basketball and a guy blocks his shot. Freeman goes apeshit on the guy and then calms down and gives him money to go buy him some food. That scene really sums up Freeman's character to me. He can quickly become very violent and commands respect and fear from those around him and is able to throw money at the issues he's created. There's times where Fast Black seems harmless and more like a big talker than an actual doer, but then he surprises you with how he reacts to something. This could have easily been a cliche role but Freeman brings a lot more realness to the role than you would expect. The film isn't the best but Freeman makes it worth a watch. He's brutal and charismatic and brings a side of Freeman that we really haven't seen before. It makes you want to dive deeper into his earlier stuff to see what else he is capable of besides just being a great narrator and calm actor.
Vincent Gardenia - Moonstruck
To me, this nomination is carried by the love the film received overall. Not that Gardenia is terrible or anything but his performance is the lesser of the others in the film. He plays Cher's father and is a bit of a schmoozer. He's a successful plumber who gets people to pay for expensive copper piping by manipulating them with a caring act. He cheats on his wife, doesn't like his daughter's new fiancee, and is always complaining he's tired and can't sleep. So you can see the type of guy we are dealing with here. Gardenia at least plays this in a not so serious way which helps make him not so unlikable. I think it's also part of why I'm not that into the performance. Gardenia is fine in the role but it doesn't do anything for me, I don't feel compelled to champion it as being something amazing because I never connected with the character. He's kind of a sleazeball and doesn't have the best relationship with his daughter or his wife and isn't exactly laugh out loud funny or anything like that. I don't get why Dukakis stays with him or puts up with him. I'm sure other people find the character to be funny and relatable and might remind them of a family member but it didn't click with me. And that's really the crux of the performance. In a film about family, you're supposed to relate to everyone and usually like them. But Gardenia is the weak link in a film with some pretty great characters and it just totally misses for me.
Denzel Washington - Cry Freedom
Kind of interesting that Google just had a Doodle about Steve Biko and here I am a couple days later watching a film about his life. Weird how that seems to work out sometimes. I know there's a name for that like when you learn a new word and then see it everywhere but it escapes me at the moment. Anyway, Washington plays said Steve Biko, a South African anti-Apartheid activist who the government and police hate. His character ends up murdered but that doesn't come as a shock or anything as he's in the film for only maybe an hour or less. The issue with Denzel is that in his later years, he always seems to play a version of himself. The characters, no matter who they are, all feel like Denzel in some fashion. The great thing about this performance is that this is before Denzel became Denzel so we get a performance where he becomes someone else, in this case Biko. As far as I can tell, Denzel nails the accent and really embodies the character and brings a confidence to the performance. It's reminiscent of his work in Malcolm X where he fully gives in to the activist part of the character. The performance is effective in getting us to know who exactly Biko is and what he stands for and wishes to happen for his race and country. Denzel doesn't have to do much heavy lifting because he is only asked to give speeches and play the activist. We don't really dive deep into who Biko is or how he came to be an activist which is unfortunate. I would have liked a film that took a look at Biko instead of one that focuses on a white newspaper editor. It's a good first nomination and speaks to what Denzel would achieve later on with his performances.
This was a pretty good category! I'm always pleased when this category delivers. My odd man out is Gardenia who I felt came along for the ride with his film. It's an okay performance but not something I was super enthused about. Denzel is 4th in his first nomination really because it's like a primer for his Malcolm X performance. He is kind of righteous and we don't really get to the heart of why and Denzel doesn't have much else to do. Still worth a watch, though. I was surprised with Freeman because I liked how badass his character was, which we don't see often from him as an actor. It's worth a watch to see Freeman before his Driving Miss Daisy days for sure. Then Brooks is second because I really liked what he did with his character, how real it was, but it was definitely a co-lead in the film. I'm cool with the Connery win because his character was so entertaining. Sometimes that's all it takes if there's no absolute standout. It's a fun watch and who is mad at him having an Oscar? All in all an enjoyable category this year.
Oscar Winner: Sean Connery - The Untouchables
My Winner: Sean Connery - The Untouchables
Albert Brooks
Morgan Freeman
Denzel Washington
Vincent Gardenia
1987 Best Supporting Actor
Sean Connery - The Untouchables
Okay, so I had heard how awesome this performance was and blah, blah, blah. I always dismissed that as people just loving Sean Connery and his thick accent and that's it. I always wondered if this was just a veteran win for the past Mr. Bond and because he was well liked in the industry. This was the first time they could even reward him and they went all out. Well, yes to that but yes to this being a really awesome performance. Watch this and not fall in love with the character after a minute or two. He's a no-nonsense Irish beat cop (though the accent is dodgy at best) who becomes one of Eliot Ness' handpicked men to bust up the illegal booze operations and bring down Al Capone. It's like every line he speaks is instantly quotable. He's funny and engaging and really just a treat to watch, no exaggeration. His presence is so dominant in the film that when he's not there, you feel the absence. Needless to say even if this was a veteran win, it still holds up on its own as a good performance. Whether or not it's good enough for the win, I'll have to wait and see. Shout out to Ennio Morricone's score which is terrific and obviously reminds me of his The Hateful Eight work. The role is pretty fun and light and I'm okay with the Academy rewarding him here.
Albert Brooks - Broadcast News
A couple things that jump out at me right away are that I know Brooks mostly from his Simpsons work and various minor roles in movies, so seeing how good he is with this dramatic work is nice. The second thing is that this performance is a lead performance, shared along with William Hurt. I guess they didn't want to have both compete in Best Actor and take votes away from each other. But yes, Brooks is terrific in this role. He plays a newsman who is highly intelligent and ethical but isn't too handsome or flashy when hosting the news. He also sweats a lot on camera and seems more fit for behind the camera even though he wants to be the man in front. He is contrasted with Hurt's pretty boy, smooth talking, natural TV presence. The two kind of fight over Holly Hunter's attention and affection and therein lies the story. Brooks seems perfect for his role, as he brings a nerdy touch that's not too nerdy and is more of a know it all with condescension dripping from every line. He would be a flat out douchebag if not for his charm that keeps his attitude as mostly harmless. Not to mention Brooks is great with the comedic touches which makes the performance better and makes his character more sympathetic and likable. It's like his character is territorial of his work and of Hunter and constantly gets in these verbal jabs at anyone that he doesn't deem worthy of being around. His job is the most important thing to him and he will challenge and snap at anyone who gets in the way. Now I don't want to make it seem as if Brooks is this big asshole character because he has these emotional moments like when he confesses his love for Hunter but she doesn't feel the same way then almost immediately turns that into fiery anger. It's a very natural and visceral reaction that is remarkable to watch. And then Brooks' dealings with Hurt are interesting because the two are so wary of each other but admire and respect one another even if it's all only professional. I don't think they outright hate each other, just are two accomplished men trying to get ahead with each other in the way. It's a very real, authentic performance. Brooks seems so casual but you know he's putting in work to make the character what it is. This is a really good performance even if it is a co-lead in the film. Good to see Brooks rewarded here as I felt he should have been nominated for his supporting role in Drive a few years ago.
Morgan Freeman - Street Smart
I don't really know anything about Freeman's pre Driving Miss Daisy work. I didn't even know he had an Oscar nomination before that when I started this project and had never heard of this film. I feel like I need to check out more of his work to see how he has grown as an actor, especially if this performance is any indication of things. Freeman plays a pimp who people start to think is the pimp in a feature magazine story written by Christopher Reeve that he made up to make a deadline. As an aside, it's always weird seeing Reeve acting knowing what would happen to him in the future. I would have loved to see him continue his work and see what he could have done because he's pretty interesting, if a little generic. You might think Freeman is going to be a jovial, jive talking, funny, charismatic pimp but his pimp is a real, gritty, violent person. I like that his character isn't just a neighborhood friendly, whitewashed pimp. Freeman's Fast Black is unpredictable like when he is taking Reeve around a neighborhood and starts playing basketball and a guy blocks his shot. Freeman goes apeshit on the guy and then calms down and gives him money to go buy him some food. That scene really sums up Freeman's character to me. He can quickly become very violent and commands respect and fear from those around him and is able to throw money at the issues he's created. There's times where Fast Black seems harmless and more like a big talker than an actual doer, but then he surprises you with how he reacts to something. This could have easily been a cliche role but Freeman brings a lot more realness to the role than you would expect. The film isn't the best but Freeman makes it worth a watch. He's brutal and charismatic and brings a side of Freeman that we really haven't seen before. It makes you want to dive deeper into his earlier stuff to see what else he is capable of besides just being a great narrator and calm actor.
Vincent Gardenia - Moonstruck
To me, this nomination is carried by the love the film received overall. Not that Gardenia is terrible or anything but his performance is the lesser of the others in the film. He plays Cher's father and is a bit of a schmoozer. He's a successful plumber who gets people to pay for expensive copper piping by manipulating them with a caring act. He cheats on his wife, doesn't like his daughter's new fiancee, and is always complaining he's tired and can't sleep. So you can see the type of guy we are dealing with here. Gardenia at least plays this in a not so serious way which helps make him not so unlikable. I think it's also part of why I'm not that into the performance. Gardenia is fine in the role but it doesn't do anything for me, I don't feel compelled to champion it as being something amazing because I never connected with the character. He's kind of a sleazeball and doesn't have the best relationship with his daughter or his wife and isn't exactly laugh out loud funny or anything like that. I don't get why Dukakis stays with him or puts up with him. I'm sure other people find the character to be funny and relatable and might remind them of a family member but it didn't click with me. And that's really the crux of the performance. In a film about family, you're supposed to relate to everyone and usually like them. But Gardenia is the weak link in a film with some pretty great characters and it just totally misses for me.
Denzel Washington - Cry Freedom
Kind of interesting that Google just had a Doodle about Steve Biko and here I am a couple days later watching a film about his life. Weird how that seems to work out sometimes. I know there's a name for that like when you learn a new word and then see it everywhere but it escapes me at the moment. Anyway, Washington plays said Steve Biko, a South African anti-Apartheid activist who the government and police hate. His character ends up murdered but that doesn't come as a shock or anything as he's in the film for only maybe an hour or less. The issue with Denzel is that in his later years, he always seems to play a version of himself. The characters, no matter who they are, all feel like Denzel in some fashion. The great thing about this performance is that this is before Denzel became Denzel so we get a performance where he becomes someone else, in this case Biko. As far as I can tell, Denzel nails the accent and really embodies the character and brings a confidence to the performance. It's reminiscent of his work in Malcolm X where he fully gives in to the activist part of the character. The performance is effective in getting us to know who exactly Biko is and what he stands for and wishes to happen for his race and country. Denzel doesn't have to do much heavy lifting because he is only asked to give speeches and play the activist. We don't really dive deep into who Biko is or how he came to be an activist which is unfortunate. I would have liked a film that took a look at Biko instead of one that focuses on a white newspaper editor. It's a good first nomination and speaks to what Denzel would achieve later on with his performances.
This was a pretty good category! I'm always pleased when this category delivers. My odd man out is Gardenia who I felt came along for the ride with his film. It's an okay performance but not something I was super enthused about. Denzel is 4th in his first nomination really because it's like a primer for his Malcolm X performance. He is kind of righteous and we don't really get to the heart of why and Denzel doesn't have much else to do. Still worth a watch, though. I was surprised with Freeman because I liked how badass his character was, which we don't see often from him as an actor. It's worth a watch to see Freeman before his Driving Miss Daisy days for sure. Then Brooks is second because I really liked what he did with his character, how real it was, but it was definitely a co-lead in the film. I'm cool with the Connery win because his character was so entertaining. Sometimes that's all it takes if there's no absolute standout. It's a fun watch and who is mad at him having an Oscar? All in all an enjoyable category this year.
Oscar Winner: Sean Connery - The Untouchables
My Winner: Sean Connery - The Untouchables
Albert Brooks
Morgan Freeman
Denzel Washington
Vincent Gardenia
Monday, December 26, 2016
Supporting Actress 1987
So many Ann(e)s! Let's see which might reign supreme!
1987 Best Supporting Actress
Olympia Dukakis - Moonstruck
Having watched everyone else in the category, I guess it makes sense that Dukakis came out the winner as her only real competition (for me anyway) was Anne Ramsey. Dukakis is in a well loved film and is less one note and more nuanced than Ramsey. Now before I get into the performance, I also wonder if the fact that her cousin Michael running for President had anything to do with her nomination/win. We know the Academy is pretty liberal and maybe they were voting for that connection as well? Something to think about at least. I was curious as to how I'd respond to Dukakis in this film. I'll admit I was expecting a very showy, loud, ethnic performance given what the film is about. She plays Cher's mother and is Italian but what I liked about Dukakis is that she is very subdued and graceful in the role. She plays it like a true matriarch who is satisfied with her kingdom. The underlying tension for her in the film is that her husband is cheating on her and she knows it. There's a great scene where she goes to a restaurant to eat dinner by herself and ends up talking with a man who is always bringing younger women to the place and getting into loud arguments with them. They talk and make a connection that seems more real than anything we see between her and her husband in a short amount of time. Dukakis stays dignified in the moment even when getting walked home by him and he asks to go inside with her. She values family more than instant gratification and it's a nice touching view into her character. Dukakis herself is charming and stately and very relatable like she's your own kin. She has one explosive moment where she yells at Cher but for the most part her performance is a quiet one which I respect. I do see why she was nominated and can understand her win for this type of performance. The Academy loved the film and loved her work in it. I'm still on the fence on if I'd take this or Ramsey and I'll have to really think about it to decide.
Norma Aleandro - Gaby: A True Story
This is a true story about Gaby. I had to watch this on Youtube and it was shit quality but I at least watched it. Should say all you need to know about the film that I could only find it on Youtube and not any of the streaming sites. It's another cerebral palsy film like My Left Foot that shows how someone overcomes their disability when someone nurtures and encourages them. This one is about Gabriela Brimmer who was a woman of European parents living in Mexico who was afflicted with cerebral palsy. Parents aren't sure what to do until Norma Aleandro's character becomes like a live-in nurse and recognizes the person behind the disability. She encourages Gaby and helps teach her and goes with her everywhere, even class. Gaby eventually goes on to college and becomes a respected author and advocate due in large part to Aleandro's nurturing. It's kind of your standard disability film stuff. Aleandro is good in the role as the nurse/helper. She's very caring and treats Gaby like her own daughter at times and Aleandro shows these emotions well enough in her performance. I'm certainly not going to say I was wowed or amazed by Aleandro, it simply gets the job done and sometimes that's good enough. I'm glad the Academy nominated something that's out of the box which I always complain about. The role is perfectly supporting and while it never had a chance to win, I'm okay with it being included here. It's not the best film or performance but you can respect it at least. Supporting is meant for nominations like this, especially if there's no major performance or consensus. Most people won't ever watch this anyway.
Anne Archer - Fatal Attraction
I wasn't too sure who Anne Archer was until I looked her up but she plays Michael Douglas' wife in this film. Now, here's the thing about Archer: she is super attractive when compared to Glenn Close in this film. I mean it's no question. So while the film is tense and crazy, I just couldn't buy that Douglas would spend a weekend with Close and cheat on his wife. I'm probably looking a little too deep into the attractiveness part but it just bugged me the whole film long. I get that Douglas has a moment of weakness when the "sexy" Close intrigues him and that is part of the point of the film, but still. For the first hour of the film, Archer plays the oblivious, dutiful wife. That's all she gets to do, play mother and wife. Not much to do besides look pretty. For the second hour, she starts to come alive finally. We start to get some resolution with the events that have been happening and Archer is told of Douglas' dalliance and expectedly loses it. It's a good scene that feels real and doesn't cross a line into the absurd territory. Then once she's told, Archer seems committed to keeping her family safe and does more in the final half hour than in the previous hour and a half. Then we have the big ending which obviously Archer has a big part of which is somewhat satisfying as long as you're rooting for the family and not against Douglas. It's a decent performance for a thriller and for what could have been a throw away role. Archer at least brings some honesty and realness to the role and that's admirable for this kind of film. Archer is good, if a little lacking, but not a totally awful nomination.
Anne Ramsey - Throw Momma from the Train
Oweeeeennnnnnn!!! This movie is so funny, but in a dark way almost like A Fish Called Wanda. It stars Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito (who also directed) as a teacher and student, respectively, who are to kill each others' problems. DeVito kills Crystal's ex-wife unbeknownst to him and then DeVito wants him to kill his momma. It's a quick film but is so entertaining. Ramsey is the eponymous Momma and she is like a monster. All she does is yell at DeVito in some way or another, usually shouting insults at him. I can't help but think Ramsey sounds like Cartman from South Park with her garbled speech and it makes her character so much more funny to me because of that. She scowls her way through the film and is just a menace to everyone and Ramsey is a hoot in the role. She plays up the terrible woman to perfection and makes her character unsympathetic yet hilarious at the same time. She's also got this hunchback that's barely seen but it just adds to the overall terribleness of the character. I challenge anyone to watch her performance and not get a kick out if it. This is the first one I watched for the category but this will be hard to beat because I love how funny she is. It might not be the pinnacle of acting but it is certainly very entertaining.
Ann Sothern - The Whales of August
The draw for this film is that you get to see Lillian Gish and Bette Davis in their last roles and get to see them again, period. This isn't a thing of beauty, though. It's very stiff with the acting and feels like it belongs on the Lifetime channel instead of at the Oscars. It's got a soft focus and minor story and this will only appeal to a certain viewer who may not even be around anymore. I say the acting is stiff but Davis and Gish are really good together and you can tell they are from another era with their acting styles. Sothern plays Tisha, a neighbor of the two leads who comes by to dish and gab with the ladies and is very jovial. She has better, quicker acting sense than the two leads, as to be expected, and therefore ends up looking pretty good when compared to basically everyone else in the film. She's in that one scene for a little bit but doesn't do anything profound. She's a loud neighbor who gossips and has nothing else with which to spend her time on. She then shows up at the end of the film bringing a house buyer by and is admonished by Gish. That's the extent of her performance. It's okay but nothing to write home about. I feel she was the nomination because the older folk of the Academy wanted to nominate it but couldn't get it into Best Actress. Sothern does nothing to stand out and probably shouldn't be in this group. It's just basic work that should go overlooked.
So the Battle of the Ann(e)'s wasn't much of a battle. Sothern probably doesn't deserve to be in this group and feels more like a veteran type nomination. Easy 5th. Aleandro is decent in a not that great film but I'm okay with her nomination. She is what this category is about, even if it's not that amazing. Archer is the middle because while she's enjoyable and elevates a nothing role, it's still not much of a performance just because of what the character is. I liked Dukakis and her almost stately performance. I see why the Academy went for her and I might too if not for Ramsey. I just really enjoyed Ramsey's performance. It might be one note but at least it's really entertaining. It's something I could come back to and not get sick of, I think. I just find it more enjoyable overall and that's what it comes down to for me. This is about what I expected from the category.
Oscar Winner: Olympia Dukakis - Moonstruck
My Winner: Anne Ramsey - Throw Momma from the Train
Olympia Dukakis
Anne Archer
Norma Aleandro
Ann Sothern
1987 Best Supporting Actress
Olympia Dukakis - Moonstruck
Having watched everyone else in the category, I guess it makes sense that Dukakis came out the winner as her only real competition (for me anyway) was Anne Ramsey. Dukakis is in a well loved film and is less one note and more nuanced than Ramsey. Now before I get into the performance, I also wonder if the fact that her cousin Michael running for President had anything to do with her nomination/win. We know the Academy is pretty liberal and maybe they were voting for that connection as well? Something to think about at least. I was curious as to how I'd respond to Dukakis in this film. I'll admit I was expecting a very showy, loud, ethnic performance given what the film is about. She plays Cher's mother and is Italian but what I liked about Dukakis is that she is very subdued and graceful in the role. She plays it like a true matriarch who is satisfied with her kingdom. The underlying tension for her in the film is that her husband is cheating on her and she knows it. There's a great scene where she goes to a restaurant to eat dinner by herself and ends up talking with a man who is always bringing younger women to the place and getting into loud arguments with them. They talk and make a connection that seems more real than anything we see between her and her husband in a short amount of time. Dukakis stays dignified in the moment even when getting walked home by him and he asks to go inside with her. She values family more than instant gratification and it's a nice touching view into her character. Dukakis herself is charming and stately and very relatable like she's your own kin. She has one explosive moment where she yells at Cher but for the most part her performance is a quiet one which I respect. I do see why she was nominated and can understand her win for this type of performance. The Academy loved the film and loved her work in it. I'm still on the fence on if I'd take this or Ramsey and I'll have to really think about it to decide.
Norma Aleandro - Gaby: A True Story
This is a true story about Gaby. I had to watch this on Youtube and it was shit quality but I at least watched it. Should say all you need to know about the film that I could only find it on Youtube and not any of the streaming sites. It's another cerebral palsy film like My Left Foot that shows how someone overcomes their disability when someone nurtures and encourages them. This one is about Gabriela Brimmer who was a woman of European parents living in Mexico who was afflicted with cerebral palsy. Parents aren't sure what to do until Norma Aleandro's character becomes like a live-in nurse and recognizes the person behind the disability. She encourages Gaby and helps teach her and goes with her everywhere, even class. Gaby eventually goes on to college and becomes a respected author and advocate due in large part to Aleandro's nurturing. It's kind of your standard disability film stuff. Aleandro is good in the role as the nurse/helper. She's very caring and treats Gaby like her own daughter at times and Aleandro shows these emotions well enough in her performance. I'm certainly not going to say I was wowed or amazed by Aleandro, it simply gets the job done and sometimes that's good enough. I'm glad the Academy nominated something that's out of the box which I always complain about. The role is perfectly supporting and while it never had a chance to win, I'm okay with it being included here. It's not the best film or performance but you can respect it at least. Supporting is meant for nominations like this, especially if there's no major performance or consensus. Most people won't ever watch this anyway.
Anne Archer - Fatal Attraction
I wasn't too sure who Anne Archer was until I looked her up but she plays Michael Douglas' wife in this film. Now, here's the thing about Archer: she is super attractive when compared to Glenn Close in this film. I mean it's no question. So while the film is tense and crazy, I just couldn't buy that Douglas would spend a weekend with Close and cheat on his wife. I'm probably looking a little too deep into the attractiveness part but it just bugged me the whole film long. I get that Douglas has a moment of weakness when the "sexy" Close intrigues him and that is part of the point of the film, but still. For the first hour of the film, Archer plays the oblivious, dutiful wife. That's all she gets to do, play mother and wife. Not much to do besides look pretty. For the second hour, she starts to come alive finally. We start to get some resolution with the events that have been happening and Archer is told of Douglas' dalliance and expectedly loses it. It's a good scene that feels real and doesn't cross a line into the absurd territory. Then once she's told, Archer seems committed to keeping her family safe and does more in the final half hour than in the previous hour and a half. Then we have the big ending which obviously Archer has a big part of which is somewhat satisfying as long as you're rooting for the family and not against Douglas. It's a decent performance for a thriller and for what could have been a throw away role. Archer at least brings some honesty and realness to the role and that's admirable for this kind of film. Archer is good, if a little lacking, but not a totally awful nomination.
Anne Ramsey - Throw Momma from the Train
Oweeeeennnnnnn!!! This movie is so funny, but in a dark way almost like A Fish Called Wanda. It stars Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito (who also directed) as a teacher and student, respectively, who are to kill each others' problems. DeVito kills Crystal's ex-wife unbeknownst to him and then DeVito wants him to kill his momma. It's a quick film but is so entertaining. Ramsey is the eponymous Momma and she is like a monster. All she does is yell at DeVito in some way or another, usually shouting insults at him. I can't help but think Ramsey sounds like Cartman from South Park with her garbled speech and it makes her character so much more funny to me because of that. She scowls her way through the film and is just a menace to everyone and Ramsey is a hoot in the role. She plays up the terrible woman to perfection and makes her character unsympathetic yet hilarious at the same time. She's also got this hunchback that's barely seen but it just adds to the overall terribleness of the character. I challenge anyone to watch her performance and not get a kick out if it. This is the first one I watched for the category but this will be hard to beat because I love how funny she is. It might not be the pinnacle of acting but it is certainly very entertaining.
Ann Sothern - The Whales of August
The draw for this film is that you get to see Lillian Gish and Bette Davis in their last roles and get to see them again, period. This isn't a thing of beauty, though. It's very stiff with the acting and feels like it belongs on the Lifetime channel instead of at the Oscars. It's got a soft focus and minor story and this will only appeal to a certain viewer who may not even be around anymore. I say the acting is stiff but Davis and Gish are really good together and you can tell they are from another era with their acting styles. Sothern plays Tisha, a neighbor of the two leads who comes by to dish and gab with the ladies and is very jovial. She has better, quicker acting sense than the two leads, as to be expected, and therefore ends up looking pretty good when compared to basically everyone else in the film. She's in that one scene for a little bit but doesn't do anything profound. She's a loud neighbor who gossips and has nothing else with which to spend her time on. She then shows up at the end of the film bringing a house buyer by and is admonished by Gish. That's the extent of her performance. It's okay but nothing to write home about. I feel she was the nomination because the older folk of the Academy wanted to nominate it but couldn't get it into Best Actress. Sothern does nothing to stand out and probably shouldn't be in this group. It's just basic work that should go overlooked.
So the Battle of the Ann(e)'s wasn't much of a battle. Sothern probably doesn't deserve to be in this group and feels more like a veteran type nomination. Easy 5th. Aleandro is decent in a not that great film but I'm okay with her nomination. She is what this category is about, even if it's not that amazing. Archer is the middle because while she's enjoyable and elevates a nothing role, it's still not much of a performance just because of what the character is. I liked Dukakis and her almost stately performance. I see why the Academy went for her and I might too if not for Ramsey. I just really enjoyed Ramsey's performance. It might be one note but at least it's really entertaining. It's something I could come back to and not get sick of, I think. I just find it more enjoyable overall and that's what it comes down to for me. This is about what I expected from the category.
Oscar Winner: Olympia Dukakis - Moonstruck
My Winner: Anne Ramsey - Throw Momma from the Train
Olympia Dukakis
Anne Archer
Norma Aleandro
Ann Sothern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)