1996 is almost over! It feels so good because I've always kinda looked at 1995 as the mark for when I'd really feel like I've started to make some progress in this project. And I feel like I have! I've completed 21 years and that's a whole lot of films I've watched. It's also a whole lot of films I've still got to watch. I love the 90's, though, and the nostalgia trip will be nice plus seeing all the films I've missed out on. Just got to get these one's out of the way first!
1996 Best Picture
The English Patient
This was one of those mythical Best Picture winners that I've heard talked about for years. I've read countless articles and comments about it being a shitty winner because it was boring, too long, didn't make sense, blah. Well I finally watched it for myself and I've got to say that I don't think it's one of the worst BP winners at all. It absolutely is too long which is my main gripe, but it's not awful or anything like that. It has some really great acting which is why three of its actors got nominated for an Oscar and one of them won. This is an epic tale and I will swear it goes on too long for its own good until someone listens. I feel you can excise the Willem Dafoe and Naveen Andrews plots and have a much better, more tightly focused film that goes on for about two hours. I honestly don't get the point of Dafoe in the film at all. Sure, he was in Fiennes' past but Dafoe is hunting him down then hears his story and then that's it. No retribution, no oh sorry mate, just a confession and then a glossing over of his purpose there. Dafoe is pointless to the overall story. Naveen is less so but still could be trimmed down. The English Patient is about Thomas and Fiennes and Binoche to a lesser extent. That's the fucking film! It's not extraneous crap, it's those three characters so they need to be built up and expanded upon because who cares about the rest? I want to see more Thomas, I want Binoche to confront Fiennes, I want Ralph to be on screen the whole film. That's what The English Patient is about! If not for Miramax, I'm not sure this film wins BP. I think Fargo was right on its heels. I read that it was initially over 4 hours long and I'd like to see that version because it could allow the Dafoe and Naveen plots to pay off. And I definitely wanted more of Thomas, Fiennes, and Binoche. As it is, The English Patient could be tweaked to make it much better. But The English Patient is a really good film in its own right! It's just not as good as it could be.
Fargo
I love the Coen Brothers' films. Absolutely love them and Fargo is no exception. In fact, it's one of their best films they've ever done as far as I'm concerned. Now, I'm not a total Coen Bros fanboy as they have a couple films that aren't that great but there's no doubting Fargo's greatness. It has all the typical charms of a Coen Bros film: quirky, interesting, ridiculous characters, death and violence, fantastic acting supported by fantastic dialogue, great cinematography from Roger Deakins and top notch directing from the brothers. It's only an hour and a half but it feels like such a complete story. We get a couple perfect performances out of this film which that alone should qualify it for classic status. Thing is, when people think about Fargo, they always think about how great of a film it is and usually call it a classic, especially compared to the rest of the year. No one has heard of Shine or Secrets and Lies and all anyone can do is quote some lines from Jerry Maguire but no one would call it a Best Picture worthy film. People know The English Patient as a long film with a historical romance and war plot and that's probably it. People remember Fargo. Hell, now we've got a TV series on FX that is a spin off of the film itself! If that doesn't tell you the lasting impact of Fargo, nothing will. It's a cultural touchstone, it's a film people use to tell time. They know it was from 1996 and can base things in their memory off of that fact. It's a simple story but it's done so well that it sticks in our minds as something bigger. There's a lot more that I want to say about Fargo but I'm just not finding the words. I don't mean that in any sanctimonious way, just that Fargo is a great film on a lot of accounts we've already covered. Fargo is simply a great film that deserved to be recognized as such with a Best Picture win.
Jerry Maguire
This was the lone studio picture in a sea of indies so I think partly for that reason, besides raking in a ton of money, is why Jerry Maguire made the Best Picture list. It's a feel good romantic dramedy that did really well at the box office and starred Tom Cruise, it's a film with broad appeal. Because let's be honest, this isn't really Best Picture material. This is a cliche filled film that ticks off the boxes for the type of film it is. Likable lead actor loses his successful job and must scramble to rebuild his life. Along the way he falls for the plain Jane, they marry but have issues later that get resolved in the big emotional finale. The story uses its supporting characters only when necessary and everyone has a laugh and a cry and go home feeling good. It's stuff we've seen a million times before and I really don't think this is a perfect example of the genre to build up as an all-timer. It's enjoyable, sure, but it's got a lot of flaws, too. The romance is generic and cheesy even with some of the inspired writing that would later become cliche itself. All the quotable lines now just make the film seem overly hokey and cheesy. The romance also confused me at times because they get together easily but then quickly have marriage troubles that seems very forced and out of nowhere meant to only lead to the ending where they can spout off their one liners and reconcile in the big emotional exclamation point. I didn't fully get why they were having marriage issues, though. I get that he was away a lot and I guess Zellweger's friend was putting the idea into her head that he'd leave when successful again or something? It wasn't clear to me and it didn't seem to be as important as the film wanted it to be so I just never bought into their turmoil. The little kid was super annoying and might as well have been a dog because that's all the story treated him as anyway. The scene where Cuba is injured catching a touchdown was supposed to be super dramatic but was really only super hokey when he gets up and starts dancing around the field. That display would have been flagged in the NFL! Even the impetus for Cruise getting fired was ridiculous. I'm a little overly harsh but this is a Best Picture nominee and should at least be a good film first and not just a crowdpleaser. I'd probably be more forgiving if this was included in a group of 8-10 nominees, but in 1996 it just takes up a spot for a more deserving film like say The Crucible, which I loved. I just think that films like these should be pretty great when held up to scrutiny instead of just falling back on the well it made a lot of money excuse.
Secrets and Lies
I've seen a couple Mike Leigh films now and his creative process has been mentioned by me before. He likes to get his actors together and allow them to create back stories for their characters and then they rehearse for awhile and come up with the story and film that way. In this one, the first meeting between Cynthia and Hortense is the first time those two actresses ever met and so the reaction we get is authentic because Cynthia didn't know her daughter would be black. On one hand it's kind of a cool concept seeing the honest reactions of characters when they don't know something is coming. But on the other hand, you can get some meandering storylines that don't feel fully fleshed out and do feel gimmicky and made up on the fly. What is the point of when Timothy Spall's previous shop owner comes into his photography studio drunk and talking smack? There's no need for that at all, cut it and it's a more focused story. Spall, however, was fantastic in this. He has become an actor that I really love seeing work. He should have been nominated for another Mike Leigh film: Mr. Turner but sadly was not. The acting from everyone else is a bit all over the place. Maybe that comes from letting your actors take the characters wherever they want but it stands out as wildly all over the place. Jean-Baptiste gets a deserved nomination for a realistic performance and is the standout along with Spall for me. The rest act in broad terms and can be a bit one note. I did like the direction and the hand held camerawork of some of the scenes that made it seem like we the audience were butting in these people's lives or peering around a corner, eavesdropping. Leigh at least knows how to make a film even if the process can let down the story itself. It could have easily been tighter and the characters more defined but overall it's an interesting look at identity and family. There are some great scenes like Cynthia and Hortense meeting and talking for 7-8 minutes straight in a really intense and well done scene. It has its faults, but Secrets and Lies is a pretty good film.
Shine
I don't know what it was with this year but we have yet another indie film, which is fine as long as they are good! But I don't know about Shine here. I don't know why this captured the attention of critics and the Academy. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. It's your standard musical genius biopic that has quirky acting from the lead and shows the horrible childhood he endures and his rise and fall and return to greatness. Except this is about a prodigy that no one's ever heard of, who plays piano well enough but not exactly mind blowingly well even if Shine tells me Rachmaninoff is supremely difficult to play, especially when younger. Standard stuff all around and I actually liked the second/middle actor of David Helfgott, who was pretty nerdy but not so obviously trying to be nerdy, he just was. I guess the main attraction is Geoffrey Rush's performance which is steeped in mannerisms you'll be left wondering where the character is underneath. The story is told in non-linear format, jumping between young, middle, and older Helfgott. So we see Helfgott's troubled childhood, his potential as a pianist, and his present day schizophrenic self. However, I don't think it was really articulated well just how David became schizophrenic. I guess we are supposed to be satisfied with his overbearing father emotionally abusing David before David collapses at a piano concert. That must have been a breakdown but it's so skimmed over that it doesn't even matter except that it's the whole point of the film! I feel like up until then in the timeline it's a decent film, but after that point it's like let's just show how weird and quirky and odd David is with his fast talking, squinty eyes, cooing laughs, and stooped shoulders. That seems to be the focus of the last third of the film and it sacrifices everything the film had built up to that point. It's a showcase for Rush, who yeah is technically great, but not all that emotionally compelling. This is the kind of film that would do real well at Sundance nowadays and get some rave reviews, get some Oscar talk then fade away until nomination day where it might pick up a nom or two - or zero. This film was a puffed up indie darling that made it all the way despite being mediocre. I just never connected with David and was never given a reason to connect with him. Bad childhood aside, I need more than just another piano prodigy with strange mannerisms to hook me in. I don't know what the Academy was thinking here.
This was an odd year on account of there being 4 indies and 1 big studio film. I'm all for indies making it in but this year could have excised at least one and have been okay. Shine just fails to really interest me as I don't really care about the piano genius, no matter how weird he is. I think if you added something else this would be a really great group. It's pretty good as it is. Jerry Maguire would be my 4th because even though it's the crowdpleaser and big studio film. It's kinda cliche even for what it is and the story doesn't like developing itself before moving on which hurts it. Secrets and Lies is smack in the middle because it is a pretty good film that stumbles at times but nothing major to detract from being an interesting film. It's kind of amazing that it was included in this group along with the Australian Shine since they both seem to fill an Academy niche for Best Picture. But it was the year of the indie so I guess that's why. Now, my top spot is easily Fargo because I feel like it's an all-time Oscar winner. It's one you can easily remember and is really entertaining all the way through, to boot. It would have been a perfect winner. The English Patient would be runner-up simply because of the issues of the extra storylines. Fix that and it may be an outright winner because the love story part was so engrossing for me. I really did enjoy most of it so I'm glad I didn't hate it as much as some people out there! All in all, a pretty good year even if I disagreed with the Academy.
Oscar Winner: The English Patient
My Winner: Fargo
The English Patient
Secrets and Lies
Jerry Maguire
Shine
Showing posts with label 1996. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1996. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2016
Leading Actor 1996
No fun introduction again. Have seen Tom Cruise but it's been awhile and I'd like to revisit him and haven't seen anyone else. This group is pretty intriguing and has an actor that I like a whole lot in Fiennes. Just super glad to be knocking these out!
1996 Best Actor
Geoffrey Rush - Shine
While writing the other reviews for this film I actually forgot Rush won Best Actor for this. Not even a joke, I scrolled to the bottom to find his name and realized, oh he won! Which I think is about a scathing of an indictment as I can write. Rush is not bad. At all. He's technically brilliant playing the schizophrenic piano genius David Helfgott. However, he has mastered the man's mannerisms but failed to bring the character to life. I can imagine all the hard work that went into mimicking the way David talks super fast, saying nonsense type stuff, laughing weirdly, squinting his eyes, shuffling around hunched over acting like Rain Man on crack. All of that is interesting to watch for about all of five minutes when you realize that is all you are going to get out of Rush's performance. There's no soul to his character. Even when he marries, which comes out of nowhere and is not set up at all, or when he meets his dad for the first time in forever - these are moments that are supposed to show the human essence of David. It's supposed to shine beneath the schizophrenic exterior into the man that is a musical genius. Except nothing is there. It's all a showcase for Rush, who does pass the test but offers up nothing besides mannerisms. It doesn't help that the film only spends about a third of it's time on him, making him seem like more of a supporting player than the heart and soul of the film. We basically just watch this weird guy prance around and bang away at a piano and then that's it as far as his present day adult years are concerned. I was more interested in the middle version of David as I thought he made for a way more compelling and fleshed out character. You would think that by 1996, the Academy would be over rewarding performances like this one. Instead they voted Rush's breakout role to an Oscar win. Go figure. I'm not a big fan of these types of roles, no matter how technically great they are. Give me a fully realized character over an imitation every time.
Tom Cruise - Jerry Maguire
It can be hard to really judge a Tom Cruise performance because just how much of it is performance and how much of it is just Tom Cruise? Here he plays sports agent Jerry Maguire who is forced out of the big sports agent company he works for after writing a mission statement about integrity and being more personal with clients and whatnot and is only able to keep one of his clients. Jerry is a very cocky guy who seems to be a great agent getting deals done before his epiphany. Then he is forced out and wants to do things the right way and you know the rest because it's standard bad guy becomes a good guy kinda stuff. This also brings about a romantic change as his beautiful fiancee leaves and then Jerry falls for the somewhat plain Zellweger who left the company with him and has a kid and all that cliche stuff. They fall in love, he bonds with the stupid little kid, the relationship has issues and then they have a big scene at the end where all is forgiven and love wins. Typical romantic comedy stuff and Cruise is typical Cruise playing a romantic comedy guy. There's nothing pushing the boundaries in this performance. I would say it's what Cruise had been doing for years and for some reason the Academy felt like nominating him perhaps because the film blew up, I don't know. But reality is that this is the same Cruise performance you've seen over and over, just this time he's a sports agent and not a race car driver or bartender or fighter pilot. There's no denying that Cruise is a great actor but this is a role he could do in his sleep and doesn't offer up anything new about his abilities. He's always been charismatic and emotional and blends a lot of that together in his performances which is why people like him and his films so much. I guess my thinking is did this performance stand apart from all his other ones? I don't really think so even if it's some good work by Cruise. I certainly don't think it was Oscar worthy but maybe the Academy felt it was time to reward him again. If you've seen one Cruise performance, then you've seen this one, too.
Ralph Fiennes - The English Patient
I'll say right away that I adore Ralph Fiennes. I think he is a gifted actor and supremely talented. There isn't anything that I've seen him in so far that I didn't like, The English Patient included. And when I say gifted actor, I honestly think he's one of the greatest living actors going today. In this film, as long as you can forgive the absurd burn victim makeup, I think he's as talented as anything else he has done. He has such a way, whether it's his English charm or not, with conveying humor in such a subtle yet stinging way. He can say something and it doesn't register as being hilarious until moments later because his delivery is so sarcastic and non-humorous. There's a great deal of humor in this role, also, which might not seem as evident on first watch or when you think back on it. He plays Count Almasy who is a pilot that gets shot down and badly burned and is taken care of by Juliette Binoche but was also in love with Kristin Scott Thomas when able bodied. The story slithers in and out in a labyrinthine way so we see all the different versions of Fiennes at once. I think it makes the impact of his performance more engaging as he is so sullen and grumpy looking when earliest in the timeline yet he's so lively and funny when badly burned and being taken care of in the bombed out monastery. He is equal to all versions presented, being good at Thomas' lover and to being the bed ridden victim. Fiennes delivers a pretty wonderful performance, one that many other actors wouldn't be able to pull off. I do think that if The English Patient's leading man wasn't so endearing and likable, the film would have failed miserably. Fiennes brought something real to the role and did a great job with it.
Woody Harrelson - The People Vs. Larry Flynt
When it comes to this performance, it's the tale of two halves. The first half is the beginning of Larry Flynt's career, naturally. Woody just plays that part of the character like Woody. Seriously, if you take any Woody Harrelson character from his filmography and put it in this first half, it'll look the exact same because this is Woody being Woody. This isn't Woody being Larry. If you said it was Woody portraying Hugh Hefner I'd have felt the same way. There's just no real reason to nominate the beginning part of this for an Oscar because it's so basic and nondescript. Then once Larry is shot and paralyzed is when we finally get some acting from Harrelson. He is in a wheel chair, obviously, but the voice is the big change. If you've seen Larry Flynt, you know he has the slurred words and distinctive voice. Woody does his best to emulate that but that's exactly what it seems like - emulation. Woody sounds kinda like Bane at times but never convinces me he is Larry Flynt. I think that might be the issue with Woody Harrelson is that he's so similar in all his roles that when he inhabits a famous person like Larry Flynt, he isn't able to be linked to the actual man. So this is a performance where Woody Harrelson is just Woody Harrelson at the end. Nothing wrong with that but I don't think it should be Oscar nominated. A good try but not my favorite.
Billy Bob Thornton - Sling Blade
This was the role that made Billy Bob's career and it's easy to see why. It's one of those passion projects where the actor writes, directs, produces, stars, caters, etc. and pulls off an amazing job because it's been a long time simmering. Like when a band's first album hits and is so good it's because they had their whole lives to write that first record. Same kind of idea here. It's obvious that Thornton had been developing this character for a long time and the performances proves that. It's a lived in performance and those are usually really good. Thornton plays Karl, a retarded man who was incarcerated in a mental hospital because he killed his mom and her boyfriend, I think, with a sling blade. He's been set free and he goes back to his hometown and befriends a kid and his mother and lives with them and we see his day to day interactions with them and the mom's abusive boyfriend and all the other people in their lives. Run on sentence aside, Thornton does a great job inhabiting Karl. Sure, he's got the funny voice and the mannerisms of constantly saying mmhmm and rubbing his hands together and swaying and all that, but after the initial introduction of it all you stop noticing it because you notice Karl, the man. He's a goodhearted, gentle soul giving out simple, yet fatherly advice to the boy who became his only real friend. It never comes off as being too hokey, it's very genuine and it's not as if Karl is making these big, long monologues on life and happiness or whatever like you might get in another movie. His character stays true to his simple self, no real big moments, just genuine ones that work better within the film. Now, I didn't like the ending as I felt it didn't quite gel with everything we just watched for almost 2 hours. We see Karl be this gentle guy and never get angry or allude to his past with his actions. And then we get the ending and it's like there's a disconnect. I understand where the point is trying to go but I think it would have been better if Karl protected the family or even moved on. Maybe it's also because I became a little more interested in how Karl would survive that I didn't want him to repeat his past mistakes. That speaks to the performance that Billy Bob gave and I must say it worked for me. It's a great performance.
Overall, not a bad group. It's got average to really good performances so that's a plus. The hard thing to do is put it into any kind of actual order. I guess the bottom two would be Harrelson and Cruise because they basically play versions of themselves and that's kinda boring even if they are really good actors. I want that range! Show me something out of the ordinary. Rush is my middle just because he's more of a supporting guy and skates by on the quirky mannerisms of his character. It's interesting for sure, but again I need more than that! That's why I like both Fiennes and Thornton. They create characters that I was invested in and cared about. Fiennes makes his severely burned patient compelling and funny and interesting to watch. As does Thornton with his simple minded man. Honestly, deciding between the two is hard because I think Fiennes is one of the best and Thornton is very strong with this performance. I guess I'll give the slightest edge to Thornton who was Rush's competition in 1996. It would be deserving but I could change it next time you ask me, it's that tough and close of a call. I'm happy with this group as is, mmhmm.
Oscar Winner: Geoffrey Rush - Shine
My Winner: Billy Bob Thornton - Sling Blade
Ralph Fiennes
Geoffrey Rush
Tom Cruise
Woody Harrelson
1996 Best Actor
Geoffrey Rush - Shine
While writing the other reviews for this film I actually forgot Rush won Best Actor for this. Not even a joke, I scrolled to the bottom to find his name and realized, oh he won! Which I think is about a scathing of an indictment as I can write. Rush is not bad. At all. He's technically brilliant playing the schizophrenic piano genius David Helfgott. However, he has mastered the man's mannerisms but failed to bring the character to life. I can imagine all the hard work that went into mimicking the way David talks super fast, saying nonsense type stuff, laughing weirdly, squinting his eyes, shuffling around hunched over acting like Rain Man on crack. All of that is interesting to watch for about all of five minutes when you realize that is all you are going to get out of Rush's performance. There's no soul to his character. Even when he marries, which comes out of nowhere and is not set up at all, or when he meets his dad for the first time in forever - these are moments that are supposed to show the human essence of David. It's supposed to shine beneath the schizophrenic exterior into the man that is a musical genius. Except nothing is there. It's all a showcase for Rush, who does pass the test but offers up nothing besides mannerisms. It doesn't help that the film only spends about a third of it's time on him, making him seem like more of a supporting player than the heart and soul of the film. We basically just watch this weird guy prance around and bang away at a piano and then that's it as far as his present day adult years are concerned. I was more interested in the middle version of David as I thought he made for a way more compelling and fleshed out character. You would think that by 1996, the Academy would be over rewarding performances like this one. Instead they voted Rush's breakout role to an Oscar win. Go figure. I'm not a big fan of these types of roles, no matter how technically great they are. Give me a fully realized character over an imitation every time.
Tom Cruise - Jerry Maguire
It can be hard to really judge a Tom Cruise performance because just how much of it is performance and how much of it is just Tom Cruise? Here he plays sports agent Jerry Maguire who is forced out of the big sports agent company he works for after writing a mission statement about integrity and being more personal with clients and whatnot and is only able to keep one of his clients. Jerry is a very cocky guy who seems to be a great agent getting deals done before his epiphany. Then he is forced out and wants to do things the right way and you know the rest because it's standard bad guy becomes a good guy kinda stuff. This also brings about a romantic change as his beautiful fiancee leaves and then Jerry falls for the somewhat plain Zellweger who left the company with him and has a kid and all that cliche stuff. They fall in love, he bonds with the stupid little kid, the relationship has issues and then they have a big scene at the end where all is forgiven and love wins. Typical romantic comedy stuff and Cruise is typical Cruise playing a romantic comedy guy. There's nothing pushing the boundaries in this performance. I would say it's what Cruise had been doing for years and for some reason the Academy felt like nominating him perhaps because the film blew up, I don't know. But reality is that this is the same Cruise performance you've seen over and over, just this time he's a sports agent and not a race car driver or bartender or fighter pilot. There's no denying that Cruise is a great actor but this is a role he could do in his sleep and doesn't offer up anything new about his abilities. He's always been charismatic and emotional and blends a lot of that together in his performances which is why people like him and his films so much. I guess my thinking is did this performance stand apart from all his other ones? I don't really think so even if it's some good work by Cruise. I certainly don't think it was Oscar worthy but maybe the Academy felt it was time to reward him again. If you've seen one Cruise performance, then you've seen this one, too.
Ralph Fiennes - The English Patient
I'll say right away that I adore Ralph Fiennes. I think he is a gifted actor and supremely talented. There isn't anything that I've seen him in so far that I didn't like, The English Patient included. And when I say gifted actor, I honestly think he's one of the greatest living actors going today. In this film, as long as you can forgive the absurd burn victim makeup, I think he's as talented as anything else he has done. He has such a way, whether it's his English charm or not, with conveying humor in such a subtle yet stinging way. He can say something and it doesn't register as being hilarious until moments later because his delivery is so sarcastic and non-humorous. There's a great deal of humor in this role, also, which might not seem as evident on first watch or when you think back on it. He plays Count Almasy who is a pilot that gets shot down and badly burned and is taken care of by Juliette Binoche but was also in love with Kristin Scott Thomas when able bodied. The story slithers in and out in a labyrinthine way so we see all the different versions of Fiennes at once. I think it makes the impact of his performance more engaging as he is so sullen and grumpy looking when earliest in the timeline yet he's so lively and funny when badly burned and being taken care of in the bombed out monastery. He is equal to all versions presented, being good at Thomas' lover and to being the bed ridden victim. Fiennes delivers a pretty wonderful performance, one that many other actors wouldn't be able to pull off. I do think that if The English Patient's leading man wasn't so endearing and likable, the film would have failed miserably. Fiennes brought something real to the role and did a great job with it.
Woody Harrelson - The People Vs. Larry Flynt
When it comes to this performance, it's the tale of two halves. The first half is the beginning of Larry Flynt's career, naturally. Woody just plays that part of the character like Woody. Seriously, if you take any Woody Harrelson character from his filmography and put it in this first half, it'll look the exact same because this is Woody being Woody. This isn't Woody being Larry. If you said it was Woody portraying Hugh Hefner I'd have felt the same way. There's just no real reason to nominate the beginning part of this for an Oscar because it's so basic and nondescript. Then once Larry is shot and paralyzed is when we finally get some acting from Harrelson. He is in a wheel chair, obviously, but the voice is the big change. If you've seen Larry Flynt, you know he has the slurred words and distinctive voice. Woody does his best to emulate that but that's exactly what it seems like - emulation. Woody sounds kinda like Bane at times but never convinces me he is Larry Flynt. I think that might be the issue with Woody Harrelson is that he's so similar in all his roles that when he inhabits a famous person like Larry Flynt, he isn't able to be linked to the actual man. So this is a performance where Woody Harrelson is just Woody Harrelson at the end. Nothing wrong with that but I don't think it should be Oscar nominated. A good try but not my favorite.
Billy Bob Thornton - Sling Blade
This was the role that made Billy Bob's career and it's easy to see why. It's one of those passion projects where the actor writes, directs, produces, stars, caters, etc. and pulls off an amazing job because it's been a long time simmering. Like when a band's first album hits and is so good it's because they had their whole lives to write that first record. Same kind of idea here. It's obvious that Thornton had been developing this character for a long time and the performances proves that. It's a lived in performance and those are usually really good. Thornton plays Karl, a retarded man who was incarcerated in a mental hospital because he killed his mom and her boyfriend, I think, with a sling blade. He's been set free and he goes back to his hometown and befriends a kid and his mother and lives with them and we see his day to day interactions with them and the mom's abusive boyfriend and all the other people in their lives. Run on sentence aside, Thornton does a great job inhabiting Karl. Sure, he's got the funny voice and the mannerisms of constantly saying mmhmm and rubbing his hands together and swaying and all that, but after the initial introduction of it all you stop noticing it because you notice Karl, the man. He's a goodhearted, gentle soul giving out simple, yet fatherly advice to the boy who became his only real friend. It never comes off as being too hokey, it's very genuine and it's not as if Karl is making these big, long monologues on life and happiness or whatever like you might get in another movie. His character stays true to his simple self, no real big moments, just genuine ones that work better within the film. Now, I didn't like the ending as I felt it didn't quite gel with everything we just watched for almost 2 hours. We see Karl be this gentle guy and never get angry or allude to his past with his actions. And then we get the ending and it's like there's a disconnect. I understand where the point is trying to go but I think it would have been better if Karl protected the family or even moved on. Maybe it's also because I became a little more interested in how Karl would survive that I didn't want him to repeat his past mistakes. That speaks to the performance that Billy Bob gave and I must say it worked for me. It's a great performance.
Overall, not a bad group. It's got average to really good performances so that's a plus. The hard thing to do is put it into any kind of actual order. I guess the bottom two would be Harrelson and Cruise because they basically play versions of themselves and that's kinda boring even if they are really good actors. I want that range! Show me something out of the ordinary. Rush is my middle just because he's more of a supporting guy and skates by on the quirky mannerisms of his character. It's interesting for sure, but again I need more than that! That's why I like both Fiennes and Thornton. They create characters that I was invested in and cared about. Fiennes makes his severely burned patient compelling and funny and interesting to watch. As does Thornton with his simple minded man. Honestly, deciding between the two is hard because I think Fiennes is one of the best and Thornton is very strong with this performance. I guess I'll give the slightest edge to Thornton who was Rush's competition in 1996. It would be deserving but I could change it next time you ask me, it's that tough and close of a call. I'm happy with this group as is, mmhmm.
Oscar Winner: Geoffrey Rush - Shine
My Winner: Billy Bob Thornton - Sling Blade
Ralph Fiennes
Geoffrey Rush
Tom Cruise
Woody Harrelson
Friday, March 25, 2016
Leading Actress 1996
Can't really think of much to say for this intro. I see I keep getting one view when I post these and I'm assuming it's the same person so feel free to comment mystery guest! I've only seen the winner previously so I'm looking forward to what a lot of people thought was such a great year for women in film. I guess we'll see!
1996 Best Actress
Frances McDormand - Fargo
Marge Gunderson is an iconic role. When you think of Fargo, you probably think of her pregnant cop before anything else. I do think the role has become slightly mythologized in that we remember her as being more outlandish and more North Dakotan than she actually is in the film. McDormand plays Marge very close to the vest. What I especially loved about her amazing performance is that we can see there's a whole lot more going on in her head than what she's outwardly showing. The gears in her head are turning and working overtime but the outward facade is steely and cool. She says things in a sort of deadpan way but it's not because she doesn't care about life, it seems to be that she's a big thinker and also very nice and goes through pleasantries and questions without seeming to be too accusatory or flippant. I don't know if I'm making any sense there but Marge is such a quietly strong woman which is what I like about McDormand's performance of her. She obviously made Chief of Police because she's smart and a go getter and a great policewoman. She dominates the scenes she's in because she is so Midwestern nice, which I know sounds ridiculous but she is so charming and has that gosh darn down home quality to her that's just so likable. McDormand also has amazing, expressive eyes. I'm telling you, watch her eyes in this film because they say so much that she doesn't vocalize. It's amazing. I know I'm not doing justice to her performance with this review but McDormand is indeed incredible. I implore you to watch it and see for yourself. She's probably the best female character the Coen Bros have ever written and maybe that's because McDormand is married to Joel. Either way, she creates such an iconic character that this was a no brainer for the Academy.
Brenda Blethyn - Secrets and Lies
There's just something about Brenda Blethyn performances and characters that I just intensely dislike. I hated her character in Little Voice and I hate her character in this film. I could not stand her whiny, little girl voice and constant wailing and crying and her skittishness and overall demeanor. I recognize that Blethyn is doing what's somewhat necessary for the character so her performance can't be classified as awful, I guess, but it doesn't mean I like watching her work. I just could not stand the way Cynthia reacted to basically everything in the film. She was like a chihuahua shaking at every little sound. It just annoyed the hell out of me, just like in her other nomination. However, I do recognize that Blethyn does a great job as the mother especially in the scene after she meets Hortense for the first time and they have 7-8 minutes of uninterrupted discussion going back and forth. It's intense but also familial and loving and is a really great scene driven by two women working the hell out of their characters. So yes, I do recognize that Blethyn knows what she's doing but I still don't like her character. I wouldn't want to suffer through that again, honestly. It's too weepy and tumultuous for my liking. I'd like to see a Blethyn performance where she's not using some grating voice or milking some annoying quality from her character because I think she would be fantastic otherwise. She's just an actress that doesn't do it for me and I imagine there will be a few of those to come. She's okay within the scope of this film but it doesn't work for me. Luckily, I have no more Blethyn to look forward to.
Diane Keaton - Marvin's Room
I don't care about this performance. It's like the Academy decided well, Meryl Streep has had a bunch of nominations so let's vote for Diane Keaton who hasn't been nominated in awhile. Thing is, Meryl is actually good in this film. By that I mean she's her typical good self, but her way of acting is so much better and more natural than Keaton's by a long shot. Meryl makes it look easy while Diane looks like she's acting, it's too obvious. Maybe it's unfair to compare the two but the difference is too glaring. Keaton plays a woman who has been taking care of her bed ridden father for years while Streep's character has been out of touch with her family. Keaton finds out she has cancer and needs a bone marrow transplant and contacts Streep who brings her son Leo DiCaprio along. Lots of family drama going on and Keaton eventually bonds with Leo and Streep starts helping to take care of her father. But when it comes to Keaton's performance, my main issue is that I didn't find it convincing at all. And that's the heart of the matter for me. If I don't find it convincing, why care? I was very bored by this performance and I cannot understand all the glowing reviews I've seen about this one. Especially given that 1996 has been heralded as such a great year for women in acting and then we get the likes of this kind of boring performance and a Lauren Bacall veteran nom that's full of nothing. I guess there's one in every category but there absolutely shouldn't be. I never want to watch this performance or film again because I have no interest in revisiting it. I'm not going to learn any deeper truth about her performance. I've contended for awhile now that I think some people just see the name and automatically ascribe more importance to their performance and forgive the flaws more easily than they would lesser names and unknowns. But that's the Academy for you: sometimes offering up truly inspired nominees and sometimes lazily going back to the well over and over like here.
Kristin Scott Thomas - The English Patient
Okay so she was the Leading Actress while Juliette Binoche was Supporting, yet if the roles were swapped I wouldn't really complain. Yes, Thomas was the love interest of Ralph Fiennes' character who dominates the story but she does seem more supporting at times than Binoche. Maybe because the story likes to go to the present day of Fiennes in the monastery more? I won't question the nomination anymore but Thomas is pretty good in her role. She is super charming. You honestly can't help but like her. Thing is, it's not like you can't help but fall in love with her, it's more of a can't help but like her and want to see more of her. The love story is left to her and Fiennes and they are certainly passionate. We are the bystander watching them flirt and eventually get it on. One thing about Thomas is that her smile conveys more than just joy, it has so many different meanings when you pay attention to it. It was the first thing I noticed about her and she uses that expression to great effect. She's quite beautiful in this film and her smile is just simply amazing, but I noticed she uses it at all times to mean all kinds of things and I think that's great acting. Thomas is very natural and I learned she campaigned hard for the role and it shows. She's so at ease as Katharine that it feels like it was certainly destiny. I like her performance a lot and she has great chemistry with Fiennes that I find it hard to imagine anyone else in her role. It might not be the strongest performance of the year but it absolutely fits the character and Thomas delivers on what that's all about. Thomas should feel good about her performance in a Best Picture film because it is certainly memorable.
Emily Watson - Breaking the Waves
This being a Lars von Trier film, there's a lot to parse out from Watson's performance which is heavily layered in subtext and all that stuff. Watson plays a woman who lives in a very religious group in Scotland but falls in love with an outsider and gets married. She then experiences sex and loves it but her husband becomes paralyzed in an accident shortly after they are married. He then asks her to have sex with other men and describe it to him and thus the point of the film. Like I said, there's a lot going on with Watson's character. She's easily manipulated by her husband, she confuses love and sex, she wants to be free to express herself when it comes to her church and family and it all comes from a good place. Watson doesn't treat her character as if she's stupid, she's just young and devoted to her husband. Watson has such an expressive face and can act with her eyes extremely well. That's what is most notable about the beginning of the film for me. There's not a lot of dialogue but there is a ton of acting going on. Watson's face and eyes when she is getting deflowered on her wedding day is quite remarkable as you watch her go through the emotions and realize that she really loves sex. It's great acting without doing too much. There are times where Watson gets on your nerves with her screeching and crying and fainting spells, as they are a little over the top, but she doesn't swing too wildly to one side or the other, thankfully. At least you can describe that overacting as part of Watson's character's traits instead of on Watson herself. I think that she's really great as this young, naive character and at times she's emotionally devastating with her situation of randomly fucking men. It's easy to see why Watson was again nominated 2 years later because she definitely established herself here as a woman to watch. This is a film that most people will not have seen or heard of and I think in the context of this year and Watson's career, it's a must watch because it's pretty strong work. There's a lot going on with her performance and she nails every aspect of it. I'm glad the Academy was able to vote for some really indie and interesting performances this year because it paid off.
As far as being touted as a banner year for women in film, well 1996 does have some good performances. I'd say I like the top 4 with the 5th being the one I don't like at all. That 5th would be Keaton who, I'm sorry, but completely bored me with her performance. I need more than what she gave. S o no. My 4th is Blethyn, her character can be annoying but it's overall a good performance with some pretty strong scenes that help elevate it. My 3rd is Watson because it's obvious that she is a strong actress and is doing a lot with little and I like that. Didn't think I'd like her so much after her previous performance I reviewed but I did. I just happened to like Thomas a little bit more. Her romance with Fiennes is enjoyable and I loved how natural Thomas felt in her role. She was born to play that and it shows. My winner is Oscar's winner because McDormand blows everyone else away with such a subtle and low key performance that hits so hard. She gives an iconic performance that even regular people know, so how could it not win? This was a good year but could have been better. I look forward to the year where I love every performance, though!
Oscar Winner: Frances McDormand - Fargo
My Winner: Frances McDormand - Fargo
Kristin Scott Thomas
Emily Watson
Brenda Blethyn
Diane Keaton
1996 Best Actress
Frances McDormand - Fargo
Marge Gunderson is an iconic role. When you think of Fargo, you probably think of her pregnant cop before anything else. I do think the role has become slightly mythologized in that we remember her as being more outlandish and more North Dakotan than she actually is in the film. McDormand plays Marge very close to the vest. What I especially loved about her amazing performance is that we can see there's a whole lot more going on in her head than what she's outwardly showing. The gears in her head are turning and working overtime but the outward facade is steely and cool. She says things in a sort of deadpan way but it's not because she doesn't care about life, it seems to be that she's a big thinker and also very nice and goes through pleasantries and questions without seeming to be too accusatory or flippant. I don't know if I'm making any sense there but Marge is such a quietly strong woman which is what I like about McDormand's performance of her. She obviously made Chief of Police because she's smart and a go getter and a great policewoman. She dominates the scenes she's in because she is so Midwestern nice, which I know sounds ridiculous but she is so charming and has that gosh darn down home quality to her that's just so likable. McDormand also has amazing, expressive eyes. I'm telling you, watch her eyes in this film because they say so much that she doesn't vocalize. It's amazing. I know I'm not doing justice to her performance with this review but McDormand is indeed incredible. I implore you to watch it and see for yourself. She's probably the best female character the Coen Bros have ever written and maybe that's because McDormand is married to Joel. Either way, she creates such an iconic character that this was a no brainer for the Academy.
Brenda Blethyn - Secrets and Lies
There's just something about Brenda Blethyn performances and characters that I just intensely dislike. I hated her character in Little Voice and I hate her character in this film. I could not stand her whiny, little girl voice and constant wailing and crying and her skittishness and overall demeanor. I recognize that Blethyn is doing what's somewhat necessary for the character so her performance can't be classified as awful, I guess, but it doesn't mean I like watching her work. I just could not stand the way Cynthia reacted to basically everything in the film. She was like a chihuahua shaking at every little sound. It just annoyed the hell out of me, just like in her other nomination. However, I do recognize that Blethyn does a great job as the mother especially in the scene after she meets Hortense for the first time and they have 7-8 minutes of uninterrupted discussion going back and forth. It's intense but also familial and loving and is a really great scene driven by two women working the hell out of their characters. So yes, I do recognize that Blethyn knows what she's doing but I still don't like her character. I wouldn't want to suffer through that again, honestly. It's too weepy and tumultuous for my liking. I'd like to see a Blethyn performance where she's not using some grating voice or milking some annoying quality from her character because I think she would be fantastic otherwise. She's just an actress that doesn't do it for me and I imagine there will be a few of those to come. She's okay within the scope of this film but it doesn't work for me. Luckily, I have no more Blethyn to look forward to.
Diane Keaton - Marvin's Room
I don't care about this performance. It's like the Academy decided well, Meryl Streep has had a bunch of nominations so let's vote for Diane Keaton who hasn't been nominated in awhile. Thing is, Meryl is actually good in this film. By that I mean she's her typical good self, but her way of acting is so much better and more natural than Keaton's by a long shot. Meryl makes it look easy while Diane looks like she's acting, it's too obvious. Maybe it's unfair to compare the two but the difference is too glaring. Keaton plays a woman who has been taking care of her bed ridden father for years while Streep's character has been out of touch with her family. Keaton finds out she has cancer and needs a bone marrow transplant and contacts Streep who brings her son Leo DiCaprio along. Lots of family drama going on and Keaton eventually bonds with Leo and Streep starts helping to take care of her father. But when it comes to Keaton's performance, my main issue is that I didn't find it convincing at all. And that's the heart of the matter for me. If I don't find it convincing, why care? I was very bored by this performance and I cannot understand all the glowing reviews I've seen about this one. Especially given that 1996 has been heralded as such a great year for women in acting and then we get the likes of this kind of boring performance and a Lauren Bacall veteran nom that's full of nothing. I guess there's one in every category but there absolutely shouldn't be. I never want to watch this performance or film again because I have no interest in revisiting it. I'm not going to learn any deeper truth about her performance. I've contended for awhile now that I think some people just see the name and automatically ascribe more importance to their performance and forgive the flaws more easily than they would lesser names and unknowns. But that's the Academy for you: sometimes offering up truly inspired nominees and sometimes lazily going back to the well over and over like here.
Kristin Scott Thomas - The English Patient
Okay so she was the Leading Actress while Juliette Binoche was Supporting, yet if the roles were swapped I wouldn't really complain. Yes, Thomas was the love interest of Ralph Fiennes' character who dominates the story but she does seem more supporting at times than Binoche. Maybe because the story likes to go to the present day of Fiennes in the monastery more? I won't question the nomination anymore but Thomas is pretty good in her role. She is super charming. You honestly can't help but like her. Thing is, it's not like you can't help but fall in love with her, it's more of a can't help but like her and want to see more of her. The love story is left to her and Fiennes and they are certainly passionate. We are the bystander watching them flirt and eventually get it on. One thing about Thomas is that her smile conveys more than just joy, it has so many different meanings when you pay attention to it. It was the first thing I noticed about her and she uses that expression to great effect. She's quite beautiful in this film and her smile is just simply amazing, but I noticed she uses it at all times to mean all kinds of things and I think that's great acting. Thomas is very natural and I learned she campaigned hard for the role and it shows. She's so at ease as Katharine that it feels like it was certainly destiny. I like her performance a lot and she has great chemistry with Fiennes that I find it hard to imagine anyone else in her role. It might not be the strongest performance of the year but it absolutely fits the character and Thomas delivers on what that's all about. Thomas should feel good about her performance in a Best Picture film because it is certainly memorable.
Emily Watson - Breaking the Waves
This being a Lars von Trier film, there's a lot to parse out from Watson's performance which is heavily layered in subtext and all that stuff. Watson plays a woman who lives in a very religious group in Scotland but falls in love with an outsider and gets married. She then experiences sex and loves it but her husband becomes paralyzed in an accident shortly after they are married. He then asks her to have sex with other men and describe it to him and thus the point of the film. Like I said, there's a lot going on with Watson's character. She's easily manipulated by her husband, she confuses love and sex, she wants to be free to express herself when it comes to her church and family and it all comes from a good place. Watson doesn't treat her character as if she's stupid, she's just young and devoted to her husband. Watson has such an expressive face and can act with her eyes extremely well. That's what is most notable about the beginning of the film for me. There's not a lot of dialogue but there is a ton of acting going on. Watson's face and eyes when she is getting deflowered on her wedding day is quite remarkable as you watch her go through the emotions and realize that she really loves sex. It's great acting without doing too much. There are times where Watson gets on your nerves with her screeching and crying and fainting spells, as they are a little over the top, but she doesn't swing too wildly to one side or the other, thankfully. At least you can describe that overacting as part of Watson's character's traits instead of on Watson herself. I think that she's really great as this young, naive character and at times she's emotionally devastating with her situation of randomly fucking men. It's easy to see why Watson was again nominated 2 years later because she definitely established herself here as a woman to watch. This is a film that most people will not have seen or heard of and I think in the context of this year and Watson's career, it's a must watch because it's pretty strong work. There's a lot going on with her performance and she nails every aspect of it. I'm glad the Academy was able to vote for some really indie and interesting performances this year because it paid off.
As far as being touted as a banner year for women in film, well 1996 does have some good performances. I'd say I like the top 4 with the 5th being the one I don't like at all. That 5th would be Keaton who, I'm sorry, but completely bored me with her performance. I need more than what she gave. S o no. My 4th is Blethyn, her character can be annoying but it's overall a good performance with some pretty strong scenes that help elevate it. My 3rd is Watson because it's obvious that she is a strong actress and is doing a lot with little and I like that. Didn't think I'd like her so much after her previous performance I reviewed but I did. I just happened to like Thomas a little bit more. Her romance with Fiennes is enjoyable and I loved how natural Thomas felt in her role. She was born to play that and it shows. My winner is Oscar's winner because McDormand blows everyone else away with such a subtle and low key performance that hits so hard. She gives an iconic performance that even regular people know, so how could it not win? This was a good year but could have been better. I look forward to the year where I love every performance, though!
Oscar Winner: Frances McDormand - Fargo
My Winner: Frances McDormand - Fargo
Kristin Scott Thomas
Emily Watson
Brenda Blethyn
Diane Keaton
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Supporting Actor 1996
Been looking forward to a few of these for awhile. No rants or diatribes for this category. Let's get to the films.
1996 Best Supporting Actor
Cuba Gooding Jr - Jerry Maguire
Everyone remembers his wild acceptance speech at the Oscars but I didn't realize that it was almost a continuation of his actual performance from the film. The Gooding we saw at the Oscars is partly like his character Tidwell in the film. Tidwell has these explosive moments just like the acceptance speech but it works for the character. Tidwell is a Wide Receiver for the Arizona Cardinals and he has the ego that an NFL WR should have. By that I mean he's a little larger than life and quite focused on cultivating his brand image and getting paid. Others will say that Gooding's performance comes off as obnoxious, but that's kind of the point of the character right? I actually thought it was going to be that way the entire film but Gooding turns the loudness down when the story calls for it and he's good in those moments as well. He and his wife, Regina King, have some pretty good chemistry together and make for a good couple. Those two on screen together were fun to watch. Now is Gooding's overall performance revelatory? No and that's fine. He's the millionaire athlete that wants more money and lives it up in his profession but is also equally passionate about his family. I think it's a good enough supporting performance in a film that's a little to a lot hokey at times so a loud performance like Gooding's doesn't look too out of place. I'm just completely unsure if it should be a winner. I never got the vibe that I was watching something important, just something fun. Cuba brings a ton of energy to the performance and that translates well, but I don't know if I'm as energized to vote for it.
William H. Macy - Fargo
William H. Macy is so good as Jerry Lundegaard and easily should have won this category. However, if you switch Macy and Geoffrey Rush, the whole Actor categories would make much more sense! Macy's character is quite obviously the lead actor of the film even if he's not onscreen the whole time but the film is about him and he's onscreen for way more time than Rush. That would make Rush's win look better and Macy would deservingly have a Best Actor Oscar, because let's face it, he deserves it for Fargo. Macy is the ultimate pathetic loser fuck up. He hires inept thugs to kidnap his wife so he can get the ransom money from his father-in-law, but things go awry and lots of death and violence follow, like in any good Coen Bros film. He's very much the Midwestern guy who is in over his head trying to finagle a windfall for himself because he doesn't want to ask his wife or father-in-law for the cash. It's apropos that Macy is a car salesman because he has no shame in trying to rip off a customer just as he has no shame in having his wife kidnapped and his father-in-law extorted. It's just that Macy's character is completely unequipped for dealing with things once they go wrong, which is part of what makes him so pathetic. Macy is able to make Jerry into a sympathetic and even likable character despite everything he does. It's a pitch perfect Coen Bros performance and Macy absolutely deserved an Oscar for this role.
Armin Mueller-Stahl - Shine
I've already stated that I didn't quite understand the love for this film and the same would go for Mueller-Stahl's performance. I guess it got swept up along with the film itself which would make sense. Mueller-Stahl plays musical genius David Helfgott's overbearing father. Now don't get me wrong, I think Mueller-Stahl does a good job with what he has to work with but it's just so prominently one note that it's hard to get excited about it. He's the tough father pushing his son to be better and doesn't except losing in any fashion, even turning down a special prize at a competition. He's a hard ass that dominates his family and his son's life one moment and then has moments where he's being the nice father, telling his son he's doing a good job. But then he goes through these sort of bipolar moments where he will let David got to America for music school but then realizes he will lose his control over David and then forbids it and makes David ashamed for wanting to abandon his family. This happens a couple times and you can see why it's a somewhat one note performance. It goes back and forth between overbearing father who controls David and the family and the father who tries to be loving in the only few ways he knows how. After awhile the performance starts getting boring because you've already seen all it has to offer. There's also some allusions to the Holocaust and Mueller-Stahl being a survivor which is why he's such an overbearing ass but it's never explored and only briefly mentioned. That would have been something I would have liked to hear more about to better understand this character, but the film didn't care about that and wanted to make him the quasi-villain for David to partially explain his breakdown and schizophrenia. It's a role that when nominated you're like okay, so what. But when it's not nominated, it becomes one of your handful of other choices to be included because such and such didn't deserve it. To me, this performance is just kind of there.
Edward Norton - Primal Fear
Okay, so this is a pretty damn good film! Side tangent for a second, but I must say that 80s and early 90s films are some of my favorites because of their overall look, music, and feeling. I love the old cars and cheesy synth music and the dirty, grungy cities. It's probably because I'm a child of the 80s so this is all part of the nostalgia of my childhood, but I can't get enough of this type of film. Primal Fear just also happens to be a very good film with great acting and a spellbinding story on top of the guilty pleasures. This is Edward Norton's screen debut, a year that saw him in this and a Woody Allen flick and The People vs. Larry Flynt. Not bad. Norton carves out a deliciously memorable role in this film as the accused murderer of a Catholic Archbishop. Richard Gere defends him and we see that there is more than meets the eye to Norton. He first comes off as the overwhelmed, stuttering, country bumpkin with Southern accent to match. Norton is fine as this character giving a believably Southern take on his altar boy. However, we see that Norton is also suffering from split personalities and we have a tougher, almost drill sergeant like other character that Norton can transition into when cornered and pissed off. What makes this performance is the transition part of it because it's so seamless and not ridiculous. It has the potential to look completely goofy and like a bad B movie if done the wrong way or done by the wrong actor. Wait, did I say that his transitions are what make the performance? Because you ain't seen nothing yet until the very end. Without giving anything away, it's chilling stuff and also brilliant stuff in a span of like 4 minutes. I could watch this film over and over for that payoff alone. Norton is up to the challenge because out of this whole film, the thing you remember most is Norton's performance and that's quite the accomplishment for a screen debut.
James Woods - Ghosts of Mississippi
This is kind of a chintzy movie, honestly. The way a lot of it is shot and how the acting and dialogue are, just doesn't seem fitting for such a heavy subject like racial strife and the assassination of a civil rights leader and subsequent bungling of his murder trials. Woods contributes to that less than serious tone with his performance which is really a lot of reaction shots and him mucking it up as the typical southern racist dipshit. Seriously, a lot of his screen time is simply him walking out of or into a court room and saying some racist remark. Or it's him in the court room rolling his eyes, yawning, squirming around, sighing heavily - real over the top stuff. Woods' character is obviously the villain of the film but Woods plays it like he needs a mustache to twirl, it's such a caricature. His character is cocky and smug and just a general bad person living it up because he knows he won't be convicted in Mississippi for killing a black man. Woods only has one scene where he actually gets to interact with another person and it's a short one in a bathroom where he taunts Alec Baldwin's character that he won't be found guilty. It's the only real chance Woods has to do anything with his character and it's not enough. I feel bad that Woods didn't get to do a whole lot besides ham it up as a racist killer but then he did get an Oscar nomination out of it so what do I know. It's weird that the Academy has such an infatuation with performances/roles like these. I can point to Geoffrey Rush's win this same year as something similar. The Academy seems to love it's obvious acting even if it's hammy. Unfortunately, this is a minor, forgettable performance.
This is a hell of a group based on my top 2 favorites from this year. First of all James Woods is my 5th spot because that's not much of a performance. Putting old man make up on and hamming it up shouldn't lead to an Oscar nomination. Armin Mueller-Stahl is my 4th because it's so one note and that's all it has going for it. My 3rd would be the winner of this category, Cuba Gooding Jr, who is really not all that impressive though he does bring a lot of energy. Duking it out for the win is Norton and Macy and I've got to give the win to Macy though ever so slightly over Norton because hot damn! is Norton really flipping fantastic and makes his film so much better. Macy is just the better all around performance that probably could have gone lead but even still deserves a damn Oscar. It's that good. I'd say an above average year because we get two amazing performances that didn't even win. As always, I hope next year is better.
Oscar Winner: Cuba Gooding Jr - Jerry Maguire
My Winner: William H. Macy - Fargo
Edward Norton
Cuba Gooding Jr
Armin Mueller-Stahl
James Woods
1996 Best Supporting Actor
Cuba Gooding Jr - Jerry Maguire
Everyone remembers his wild acceptance speech at the Oscars but I didn't realize that it was almost a continuation of his actual performance from the film. The Gooding we saw at the Oscars is partly like his character Tidwell in the film. Tidwell has these explosive moments just like the acceptance speech but it works for the character. Tidwell is a Wide Receiver for the Arizona Cardinals and he has the ego that an NFL WR should have. By that I mean he's a little larger than life and quite focused on cultivating his brand image and getting paid. Others will say that Gooding's performance comes off as obnoxious, but that's kind of the point of the character right? I actually thought it was going to be that way the entire film but Gooding turns the loudness down when the story calls for it and he's good in those moments as well. He and his wife, Regina King, have some pretty good chemistry together and make for a good couple. Those two on screen together were fun to watch. Now is Gooding's overall performance revelatory? No and that's fine. He's the millionaire athlete that wants more money and lives it up in his profession but is also equally passionate about his family. I think it's a good enough supporting performance in a film that's a little to a lot hokey at times so a loud performance like Gooding's doesn't look too out of place. I'm just completely unsure if it should be a winner. I never got the vibe that I was watching something important, just something fun. Cuba brings a ton of energy to the performance and that translates well, but I don't know if I'm as energized to vote for it.
William H. Macy - Fargo
William H. Macy is so good as Jerry Lundegaard and easily should have won this category. However, if you switch Macy and Geoffrey Rush, the whole Actor categories would make much more sense! Macy's character is quite obviously the lead actor of the film even if he's not onscreen the whole time but the film is about him and he's onscreen for way more time than Rush. That would make Rush's win look better and Macy would deservingly have a Best Actor Oscar, because let's face it, he deserves it for Fargo. Macy is the ultimate pathetic loser fuck up. He hires inept thugs to kidnap his wife so he can get the ransom money from his father-in-law, but things go awry and lots of death and violence follow, like in any good Coen Bros film. He's very much the Midwestern guy who is in over his head trying to finagle a windfall for himself because he doesn't want to ask his wife or father-in-law for the cash. It's apropos that Macy is a car salesman because he has no shame in trying to rip off a customer just as he has no shame in having his wife kidnapped and his father-in-law extorted. It's just that Macy's character is completely unequipped for dealing with things once they go wrong, which is part of what makes him so pathetic. Macy is able to make Jerry into a sympathetic and even likable character despite everything he does. It's a pitch perfect Coen Bros performance and Macy absolutely deserved an Oscar for this role.
Armin Mueller-Stahl - Shine
I've already stated that I didn't quite understand the love for this film and the same would go for Mueller-Stahl's performance. I guess it got swept up along with the film itself which would make sense. Mueller-Stahl plays musical genius David Helfgott's overbearing father. Now don't get me wrong, I think Mueller-Stahl does a good job with what he has to work with but it's just so prominently one note that it's hard to get excited about it. He's the tough father pushing his son to be better and doesn't except losing in any fashion, even turning down a special prize at a competition. He's a hard ass that dominates his family and his son's life one moment and then has moments where he's being the nice father, telling his son he's doing a good job. But then he goes through these sort of bipolar moments where he will let David got to America for music school but then realizes he will lose his control over David and then forbids it and makes David ashamed for wanting to abandon his family. This happens a couple times and you can see why it's a somewhat one note performance. It goes back and forth between overbearing father who controls David and the family and the father who tries to be loving in the only few ways he knows how. After awhile the performance starts getting boring because you've already seen all it has to offer. There's also some allusions to the Holocaust and Mueller-Stahl being a survivor which is why he's such an overbearing ass but it's never explored and only briefly mentioned. That would have been something I would have liked to hear more about to better understand this character, but the film didn't care about that and wanted to make him the quasi-villain for David to partially explain his breakdown and schizophrenia. It's a role that when nominated you're like okay, so what. But when it's not nominated, it becomes one of your handful of other choices to be included because such and such didn't deserve it. To me, this performance is just kind of there.
Edward Norton - Primal Fear
Okay, so this is a pretty damn good film! Side tangent for a second, but I must say that 80s and early 90s films are some of my favorites because of their overall look, music, and feeling. I love the old cars and cheesy synth music and the dirty, grungy cities. It's probably because I'm a child of the 80s so this is all part of the nostalgia of my childhood, but I can't get enough of this type of film. Primal Fear just also happens to be a very good film with great acting and a spellbinding story on top of the guilty pleasures. This is Edward Norton's screen debut, a year that saw him in this and a Woody Allen flick and The People vs. Larry Flynt. Not bad. Norton carves out a deliciously memorable role in this film as the accused murderer of a Catholic Archbishop. Richard Gere defends him and we see that there is more than meets the eye to Norton. He first comes off as the overwhelmed, stuttering, country bumpkin with Southern accent to match. Norton is fine as this character giving a believably Southern take on his altar boy. However, we see that Norton is also suffering from split personalities and we have a tougher, almost drill sergeant like other character that Norton can transition into when cornered and pissed off. What makes this performance is the transition part of it because it's so seamless and not ridiculous. It has the potential to look completely goofy and like a bad B movie if done the wrong way or done by the wrong actor. Wait, did I say that his transitions are what make the performance? Because you ain't seen nothing yet until the very end. Without giving anything away, it's chilling stuff and also brilliant stuff in a span of like 4 minutes. I could watch this film over and over for that payoff alone. Norton is up to the challenge because out of this whole film, the thing you remember most is Norton's performance and that's quite the accomplishment for a screen debut.
James Woods - Ghosts of Mississippi
This is kind of a chintzy movie, honestly. The way a lot of it is shot and how the acting and dialogue are, just doesn't seem fitting for such a heavy subject like racial strife and the assassination of a civil rights leader and subsequent bungling of his murder trials. Woods contributes to that less than serious tone with his performance which is really a lot of reaction shots and him mucking it up as the typical southern racist dipshit. Seriously, a lot of his screen time is simply him walking out of or into a court room and saying some racist remark. Or it's him in the court room rolling his eyes, yawning, squirming around, sighing heavily - real over the top stuff. Woods' character is obviously the villain of the film but Woods plays it like he needs a mustache to twirl, it's such a caricature. His character is cocky and smug and just a general bad person living it up because he knows he won't be convicted in Mississippi for killing a black man. Woods only has one scene where he actually gets to interact with another person and it's a short one in a bathroom where he taunts Alec Baldwin's character that he won't be found guilty. It's the only real chance Woods has to do anything with his character and it's not enough. I feel bad that Woods didn't get to do a whole lot besides ham it up as a racist killer but then he did get an Oscar nomination out of it so what do I know. It's weird that the Academy has such an infatuation with performances/roles like these. I can point to Geoffrey Rush's win this same year as something similar. The Academy seems to love it's obvious acting even if it's hammy. Unfortunately, this is a minor, forgettable performance.
This is a hell of a group based on my top 2 favorites from this year. First of all James Woods is my 5th spot because that's not much of a performance. Putting old man make up on and hamming it up shouldn't lead to an Oscar nomination. Armin Mueller-Stahl is my 4th because it's so one note and that's all it has going for it. My 3rd would be the winner of this category, Cuba Gooding Jr, who is really not all that impressive though he does bring a lot of energy. Duking it out for the win is Norton and Macy and I've got to give the win to Macy though ever so slightly over Norton because hot damn! is Norton really flipping fantastic and makes his film so much better. Macy is just the better all around performance that probably could have gone lead but even still deserves a damn Oscar. It's that good. I'd say an above average year because we get two amazing performances that didn't even win. As always, I hope next year is better.
Oscar Winner: Cuba Gooding Jr - Jerry Maguire
My Winner: William H. Macy - Fargo
Edward Norton
Cuba Gooding Jr
Armin Mueller-Stahl
James Woods
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Supporting Actress 1996
I wrote a big rant about how hard it can be to stay consistent with
this blog when life gets in the way. That remains true and my biggest
hurdle for the blog and why after 5-6 years I'm only 20 years in. But no
excuses. I might not want to come home after working a 12-13 hour day
and watch a Streisand rom-com but that's the nature of this beast. I
just hope I can stay steady enough to get to the 80s by the end of the
year! I haven't seen any of these performances/films so I'm hopeful I'll
get something worth my while. Let's see!
1996 Best Supporting Actress
Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
Alright so this feels more like a Leading Actress role to me. Yes I know that Kristin Scott Thomas was nominated for that too, but Binoche takes up a lot of screen time. The other four in this category all are legit supporting nominations and this is the winner? You see where my thinking is going. Anyway, even if you call this supporting, Binoche is very supporting in her actual role in the film. She is a nurse who takes care of Ralph Fiennes character in a blown out monastery and she fulfills her nursely duties to a T. She is at the bedside of Fiennes for most of the film save for a rendezvous with Naveen Andrews and the beginning of her arc where she is in a hospital tent and a convoy where her friend gets blown up. Binoche has the warm spirit of a nurse down pat and is so caring and loving and kind that you kinda wish you would have her for your next hospital visit. She shows great spunk at the beginning of the film when her friend is killed yet she walks briskly into a mind field because her friends necklace is there. Eventually, her and Fiennes are situated at the monastery and though Binoche is very personable and moves around a lot, she doesn't do all that much but provide support for Fiennes and love for Naveen Andrews. She is the impetus for a few of the flashbacks that Fiennes undergoes but Binoche is sort of a static character once she gets planted at Fiennes' bedside. I don't think there's anything negative you can say about her performance, it just doesn't stand out among the other acting in the film. Her winning isn't a terrible thing at all and the film obviously caught the Academy's attention. I'm personally okay with the win but she probably wouldn't be my choice.
Joan Allen - The Crucible
This is some strong acting! Joan Allen is absolutely fantastic in this film and her performance is simply wonderful. The film itself is incredible with some great acting all around, a classic story that remains harrowing and exasperating and important which was reworked by Arthur Miller himself, and a direction that focuses on the characters and the desperation that mounts as the twisted tale goes on. This should have been a Best Picture nominee. Joan Allen helps contribute to the overall effort with such a morally steadfast and understanding woman/wife role that is quietly devastating. I think she benefits from the above mentioned great acting and story and direction but she is not merely a product of those. She carries her own weight and lifts up the film with her fine performance. She and Daniel Day-Lewis are so riveting in their roles that you can tell they are feeding off each others energy and giving great performances because of it. Allen plays a woman whose husband has cheated on her in the past with Winona Ryder's character who starts off the whole witch hunt thing because she wanted Allen's husband for herself. Allen plays her character so calmly and cool that her performances rings even more substantial. Allen never overacts her character keeping her performance subtle and nuanced even though there are ample opportunities for her to go into hysterics. Even at the end in her pivotal scene with her husband, Allen's measured response is what perfectly describes her character. It's a strong performance without having to knock you over the head to get it's impact across and that is something I very much enjoy. Allen is most likely my pick for a winner because that was a supporting performance that really captured my attention instead of just being a supporting performance that is just there, existing. It contributes heartily to the overall experience of the film and left me blown away.
Lauren Bacall - The Mirror Has Two Faces
I didn't think this would be my first foray into a Barbra Streisand film yet here I am (I mean for the blog, as I've seen some things she's done). I thought it was going to be a lame Snow White type thing so I was glad it wasn't. Then I saw it had Jeff Bridges and was thrilled because I love that guy as an actor and was pumped for what might come. But it's a lame Streisand rom-com, that you could easily make fun of if you really wanted. It's entirely forgettable which obviously doesn't bode well for Bacall's performance. There's not much to it, again since I repeat myself for these veteran noms, but I like Bacall. I mean, she's Streisand's overbearing, criticizing mother but she has the look of Bacall's no bullshit demeanor throughout the film. She's still the legend she always was just playing a boring part in a Streisand movie. I kinda like her asshole mother even though it's brief but that's just because it's Bacall. Which explains why the Academy chose this as her only Oscar nomination. It's a nothing role that she infuses with her sassy nature. But this is a veteran nomination all the way in a mostly boring flick. Not much else to talk up so let's just leave it at that.
Barbara Hershey - The Portrait of a Lady
So I always thought that Barbara Hershey was an older actress like Lauren Bacall. So whenever I looked at this year, I'd groan to myself and think oh great, I have to watch a couple veteran nominations this year. Turns out Barbara Hershey was like 47 or 48 or around there when filming this. Maybe I was thinking of Barbara Stanwyck? I dunno, but I did groan out load when I first started this film with the lame mid 90s MTV introduction of I guess modern women. I didn't get that and it didn't bode well for Hershey going forward. The movie is based off the Henry James novel and is the second year in a row for me with a Henry James adaptation. I liked The Wings of the Dove a lot but didn't like this version of James' work. It's too dark and pretentious and self serious. Hershey has the unenviable task of portraying Madame Merle, a woman who spends most of her screen time scheming with John Malkovich to get the inherited fortune of Nicole Kidman. Now, as is true of any James work, the story is deeply layered with subtext, but I don't see any of that in Hershey's performance. She's a schemer and a very serious woman. I also disliked how she is made to speak in the clunky, sophisticated language of the text because it always comes off as unnecessary and a poor choice for the adaptation because Malkovich seems to speak in mostly modern tones. Point is that it detracts from the performance because it's as if it's supposed to make it seem much more important than it really is. Then towards the end of the movie, Hershey has sort of a change in heart and quietly blows up at Malkovich and slams a door a few times. It's a good scene taken on it's own and Hershey is great in not overplaying her anger but it came out of nowhere and felt hollow in the bigger picture of the performance. Maybe I need to watch this movie again about two more times to better understand all that's going on but I didn't get the change in her character and her presence seemed discarded at the end, her story left unfinished. Maybe I'm asking too much from a supporting performance but I think this movie could have been done better which would have served Hershey and the other actors well.
Marianne Jean-Baptiste - Secrets and Lies
I really enjoyed Jean-Baptiste in this role. She is a black woman who is looking for her birth mother who turns out to be white. I'll be honest and say that it really doesn't seem believable given Jean-Baptiste does not look mixed at all. So that might kill some of the believability of the characters being related but as a singular character, Hortense is more than believable. The main thing I like about her performance is how real and natural it is. Most of the other characters are acting in very broad terms but Jean-Baptiste delivers something that stands out, as if watching someone in a documentary. The film itself has that sort of peeping tom feel where we the audience are spying on the scenes and characters. Jean-Baptiste is honest in everything she does. It doesn't look like acting at all especially when watching her closely and observing her facial expressions and body language, it works as if she's a real life person. She shines brightest in the beginning to middle of the film when the focus is on her trying to find her birth mother and in the interaction she has with her once they finally meet. Now this has already been mentioned but it was the first time Brenda Blethyn saw and realized her daughter was black and it's captured on film. That's cool and all, if a little gimmicky, but their following sit down chat that goes uninterrupted for like 7-8 minutes is a thing of beauty. They just rattle off real life banter that seems so genuine and hammers home that documentary, fly on the wall feeling. Jean-Baptiste is exceptional in that scene, too. Unfortunately, towards the end of the film, Hortense becomes more like a prop, the black woman invading the birthday party and she doesn't get to shine as bright as before. In fact she feels a bit wasted in the most pivotal scenes of the film. I kinda feel like that's partly, if not mostly, due to Mike Leigh's creative process meandering it's way to the ultimate conclusion without any set parameters. Jean-Baptiste should have been more involved in the ending in more meaningful way. Her performance is good and I wasn't sure I'd like it based off what I'd read previously about it, but I'm glad it turned out to be an enjoyable performance.
Whew! That was a pretty intense group of performances and films in particular! I watched Bacall first and then followed that up with four straight serious and intense films that were unrelenting in their drama. I need a Netflix break where I can watch some stand up or some Patrick Swayze movies. As serious as most of these films and performances were, I'll take a year like this over some of the other years in this category. You can't call this one weak, save for Bacall's inclusion. Obviously she's my 5th nominee for a nothing performance and I really wish the Academy would knock these off in the future. My 4th would be Hershey who doesn't get much opportunity to register on the film itself instead sort of floundering in a role that deserves to be better. She's totally let down by the film even though the talent is there. My third is the Oscar winner because she gets stuck as the helpful nurse but never really breaks through that mold. She's great and competent but not amazing. I liked Jean-Baptiste's natural acting and the fact that she felt like the realest of all the characters in her film. She was a treat to watch even though it let her down at the end. Obviously Binoche won but both would be good candidates to win in this category in weak years. Joan Allen would also be an easy winner in a weak year. She was flipping amazing and I wish she would have won. She was brilliant and is my easy winner. This is a pretty strong Supporting Actress category considering we've had some pretty awful ones in the past (future)!
Oscar Winner: Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
My Winner: Joan Allen - The Crucible
Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Juliette Binoche
Barbara Hershey
Lauren Bacall
1996 Best Supporting Actress
Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
Alright so this feels more like a Leading Actress role to me. Yes I know that Kristin Scott Thomas was nominated for that too, but Binoche takes up a lot of screen time. The other four in this category all are legit supporting nominations and this is the winner? You see where my thinking is going. Anyway, even if you call this supporting, Binoche is very supporting in her actual role in the film. She is a nurse who takes care of Ralph Fiennes character in a blown out monastery and she fulfills her nursely duties to a T. She is at the bedside of Fiennes for most of the film save for a rendezvous with Naveen Andrews and the beginning of her arc where she is in a hospital tent and a convoy where her friend gets blown up. Binoche has the warm spirit of a nurse down pat and is so caring and loving and kind that you kinda wish you would have her for your next hospital visit. She shows great spunk at the beginning of the film when her friend is killed yet she walks briskly into a mind field because her friends necklace is there. Eventually, her and Fiennes are situated at the monastery and though Binoche is very personable and moves around a lot, she doesn't do all that much but provide support for Fiennes and love for Naveen Andrews. She is the impetus for a few of the flashbacks that Fiennes undergoes but Binoche is sort of a static character once she gets planted at Fiennes' bedside. I don't think there's anything negative you can say about her performance, it just doesn't stand out among the other acting in the film. Her winning isn't a terrible thing at all and the film obviously caught the Academy's attention. I'm personally okay with the win but she probably wouldn't be my choice.
Joan Allen - The Crucible
This is some strong acting! Joan Allen is absolutely fantastic in this film and her performance is simply wonderful. The film itself is incredible with some great acting all around, a classic story that remains harrowing and exasperating and important which was reworked by Arthur Miller himself, and a direction that focuses on the characters and the desperation that mounts as the twisted tale goes on. This should have been a Best Picture nominee. Joan Allen helps contribute to the overall effort with such a morally steadfast and understanding woman/wife role that is quietly devastating. I think she benefits from the above mentioned great acting and story and direction but she is not merely a product of those. She carries her own weight and lifts up the film with her fine performance. She and Daniel Day-Lewis are so riveting in their roles that you can tell they are feeding off each others energy and giving great performances because of it. Allen plays a woman whose husband has cheated on her in the past with Winona Ryder's character who starts off the whole witch hunt thing because she wanted Allen's husband for herself. Allen plays her character so calmly and cool that her performances rings even more substantial. Allen never overacts her character keeping her performance subtle and nuanced even though there are ample opportunities for her to go into hysterics. Even at the end in her pivotal scene with her husband, Allen's measured response is what perfectly describes her character. It's a strong performance without having to knock you over the head to get it's impact across and that is something I very much enjoy. Allen is most likely my pick for a winner because that was a supporting performance that really captured my attention instead of just being a supporting performance that is just there, existing. It contributes heartily to the overall experience of the film and left me blown away.
Lauren Bacall - The Mirror Has Two Faces
I didn't think this would be my first foray into a Barbra Streisand film yet here I am (I mean for the blog, as I've seen some things she's done). I thought it was going to be a lame Snow White type thing so I was glad it wasn't. Then I saw it had Jeff Bridges and was thrilled because I love that guy as an actor and was pumped for what might come. But it's a lame Streisand rom-com, that you could easily make fun of if you really wanted. It's entirely forgettable which obviously doesn't bode well for Bacall's performance. There's not much to it, again since I repeat myself for these veteran noms, but I like Bacall. I mean, she's Streisand's overbearing, criticizing mother but she has the look of Bacall's no bullshit demeanor throughout the film. She's still the legend she always was just playing a boring part in a Streisand movie. I kinda like her asshole mother even though it's brief but that's just because it's Bacall. Which explains why the Academy chose this as her only Oscar nomination. It's a nothing role that she infuses with her sassy nature. But this is a veteran nomination all the way in a mostly boring flick. Not much else to talk up so let's just leave it at that.
Barbara Hershey - The Portrait of a Lady
So I always thought that Barbara Hershey was an older actress like Lauren Bacall. So whenever I looked at this year, I'd groan to myself and think oh great, I have to watch a couple veteran nominations this year. Turns out Barbara Hershey was like 47 or 48 or around there when filming this. Maybe I was thinking of Barbara Stanwyck? I dunno, but I did groan out load when I first started this film with the lame mid 90s MTV introduction of I guess modern women. I didn't get that and it didn't bode well for Hershey going forward. The movie is based off the Henry James novel and is the second year in a row for me with a Henry James adaptation. I liked The Wings of the Dove a lot but didn't like this version of James' work. It's too dark and pretentious and self serious. Hershey has the unenviable task of portraying Madame Merle, a woman who spends most of her screen time scheming with John Malkovich to get the inherited fortune of Nicole Kidman. Now, as is true of any James work, the story is deeply layered with subtext, but I don't see any of that in Hershey's performance. She's a schemer and a very serious woman. I also disliked how she is made to speak in the clunky, sophisticated language of the text because it always comes off as unnecessary and a poor choice for the adaptation because Malkovich seems to speak in mostly modern tones. Point is that it detracts from the performance because it's as if it's supposed to make it seem much more important than it really is. Then towards the end of the movie, Hershey has sort of a change in heart and quietly blows up at Malkovich and slams a door a few times. It's a good scene taken on it's own and Hershey is great in not overplaying her anger but it came out of nowhere and felt hollow in the bigger picture of the performance. Maybe I need to watch this movie again about two more times to better understand all that's going on but I didn't get the change in her character and her presence seemed discarded at the end, her story left unfinished. Maybe I'm asking too much from a supporting performance but I think this movie could have been done better which would have served Hershey and the other actors well.
Marianne Jean-Baptiste - Secrets and Lies
I really enjoyed Jean-Baptiste in this role. She is a black woman who is looking for her birth mother who turns out to be white. I'll be honest and say that it really doesn't seem believable given Jean-Baptiste does not look mixed at all. So that might kill some of the believability of the characters being related but as a singular character, Hortense is more than believable. The main thing I like about her performance is how real and natural it is. Most of the other characters are acting in very broad terms but Jean-Baptiste delivers something that stands out, as if watching someone in a documentary. The film itself has that sort of peeping tom feel where we the audience are spying on the scenes and characters. Jean-Baptiste is honest in everything she does. It doesn't look like acting at all especially when watching her closely and observing her facial expressions and body language, it works as if she's a real life person. She shines brightest in the beginning to middle of the film when the focus is on her trying to find her birth mother and in the interaction she has with her once they finally meet. Now this has already been mentioned but it was the first time Brenda Blethyn saw and realized her daughter was black and it's captured on film. That's cool and all, if a little gimmicky, but their following sit down chat that goes uninterrupted for like 7-8 minutes is a thing of beauty. They just rattle off real life banter that seems so genuine and hammers home that documentary, fly on the wall feeling. Jean-Baptiste is exceptional in that scene, too. Unfortunately, towards the end of the film, Hortense becomes more like a prop, the black woman invading the birthday party and she doesn't get to shine as bright as before. In fact she feels a bit wasted in the most pivotal scenes of the film. I kinda feel like that's partly, if not mostly, due to Mike Leigh's creative process meandering it's way to the ultimate conclusion without any set parameters. Jean-Baptiste should have been more involved in the ending in more meaningful way. Her performance is good and I wasn't sure I'd like it based off what I'd read previously about it, but I'm glad it turned out to be an enjoyable performance.
Whew! That was a pretty intense group of performances and films in particular! I watched Bacall first and then followed that up with four straight serious and intense films that were unrelenting in their drama. I need a Netflix break where I can watch some stand up or some Patrick Swayze movies. As serious as most of these films and performances were, I'll take a year like this over some of the other years in this category. You can't call this one weak, save for Bacall's inclusion. Obviously she's my 5th nominee for a nothing performance and I really wish the Academy would knock these off in the future. My 4th would be Hershey who doesn't get much opportunity to register on the film itself instead sort of floundering in a role that deserves to be better. She's totally let down by the film even though the talent is there. My third is the Oscar winner because she gets stuck as the helpful nurse but never really breaks through that mold. She's great and competent but not amazing. I liked Jean-Baptiste's natural acting and the fact that she felt like the realest of all the characters in her film. She was a treat to watch even though it let her down at the end. Obviously Binoche won but both would be good candidates to win in this category in weak years. Joan Allen would also be an easy winner in a weak year. She was flipping amazing and I wish she would have won. She was brilliant and is my easy winner. This is a pretty strong Supporting Actress category considering we've had some pretty awful ones in the past (future)!
Oscar Winner: Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
My Winner: Joan Allen - The Crucible
Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Juliette Binoche
Barbara Hershey
Lauren Bacall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)