Leading Actress 2016

Stone wasn't quite a juggernaut during the Oscar race, as both Huppert and Portman got quite a lot of press and hype. Some of that was early on which faded before Stone really cemented herself as the one to beat. Streep is always in the mix and the darkhorse, even more than Huppert, was Negga coming out of nowhere with a nomination. I'll have to see how they all stack up.

2016 Best Actress

Emma Stone - La La Land

I have been sitting here awhile trying to figure out just what to write about Emma Stone and her win. La La Land was fun and interesting but very underwhelming to me. I feel like that perfectly explains Stone's performance in my opinion: fun and interesting but ultimately very underwhelming. I even watched the film twice just to be sure my opinion wasn't lukewarm because I was tired or something. But even after two views, I just didn't feel very strongly at all about Stone's performance as Mia, an up and coming actress trying to find her way in Hollywood. It's clearly not a bad performance but I was looking for something to wow me and I just never found it. She has amazing chemistry with Ryan Gosling, as the two have starred together in a few films now and the rapport is quite evident. They are two actors having fun working together and it makes each of them better and the film better as a whole. Stone is alright with the singing and dancing but she is by no means amazing at either aspect. Whereas in the old Hollywood musicals the female stars would belt out song after song and pull off some dizzying tap dance or whirling dance moves for most of the film, that doesn't happen here. The singing and dancing is sort of a background element or really just a supporting player in the film. I do think Stone is stronger when she's playing the more dramatic and actorly parts. And I think Stone succeeds in part because she comes off as an everywoman or a girl next door type that you can easily relate to and doesn't have that Hollywood stuck up asshole vibe going on. That all makes her likable and easy to root for. I just wasn't blown away by her performance and I was really expecting to love it. I think she is good and definitely deserves to be nominated in this group but I just wanted more, same thing for Gosling and the film itself. I don't hate the win, though, at all. I'm happy she won and was fine it wasn't Streep or Portman (who is very good herself!) again because I like having new winners. Maybe in time I'll warm up to the performance itself more because I do like it, it's just that I don't feel strong enough to advocate for it and add to the hype. I am excited to see where Stone goes from here. I'm hoping she continues to give us interesting performances and make good choices for the films she's in.

Isabelle Huppert - Elle

I always have trouble with these foreign actor nominations because I wonder if I'm missing something in translation or missing some subtlety in the acting while I'm reading the subtitles. I've gone on about that subject in the past but it's always there for me. This is a wild Paul Verhoeven film who you know from directing Basic Instinct, Showgirls, and Starship Troopers among a couple other big films. This one tells the story of Michele, a successful businesswoman who is raped in her home and goes on about her life after it happens. She's got a long list of heavy issues going on in her life: her son has a pregnant overbearing girlfriend who gives birth to a black baby (everyone is white in this), an ex-husband who is with a prettier, younger yoga teacher, she's sleeping with her business partner's husband, her mother pays young men for sex and is now getting married to one before she dies, her father is up for parole after a mass murder incident some 30 years prior that involved Michele, and a seemingly perfect couple who live across the street who are more than meets the eye. Like I said, a ton going on in Michele's life and Huppert has to navigate all of this while still creating an engaging, cohesive performance. I'll admit I don't know what else Huppert has done, but she is treated as a living legend when you look online. I can understand why a little bit after watching this performance because she is able to wrangle all these different possible emotions and keep it compelling and interesting. The whole point of the film is that Huppert turns the tables on her attacker. It's a rape revenge thriller and she is actually raped a couple of times in the film leading to the final big moment where she does indeed get her revenge. It doesn't surprise me, either, that the character would plan something long term like that because she is whip smart and creative. What I like about Huppert's performance is the fact that she is sorta cold and aloof after the first rape. By that I mean, she doesn't turn into a scared, blubbering mess for the rest of the film. She goes about her life and deals with the issues she has going on and eventually hatches her revenge plot. I feel like that better matches the story and Huppert makes her Michele into a believable character and even somewhat sympathetic. It does reek a bit of a male fantasy with rape almost becoming sexy but I guess women could think the same way. Honestly, the material is very frank and goes to places not many other films would which makes it unique and very interesting to watch. The performance Huppert gives is a big reason for that. I think people will react differently to this film and thus Huppert's performance, but it certainly belongs on the Best Actress list. I have a feeling I'm going to be thinking about this one for a long time after watching it.

Ruth Negga - Loving

I am having a hard time really coming up with anything interesting to say about Negga and her performance. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Negga is good in the role of Mildred Loving, part of an interracial couple that takes their case to the Supreme Court to overturn all miscegenation (the mixing of races) laws in the country. Her and her white husband are allowed to be legally married anywhere in the country and the film has an important message about love and common decency. And I think it's great that a woman born in Ethiopia could one day become an Oscar nominated actress. But Negga's performance is a quiet, yet firm, portrayal of a woman who just wants to live with her family without any fuss over her marriage. I think Negga strikes the right balance of keeping her character grounded and not becoming prone to any outlandish acting choices. This film doesn't call for the latter stuff at all and Negga quietly turns her character into a dignified woman who just happens to be a turning point in the civil rights of this country. She is sort of that reluctant hero who just wants to do good by her family and enjoy her little slice of life. There are no big Oscar moments in this performance. No big screaming scenes about being persecuted. No big weep fests over the cruelty of her being locked up and told to leave Virginia. Nothing like any of that and while it makes the performance seem small and insular, it is sort of refreshing in that Negga stays even keeled while chaos is going on around her, just like her husband does, too. So it can be hard to really enjoy the performance on an emotional level when Negga is almost without emotion for long stretches of the film. Now, she does internalize a lot of that emotion that you have to watch her face and eyes to see what's going on in her head and heart. Sometimes that connects with me but it didn't quite get there for me this time. I still like the performance and am glad she was nominated but this is the one quiet performance of the five in this group and struggles to rise above the noise of the others. But you should watch Loving for yourself and decide if Negga is worth of a possible Oscar win.

Natalie Portman - Jackie

I watched this film twice in a week during the heart of the Oscar race, the only film I actually watched before the Oscars. At first I wasn't a fan of Portman's. The accent when you first hear it is jarring. I was thinking how can I suffer through a whole film of this awful accent? But Portman settles into the accent, though there are plenty of times where it looks like she is working at making it believable, where it's heavily affected. But you get used to it and Portman settles into actually becoming Jackie and the film takes off from there. My second watch let me not get so involved in the accent thing and just watch Portman be Jackie and it made for a much better experience. So I say that just to let you know to stick with it. The film follows the days after Kennedy is assassinated as Jackie recounts those days for an interview. Portman is intense as Jackie, there's no other way to put that. She put everything she had acting wise into this performance to become Jackie and make the character her own. All of the best scenes hit hard because Portman brings the intensity but also because she embodies Jackie's calm, strong spirit to not let people walk all over her and be her own person. Portman is all at once fragile and strong and vulnerable and devastated and determined and hopeful and melancholy and a million other emotions at the same time. She pulls off this amazing range of acting without ever really wavering. Her Jackie is brutal to watch and you just sympathize with a woman who was thrust into the public eye and had to endure such an awful tragedy while keeping a classy face for a nation in mourning. Just listen to the beautiful and haunting score (which should have won the Oscar over that La La Land crap), especially the track "Children" to hear what I just described about Portman's performance summed up in music. It perfectly accentuates everything Portman does in this film. Portman at one point was the front runner for the win which is what prompted me to first watch her. I was ready to bash it because the online world loves them some Portman but I was hooked after getting used to her Jackie. I just think even now that her performance has grown in my mind and it is her best work to me, even better than her win in Black Swan which I wasn't a big fan of back then. I'm very much debating whether or not to give Portman the win here, that's how much I enjoyed the film and her performance as a whole.

Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins

I am coming to the end of my Streep responsibilities. It's Meryl Streep. You are tired of Meryl Streep. I have two more Meryl Streep to go and I'm almost tired of Meryl Streep. This is her 20th(!) nomination for acting. No one will EVER match this. So how is the actual performance? Streep is flawless as usual. Seriously. She gets to become Mrs. Jenkins and she does the actual bad singing that you hear in the film. It's awful and you get the sense of what this was like in the 40s but it's still Streep giving her all. Besides the awful singing she still gives a very heartfelt performance because she is very calculating in her acting choices. This is Streep being Streep. You know the performance is going to be solid and have some quirk to it that sets it apart (the bad singing here). I feel like I've been writing mostly the same thing for her year after year. You'll be fine with the performance but you will also wonder if it really should have been nominated. I always feel like unless Streep is just absolutely amazing, they should let in some other actresses for these nominations. That's unfair, I know, but that's what 20 nominations does to a reviewer. I also wanted to note that both Hugh Grant and Simon Helberg are pretty great in their roles, Grant more so. He could have easily been a Best Actor nominee, though I do remember a lot of people putting him in Supporting conversations but whatever. It's a decent little film that has some pretty great performances that make it a must watch for any Oscar fan. I just wonder how many more nominations Streep has left in her.


You know, I really wanted to love Emma Stone's performance but I frankly don't feel like it lives up to the hype and I wasn't wowed by it at all. It's good, sure, but damn if Huppert and Portman don't blow her away. I don't even know how to rank these five. I guess we can put Streep last even though she is very entertaining and does a great job as usual just because it's Streep for the umpteenth time. Negga would be fourth because a lot of her performance is internalized and below the surface. She might actually rise in the future for me but for now this is where she goes. I'll put Stone third because there is a lot to like about her performance and she tries hard to be charming and likable and all that. It just never grabbed me how it seemed to grab everyone else. The hardest choice is between both Huppert and Portman. Both have difficult roles and films and both knock em out of the park. I feel like Portman has resonated with me for so long that she gets the slight edge. I think it's the combination of her performance with that haunting score and the melancholy cinematography that creates a whole experience for me. Writing this now, I want to watch her again which doesn't happen too often. I know I said I was fine with her not winning because we got a new winner but after watching them all, she is my choice. This is definitely one of the better Best Actress groups I've seen in awhile and I'm hopeful that trend will continue for 2017.

Oscar Winner: Emma Stone - La La Land
My Winner: Natalie Portman - Jackie
Isabelle Huppert
Emma Stone
Ruth Negga
Meryl Streep

Supporting Actor 2016

This was Ali's year from start to finish. No one really challenged him except Bridges who had the veteran angle going for him but there wasn't much traction to that, I don't think. Everyone else was just glad to be along for the ride.

2016 Best Supporting Actor

Mahershala Ali - Moonlight

This was absolutely the year of Mahershala Ali. He starred in two Best Picture films, Moonlight and Hidden Figures, and was also one of the best parts of the Netflix Marvel show, Luke Cage. I thought he was a really great villain in that show and the series suffered when he left in the middle of it. All three of these roles show off Ali's range. In one, he plays a deadly villain. In the other, he plays a charming military man. And in his winning role, he plays Juan, a drug dealer with a soft spot for a boy he meets that reminds him of himself. I honestly wasn't expecting Ali to be so sweet and tender and human. I know that's weird to say but I figured he'd be a hardass gangster from the little that I knew of the film but Ali takes in Chiron and becomes an almost father figure to the young kid. The kid has a terrible home life with a crack addict mother and Ali recognizes that the boy needs some guidance and someone to be there for him. The standout scene is Ali's last in the film where Chiron asks what a faggot is and is he one and how would he know. Ali and his character treat this situation with the utmost delicacy, sincerity, and genuine compassion so much so that this part of the performance floored me. This was tremendous acting and honestly, that scene will stick with me forever as a favorite and an example of masterful acting. Up until then it was yeah, Ali is pretty good like in the realness of yelling at Chiron's mom when she was smoking crack in a car on his street, but this was where the win for Ali made perfect sense. I like every other person nominated in this category and would be happy if any of them had won, but Ali winning makes me the happiest because he is phenomenal in this role. This isn't just a black man winning because of past controversy, this is a well earned Oscar for a performance that more people need to see. I wanted the whole film to be about Ali and could have watched him for two hours or more. But I do like that we don't know a whole lot about Juan and we just get this small snapshot of who he was because it actually feels supporting to the main character, Chiron, influencing his decisions later in life. These are the kinds of performances that I live to find in doing this project and I'm glad the most recent Oscars provided me with one.

Jeff Bridges - Hell or High Water

I have gone off elsewhere about the Academy always going to the same well for it's nominees and that goes especially true for this year (just look in the Supporting Actress group for my hot take on that). There was a very real sense that Bridges could win his second Oscar for this performance and the run up to Oscar season had it as Bridges versus Ali as the main contenders. There was also a loud sentiment that his costars in Ben Foster and Chris Pine were equally as deserving to be nominated and it was a take your pick kind of thing for the film, maybe even a double nomination. Well, Bridges was obviously the one and he is damn good in this role. He plays a Texas Ranger about to retire who takes on a string of bank robberies. He's got a heavy Texan accent and a sarcastic, asshole demeanor. He clowns on his partner who is Mexican/Native American and the relationship feels authentic and legit. The quips are funny and come from a place of respect even if they are terribly racist. Bridges is a grizzled Texas Ranger veteran, though, coming to the end of his career. He has that intuition about what a criminal is going to do and is able to predict where the next bank robbery will be. Say what you will about deus ex machina and all that and the fact that Bridges is this expert sniper from hundreds of yards away (not terribly unbelievable), he makes you believe in his character. It's also the fact that Bridges has played a couple western type characters, including his Oscar nominated turn in True Grit, so he has cultivated this character and performance over years so this feels lived in and like a fully developed character. Obviously, the standout scene is the very end where he and Chris Pine have a nice verbal tete a tete about Pine's involvement. It's full of so much subtext that you need to watch it a few times to soak it all in. Just watch Bridges' hands at the end and fully listen to his words that mean more than what they say. It's great acting and probably secured him the nomination. But, to my earlier point, if Foster was nominated here (or even Pine, though he seems more Best Actor material) I wouldn't be upset. But Bridges is more than deserving. You can also compare Bridges to Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men, and though there are some similarities, the two men are completely different. Bridges' character isn't weary at all and would continue being a Ranger if he could, which he kinda tries to do. Jones is just a tired old lawman. But both are cut from the same cloth, I think. Bridges is good and I hope he has more performances like this in him in the future.

Lucas Hedges - Manchester by the Sea

The main thing that sticks out to me about this performance, or really just the character in general, is that Patrick (Hedges) doesn't act normal. I get that people react differently to tragedy in their lives but this is almost absurd and I really loved the film! So Hedges has his father die from congestive heart failure which everyone knew could happen at anytime. But the kid doesn't react at all to this sad, life changing news. He just cracks jokes, tries to bang his multiple girlfriends, hangs out with his friends, and goes on with his life as if nothing has happened. It really boggled my mind that that was the direction writer/director Kenneth Lonergan wanted this character to go. He doesn't even ever seem sad. All we ever get emotion wise is that he doesn't like the idea of his dad being in a freezer until he can be buried in the spring and has a freak out moment when food falls from his freezer and he has trouble putting it back in. That's it! That's the only emotional response we get from Patrick. It's absurd. He doesn't cry at the hospital or at the funeral or anywhere and he just goes on with life. Hedges does what he can with the character but your performance is going to suffer when a film with so much tragedy has one role that is completely unaffected by said tragedies. Hedges reminds me a tiny bit of a taller, skinnier Matt Damon and he holds his own against Casey Affleck just fine, but I feel that's because the character is just immune to emotion. I just didn't get this character at all, so maybe someone out there can explain it to me. For that reason, I find it hard to get into Hedges' performance. He's a typical kid, he's funny, he's likable and he's got a little bit of presence but how can you judge this without any real emotion? I'm struggling to figure out why Hedges was nominated other than the Academy loved the hell out of this film. Anyone care to explain it to me?

Dev Patel - Lion

Honestly, the first thing that even pops into my mind when seeing him nominated here is that this is a make-up nomination. I don't feel like I'm wrong at all about that. I do feel like this is because Patel was so good and so instrumental in Slumdog Millionaire winning Best Picture. Without Dev Patel, that film doesn't win a thing. So this is Dev's consolation prize, so to speak. It is for great work, though, which is good. The film is about an Indian boy who gets separated from his brother one night and travels hundreds of miles away from home and is eventually adopted by an Australian couple. He is raised in a loving, normal home and goes to college in Melbourne. From there, his friends encourage him to search for his birthplace on Google Earth and he finally locates home. Patel is good because he moves the story forward. I know that sounds stupid but he's so good at being a conduit to move a story forward. He is a vessel for the audience to put all their emotions and not feel weird or hesitant about it. A 56 year old white woman from Kansas can become emotionally involved in an Indian boy in Australia because of Patel's acting. It's beyond emotional and he hooks you with his sincerity to his journey and to his mother. Patel makes the adult Saroo into a charming yet troubled version of himself. He kills a relationship because of an identity crisis but we understand because it's a very real one. I think Patel delivers a very poignant portrayal of what it's like to be unsure of one's history while trying to search for it. Patel is tired and desperate yet unyielding. He takes the audience on an emotional ride that feels natural and earned and highlights a very good supporting performance. The big issue is that some feel he was Leading but he shows up 53 minutes into a less than 2 hour film, so no, he is very much Supporting. And he's very good at it.

Michael Shannon - Nocturnal Animals

Michael Shannon could have like 7 Oscar nominations already if it were up to me. He's a great character actor and supporting player who gives amazing performances in almost everything he does. No different here as he plays a policeman who helps Jake Gyllenhaal after his traumatic night of terror where his wife and daughter were raped and murdered. Shannon is just a gruff old cop who responds with grunts at times and looks like, and is, a hardass with a good heart. A lot of people will think this film is all style without any substance and you wouldn't really be wrong. The film looks gorgeous and Tom Ford's style is pretty evident in everything about the film. I personally like the mood and intensity of the film and don't care about the paper thin real life characters. I'm just along for the beautifully dark ride. Shannon does make a little something out of a role that with anyone else would have probably fallen flat or been way too overdone. Shannon gets it just right and his get justice done at any cost style feels natural to the character. You naturally gravitate towards watching Shannon work in the film because you want to see what he does next and how he does it. He's like that in all of his performances and probably why he was the choice for the nomination here over Aaron Taylor-Johnson (who is equally as good in his sadistic, psychotic bad guy role) and because Shannon has been nominated before. Shannon's character might not be the most deep or unique one of all time but Shannon takes a rote role and turns it into something interesting and compelling and that is why I like Shannon as an actor.


This is always my favorite category because the films and nominees are always so diverse. This is where you'll get a crazy film like Nocturnal Animals or an Indian actor actually nominated for once. This year was no exception as everyone is good or great minus Lucas Hedges. I hate to call him out like that but I didn't get the character so the performance suffers for me and didn't understand the nomination. Plain and simple. Patel is a make-up nomination for essentially the same role in Slumdog Millionaire but he is pretty good and I'd say he belongs here. I just love Shannon even if the role isn't the most unique one ever created. He puts his Michael Shannon spin on it, though, and I was entertained. Bridges is clearly a league above the other three and could have won in any other year. I really do hope Bridges will continue to deliver great performances like this one in the future. But this year was all about Ali. His performance is amazing and it definitely deserved the win. Everyone should watch it, if just for his last scene, which is a thing of beauty. This was a very good year and I hope that trend continues for 2017.

Oscar Winner: Mahershala Ali - Moonlight
My Winner:  Mahershala Ali - Moonlight
Jeff Bridges
Michael Shannon
Dev Patel
Lucas Hedges

Supporting Actress 2016

Obviously I've seen none of these before now but how amazing is it that 3 black women make it into one category? It's a record and it's really awesome to see. I want these nominations to be about merit from now on so that's what I want to see in the future, doesn't matter if it's one or five minorities in the category. Davis was the front runner the entire way even though you could argue she's a Leading Actress in her film. Category fraud is what it is and has been an Oscar thing forever. It is nice to see Davis get her Oscar, though.

2016 Best Supporting Actress

Viola Davis - Fences

The big issue with this performance was that everyone claimed it was category fraud and wrote it off. Like okay she's great and in the wrong category and obviously strong enough to win so fuck everything else let her win and then go on from there. I finally watched Fences with the category fraud on my mind and I gotta say that I can legit understand why Davis was nominated in Supporting. She is onscreen for like half the film or more and a big part of the movie but she does seem to take the backseat at times because Denzel just chews every scene he's in. But let's be real, Viola shouldn't be supporting. She was placed here to win and she did. She deserves the win and hopefully that means she stops manipulating the categories to be nominated. Viola feelings aside, she really does a great job with her role as the neglected, secondhand wife to Denzel. She cares wholeheartedly for her kids, whether they are actually hers or not, which gives her this savior type of role in the film. She loves being a mother and it shows and her performance is just as slick as Denzel's. She is great in the scenes where she interacts with Denzel who threatens to take over. She holds her own and is strong and steadfast and comfortable in her role. She is a woman on top of her game giving great performances and this is a continuation of that. This is as good as her previous Oscar work and as good as her Emmy Award winning work. This is the culmination of a woman who has become so good that she can do no wrong with her work and every move is amazing. Her work as the battered wife is worth nominating and rewarding. It might be category fraud but she at least deserves her Oscar, from this performance or another. All I can really say is that this was coming. You know certain actresses are guaranteed an Oscar after awhile because of their work and Viola Davis was one of them. There are lots of those examples where an actress builds up to a win and this was Davis' example of that. I'm on board with the win because it gets Davis her Oscar.

Naomie Harris - Moonlight

I really hate to say this but Harris was the one thing in Moonlight that I wasn't all that thrilled with. I enjoyed all the other performances but I kinda feel like maybe Harris came along for the ride with the film. I think she does a good job at being the crack addict mother but I don't feel like she has any pay off. She is awful to her son Chiron and only wants him around when convenient or to get money from him. She is a drug addict and sleeps with men for money and is just overall a poor excuse for a mother and is the reason Chiron is so quiet and meek in the beginning. That is the character for the most part, though there is an ending scene for her as the mother when adult Chiron comes to visit her in a rehab type place. She apologizes and says she loves him and all that but I didn't feel any closure or payoff with her character from that. It just kinda felt like that was something that was added in as an afterthought or just wasn't fully developed because it wasn't really emotional to me. Harris' best scene, her most Oscar-y scene, was when she was confronting middle Chiron after coming home late and wanting money and just being this frantic, drug addled woman who was treating her son like an ATM and not like her actual son. She was screaming and just very convincing as a woman who had lost all control to her habit and didn't care about Chiron and only used him for selfish reasons. Harris is fine in the rest of her performance but it really wasn't anything that wowed me like Ali or kept my interest like the Chiron kids. Can't hate on this performance or nomination too much because the film is so good and Harris does what she can with a role that is limited. It's also pretty awesome to have three black women nominated in this category, so there's that, too.

Nicole Kidman - Lion

I have been pretty harsh when in comes to Kidman in my previous reviews. Although, I did like her Oscar winning turn in The Hours, it's more I hate her fans and most of her Oscar bait performances. But, this is about Lion. And Nicole Kidman in Lion actually kinda blew me away. She was so prepared to love and was desperate when meeting Saroo for the first time that it was palpable onscreen. She just wants to be a loving mother and Saroo just happens to be that loving son. Kidman was certainly not done up beautifully and had a big curly redhaired do going on but the thing that stands out is that she transcends being Nicole Kidman and became a desperate mother and it was entirely believable. We don't spend much time with Kidman at this moment but it was so obvious that it leapt off the screen. Once we return to her, we see she is devoted to Saroo and her other Indian adoptee son. She loves having a family and deals with all that comes with including a difficult second son who beats himself and we see later is into drugs. She still loves him despite this and it tells us the kind of woman she truly is. Kidman is even okay with Saroo seeking his real mother and going off to find her. It's a very good supporting performance, honestly. I've had my issues with Nicole Kidman but I feel this is deserving and warranted. She may not be good enough to win but she is good enough to pay attention to.

Octavia Spencer - Hidden Figures

It becomes obvious as you watch more and more of the Oscars year by year that they just can't help themselves when it comes to previous nominees/winners. By that I mean, in a film like Hidden Figures, with a couple strong supporting performances that you could take to represent this film, the Academy falls back on the person they already know instead of going with someone like Janelle Monae for a nomination. Now, you'd then have to argue about whether Spencer is truly better than Monae and all of that but this kind of thing happens again and again throughout Oscar history. Hell, it happens twice in Supporing Actor this year with Jeff Bridges getting a nomination over Ben Foster and Michael Shannon getting a nomination over Aaron Taylor-Johnson! It's a thing that the Academy does that annoys me because you could have so many opportunities to reward not only younger people but set those actors up for possibly better roles in the future. Anyway, diatribe over. Spencer is not bad here by any means, I don't want this to be misconstrued. She's a great actress and does a very good job in her role as the de facto supervisor of the black women working at NASA. She's the elder one of the trio and a realist and a calming, authoritative figure. Like I said, it's a very good performance from Spencer in a film that highlights the amazing accomplishments of a few black women who were essential in the space race. Someone needed to be represented from this film and Spencer got the draw over Monae. Monae was very good herself as the angry but determined one of the group. I'm fine with either of the women getting the nomination but Monae getting it would have been cool just for having someone new in the historical aspect of Oscars. I think even without the controversy of the year prior with the OscarsSoWhite thing that someone from this film was getting nominated no matter what. No one was winning from this film because of the Viola Davis buzzsaw, though. Nitpicking aside, I'm glad someone from the film was nominated and am content with Spencer since she was the one chosen.

Michelle Williams - Manchester by the Sea

I am a Michelle Williams fan and she consistently puts in good, serious work. I would have given her an Oscar for her turn in Blue Valentine which was tremendous. In this film, she plays the wife/ex-wife of Casey Affleck's character. There is a lot of tragedy in this film centered around Affleck's life and Williams is a part of that. Without giving anything away, she too suffers personal loss. The story is told in the present with flashbacks before the major tragedies interwoven throughout the film, much like in Blue Valentine. Williams' role in the film is very small with essentially three to four small scenes. I will say that her Boston/Massachusetts accent is pretty great and she fully embodies a lower middle class type of mother. I mean, honestly, those first two or three scenes don't really offer up much in the way of characterization. She's there so we see that Affleck had a wife and kids before things happened and it seems to be a typical family life with ups and downs. Her big Oscar moment is her last scene where she runs into Affleck after everything has happened and opens up to him about being sorry for the way she treated him and wanting to talk more with him and crying her eyes out and being emotional. You will read in reviews and online about how stunning and mesmerizing and powerful and all those big adjectives Williams is in this film and performance but I felt her big scene was overly dramatic and frankly not well done. I wish it had more actual heart behind it but it just feels like Williams was told to cry and be emotional and it got away from her a little bit. She's a supremely talented actress but this one didn't do all that much for me. Along with it being pretty short, I think she gets in for her prior history with the Academy. I wanted to really like this performance but I just can't unfortunately.


This was mostly an underwhelming group. I am happy that three black women were nominated but I really wish they were better roles. Davis is the clear winner but that's because she dominates with a Leading performance even if she got placed here. I'm fine with her win because she now has an Oscar and she was one of those women that were due, so to speak, as claimed by the internet hivemind and others. Plus, no one else here really stands out all that much. I really enjoyed Kidman, which surprised me since I'm not her biggest fan but she put in solid work as a loving mother. Spencer was the representative nominee for her film and that's fine. I did mention Janelle Monae who was in the film, too, without realizing she was also in Moonlight which makes me surprised they didn't nominate her. Normally a breakout year like that is rewarded, but whatever I guess. The bottom two are also whatever. You can have either one in last place. Harris is fine but she does nothing with her crackhead mother role that's interesting. Anyone could have played that role with the same results. And Williams is just not in the film enough to register and her Oscar scene is somewhat awkward. So yeah, underwhelming for sure. I expected a lot more from the group so I'm pretty disappointed overall. Really hoping 2017 is a lot better for this category!

Oscar Winner: Viola Davis - Fences
My Winner:  Viola Davis - Fences
Nicole Kidman
Octavia Spencer
Naomie Harris
Michelle Williams

Best Picture 1980

Ah, finally, the end of the 80s! I'm super happy and excited to be done with the 80s and be moving on into the 70s. I feel like I'm making some real progress on the project. One thing that scares me however is that this year featured two films that were impossible to find and that I was forced to rent one online and buy a VHS copy for the other. I've been trying to avoid having to pay for every film because that would add up quickly and be too expensive. And buying/renting a film that ends up being boring or bad is tough to swallow. Hopefully this stays an every once in awhile thing before I have to invest in a VHS player! 1980 brings some huge films I've never seen before so I'm excited to finally scratch them off my list.

1980 Best Picture

Ordinary People

The main thing this film gets recognized for is that it beat out Raging Bull to win Best Picture. Plenty of people resent that choice and all you ever hear is that Scorsese's film is the better one. Well, I think the Academy was in a position where they were wanting to reward realistic family dramas and chose them instead of classic films to win. Kramer vs. Kramer the year before fits the same mold as Ordinary People. Redford's film tells the story of a family dealing with the death of a beloved son/brother. The film focuses on the surviving brother and how it affects him as well as the rest of the family. His mother, Mary Tyler Moore, is cold and distant. His father, Donald Sutherland is warm and caring and trying to heal the family. The son, Hutton, goes to therapy to try and heal after his suicide attempt after not being able to save his brother from drowning and the disappointment from his family. The family is screwed up. Moore doesn't care to try. Hutton goes to therapy and is a typical teenager. Sutherland just tries to keep the peace. It's an upper class family with a great big house with a great education and schooling. The parents have great jobs and yet they still have their problems. Most people won't care about them. There are so many tweets and reactions and write ups about how the family is rich and that the film is about nothing in particular other than rich people have a temporary upset in their day to day. That's a callous way to look at things but yes, this is a rich family who suffer a loss and never come together to actually speak on their loss and drastic measures and done to try and keep the peace. These aren't exactly Ordinary People. These are Extraordinary People. Ordinary People are those who make very little and do a whole lot while expecting nothing and yeah don't get movies made about them. Their sadness is universal, yes, but not the going to a shrink to get things worked out part. None of that happens and people just have to deal. After watching this film, I know this isn't worth a Best Picture win. It's a pretty decent film but Raging Bull deserves the win.

Coal Miner's Daughter

I have seen this film a ton of times over the years for some reason. Seems like it was always on TV when I was younger and my folks would watch it. I didn't even realize that it was an Oscar nominee until I started doing this project. Which isn't to say I don't think it's worthy, it's just that it never really seemed like one of those typical Best Picture type of films when I was watching it when growing up. It tells the story of country singing icon, Loretta Lynn, and how she became a singer and a bit about her life after becoming a star. The film spends most of its time on Lynn's upbringing in the Kentucky backwoods and how she came to be married to Doo Lynn at age 13. The two struggle after getting married and Doo encourages Loretta to sing and play guitar and he presses her to make a record and the two go all over the South trying to get it played before she catches her big break at the Grand Ole Opry. It's a pretty basic story for the most part whose strength lies in the lead performances of Sissy Spacek and Tommy Lee Jones. They elevate this film into something more than just your standard musician biopic. The first half of the film reads more like a backwoods romance and slice of life type of film than anything musical, which I think is another strength of the film. We get to know Loretta and her husband and their relationship before we ever really hear her sing. The singing, though, is the standout part of the film. Spacek delivers a great performance but it's the fact that she actually sang live that solidifies that point. She sounds amazing and it's better than most of the dubbed lip syncing or the actors who mumble and warble their way through someone's songs. The one main criticism I can think of is that because the film spends so much time on the beginning of Loretta's story, the actual musical part is maybe not as full fleshed out as it could or should be. We see her career begin and then she meets Patsy Cline and the two become good friends and have great success. Patsy dies and then the stresses of touring, her family life, and just being a country music superstar causes a nervous breakdown. That part of the film is more rapid fire and doesn't get extensively shown. The breakdown isn't this big moment in the film even though it feels like it should be. I think Spacek handles it very well but it feels like her musical career is crammed together to fit into a two hour film. I do think the film needed more time for the musical part for it to feel more authentic and earned and not just like a montage. So that's my major gripe for the film. The acting is what makes this a special film, though. It's also nice to see a female lead biopic get nominated in this group even if it never really stood a chance against the others.

The Elephant Man

David Lynch is so good. I love how straightforward Lynch can be with some of his films instead of diving into the crazy and experimental like we know he can. But his straightforward films, like this one, still have a style that is inimitably his. My favorite thing is that he treats John Merrick as a human being. Yes, it does take awhile before we actually see him but I think once we do, he's treated as less of a monstrosity. Merrick gets described scientifically behind a screen before we actually see him which allows us to create him first in our minds. Then once we see him, it's either worse or not as bad as we imagined. But once we actually meet Merrick, none of that matters as we learn he's an intelligent, caring, warm, innocent human being with a terrible affliction. Merrick is treated in a very sentimental way, but I think John Hurt's performance earns that sentiment for Merrick. I don't think it's mawkish as some described the film. The true horror is the treatment of Merrick while he was living as a freak to be exhibited and the beatings and derision he received from those around him. Hurt is the standout of the film because he is able to create a full character despite the prosthetics he wears and his quiet, raspy voice. Anthony Hopkins is really good, too, in his role as the doctor who helps treat Merrick and introduce him into society. Then you combine that with the fantastic direction, the beautiful black and white cinematography, and great score and you get one hell of a film. The black and white cinematography is really important because it allows for shadows and silhouettes to play a big role in the aesthetic and the mood of the film and allow us to be engrossed in what's going on. The Elephant Man is just a really well made film that I think will surprise you in how heartbreaking and truly touching it is. I feel like more people need to give this a chance or at least be made aware of it as a film because it's so well made with great acting and direction. If not for Raging Bull, this would be an easy winner and makes for a stacked Best Picture category.

Raging Bull

It is interesting that I just recently watched Scorsese's film after this one, The King of Comedy, because it gives me the perspective of his frame of mind after Raging Bull. It is famously noted that Scorsese was considering this film to be his last ever so he could go do documentaries but was convinced by De Niro and others in post production to keep going. The King of Comedy is a departure tone wise from this film but it still focuses intently on De Niro as a character, an unlikable character at that, and doesn't shy away from any unpleasant moments with the character or in general. It's almost a spiritual sequel of sorts and makes a very good companion piece to Raging Bull. I'll admit right now that this is the first time I've ever seen this film. There are a lot of films in this project that are considered classics and essentials but I have decided that I want to refrain from watching them before I get to them for the blog. That means that I've had plenty of opportunities to watch this film since I started but didn't so as to maintain my virgin reaction. Raging Bull lives up to all of the hype you can think to throw at it. The black and white cinematography is brilliant. The direction with the closeups and slowed down boxing scenes and intense closeups is brilliant. The acting is brilliant. The lack of music actually adds to the overall feel of the film in a positive way. And the film feels super fresh in 2017 which means it had to be revolutionary back in 1980. I like De Niro's character arc as Jake LaMotta and really love his realistic approach to the character by actually boxing and gaining 60 pounds which was a record for a role (a silly record, but worth it). I really do wish I could write a big essay about the themes and subtleties and all that but there's a hundred articles just for that on this film alone. I just know that I've been told and read that this film was an all time classic and after watching it I can finally agree and concur - it is an all time classic. I feel relief that I can participate in debates about how Raging Bull is great or not or whatever. I just know that it lives up to the hype and is an influential film that everyone needs to see. If you haven't seen this film, don't wait to do a blog to go see this one, drop what you're doing and watch it right now!

Tess

This is one of those films that when you're looking at the Best Picture categories through the years, it catches your eye because you've probably never heard of it - I hadn't. And then you do some digging and see it doesn't have any nominations in the acting categories and is up against four very well known films this year and you start to wonder how did this get in and does it stand a chance against the others. I would say that Tess is a quintessential Oscar Best Picture film. It's an almost three hour literary adaptation of Tess of the d'Ubervilles and is gorgeously shot. I have never read the book this is based on so I had no idea what the film would be about but if you have read it, you know it's got a really interesting story. Tess's father learns from a priest in passing one day that their family is actually of nobility. The father (who is a lazy drunk) sends Tess to a family of the same name (d'Ubervilles) who are well off to curry favor and get some money where she meets a man named Alec, who would be like a distant cousin. He tries to woo her and pesters her non-stop for kisses and other sexual favors but Tess resists. Eventually Alec ends up raping Tess and she leaves and returns home and has a baby who dies. She then goes to a dairy farm and meets a man, Angel Clare, and they fall in love and get married. On the wedding night, Tess informs him that she was raped and had a baby who died from malnutrition. This angers Angel, as he thought Tess was pure and he immediately abandons his new wife. Tess struggles to feed herself and find work and Alec asks her to be his mistress so she can help take care of her struggling family and she obliges. But then Angel comes back and finds her with Alec and so Tess decides to murder Alec so she can be with Angel and yeah you can see how juicy this gets. I won't get into the ending to save you from some spoilers but the story is fascinating because it plays on the morals of the time period. Alec's rape of Tess would have been seen as some cutesy, coy, she wants it and will fall for him type of thing that you see in these old stories. The persistent badgering for sexual favors would have been a cute romance instead of the sexual assault and rape that it was. I like that this story calls attention to that fact. The film itself looks beautiful and even though it is probably overly long, I enjoyed it for the most part. I've come to like these period piece dramas more and more with the project as long as they offer something interesting. No Enchanted April's though, ugh. It will be up to the viewer on if they like three hour long period piece films that make a statement about the sexual and moral issues of the time period. I was also lukewarm on Nastassja Kinski as Tess, as her German accent seeps through and makes for an overall strange accent in the film. Plus she's kinda stiff as an actress. But I would say go into the film with an open mind and realize this isn't just a typical, boring period piece drama and does have an interesting story that might shock you and see just how luscious the film looks. There's a lot to like even if this wasn't going to win and it should be obvious to see why it was nominated. It's also a Roman Polanski film who the Academy likes a lot (of course, you might not like his history). Tess isn't as bad as you might think and is worth checking out if you have three hours to kill.


This is actually a very good Best Picture category. I liked every film nominated here which is always a nice thing. Now, a lot of people probably won't like Tess, but I have become fond of those period piece dramas. They have to offer something interesting, though, and can't just go through the motions. It also feels like an old, classic film done with a modern sensibility and I like that. Coal Miner's Daughter is somewhat standard musical biopic fare but the two performances really elevate the material and I've seen it quite a few times and haven't gotten sick of it yet. It's a very watchable film with great singing. I was pretty harsh on Ordinary People up there but I did like it. I enjoy those intense family drama films. Stuff like In the Bedroom is right up my alley. This is a very good film but I feel like there are two modern classics ahead of it in this category. The Elephant Man is a must watch and a classic film from David Lynch with a phenomenal acting performance from John Hurt. It's really great and would be my winner if not for Raging Bull. Same things can be said for both films: classic with great director and leading actor. But seriously, how Raging Bull didn't win is insane. I guess they really wanted to reward Robert Redford and make Scorsese wait and earn his win. So instead of going straight into 1979, I'm going to double back and hit the most recent Oscars for 2016. Normally I try and watch every film before the ceremony and thought about writing the reviews but didn't want to interrupt the 80s and held off. So I'll take a break and get 2016 done and then resume working on the 70s.

Oscar Winner: Ordinary People
My Winner:  Raging Bull
The Elephant Man
Ordinary People
Coal Miner's Daughter
Tess

Leading Actor 1980

I've been saving actually watching De Niro's performance just for the project even though I've wanted to see it before now. I just hate rewatching films over and over because I'd like some reactions to be new and fresh and it makes it easier to actually watch them instead of putting it off like I did for a lot of the 2000s films. Anyway, I've seen Hurt before but eager to watch it again because it's been so long and I only vaguely remember it. Haven't seen the rest but they are some big names so I'm expecting quality, as usual.

1980 Best Actor

Robert De Niro - Raging Bull

What else can I say about De Niro's win for playing Jake LaMotta that hasn't already been said before? This is one of those films and performances that transcends being just for film nerds. Everyone has either seen, heard, or talked about this performance at some point. Even those that haven't seen it, know exactly what it's about. De Niro went all out for the role by boxing in almost a hundred amateur bouts and then took a break during filming to gain 60 some pounds to play the older, fatter LaMotta. His dedication is evident in the intense performance he gives for the film. LaMotta is a pathetic figure, a lowlife thug who was good at boxing and little else. He goes through his personal relationships like they are boxing matches as well. He beats on his wives and he fights his brother a ton. He's a jealous, paranoid man who thinks everyone else is playing him for a fool by sleeping with other guys or by sleeping with his wife or by undermining his success. He can never shed the anger that hangs around him as he goes through life and De Niro shows this extremely well with every fiber in his characters being. There is complexity in the anger and the jealousy that I think lesser actors would have struggled to show. De Niro takes LaMotta from being a simple angry boxer into a fully fledged flawed character who reacts to life in the only way he knows how. I've always hated the tour de force description for performances but De Niro really does deliver something like that here. Even though he's not a very sympathetic figure, we are drawn to him as an audience in this magnetic kind of way and that's fully because of De Niro's acting ability. It's can't take your eyes off of him good. So much has been written about this performance that I feel like I'm just regurgitating tired points and really just want to get across that this is an amazing piece of work from De Niro. Everyone should see it at least once and I completely agree with him getting the win even though I still have 3 others to see in this category - the performance is that good.

Robert Duvall - The Great Santini

Fun fact about this film, it was actually released to cable and airplanes first. It got a good review by the New York Times and it was pulled and then released in theaters. How crazy is that? The being debuted on airplanes is the most interesting part of that fact. The film is about Duvall who plays the Great Santini, a nickname he gets from being a Marine Corps fighter pilot officer. The thing that stands out to me about the performance is that Duvall plays a great military man. He has demeanor and the personality to be one hundred percent believable. The year prior in 79, Duvall was nominated for Apocalypse Now in an iconic role but it shows that he was made to be a military man. I think he's perfect in that regard. He makes himself into a Best Actor nominee with the treatment of his family. He's a disciplinarian and a bully. He's a hero outside of the family life but inside he is a terror. He instructs his son, who is a star basketball player, to take out an opposing player for fouling him hard. He threatens to hit his wife and kids and he is just a loud mouth overall. But he does all this from a place of love which I really do think counts for something. When Duvall meets his tragic end, the family does seem relieved but also sad because their dad/husband is gone. I think his brutal ways are seeped in love and aren't meant to be final. He might react and be drunk or be scared at something but he loves his family. Duvall is great at the dual personality of the military man. And that's something I saw firsthand when I was in. Tough with us but even tougher on the family - even in public. Duvall is good in the role but he was up against a very strong lineup with two performances that some consider all timers. He wasn't winning but he is still deserving.

John Hurt - The Elephant Man

Wow, this is a great performance from John Hurt. He has an extraordinary job of acting with tons of makeup and prosthetics on. There have been lots of other people who have had similar acting conditions but I don't think any come close to how devastating Hurt is as John Merrick (fun fact: his real name is Joseph Merrick, no idea for the change since it comes from the book it is based on). Hurt is phenomenal and he blows me away because he does so much with so very, very little. We don't even see Hurt fully until 13 minutes in and we don't even hear him speak until 40 minutes in. I actually love that slow exposure and Hurt makes the most of his screen time. Hurt is so gentle and warm and child-like in his performance that you can't help but want to be friends with Merrick. He's a normal person underneath his deformity that just wants to belong and wants to fit in and take in all that life has to offer. I love how young and child-like Merrick's voice sounds because it lends to that precocious nature once we learn he can speak. He's like a kid caught up in making new friends and experiencing new things and it's legitimately sweet. When Merrick is beaten or exploited by the night watchman who brings visitors to his room to frighten and to gawk, I feel a sense of anger and protective ambition. I want them to leave Merrick alone and Hurt makes his character into a very sympathetic figure. Now, some famous critics disliked how sentimental the film was but I feel it's necessary because Merrick is so innocent. Hurt keeps his character innocent and scared because that's how he should be portrayed. He was a deformed outcast who was beaten and gawked at for his whole life before he was rescued and allowed to live a life of substance. Hurt also has to act convincingly with just his body to emote whatever it is Merrick is feeling and Hurt does an amazing job in that regard. It's the voice, the eyes, and the whole body that Hurt is able to excel at turning into expressive features. You can say it's minimalist in looks but Hurt says so much with little movements and expressions and looks behind the makeup. To give a performance of that quality through prosthetics and makeup is a thing of genius. His big scene after being chased in the train station where he screams he's a man, not an animal is a thing of primal defense that is absolutely heartbreaking. I don't care if this film is sentimental because Hurt actually gets you to feel for his character in an authentic way. I think Hurt is brilliant as Merrick.

Jack Lemmon - Tribute

I could not find this anywhere online which is surprising to me since this is a Jack Lemmon film and you'd think his movies would be readily available. It's not even available on DVD, only VHS! Trying to somehow find a copy to watch so this will be only the second review I've had to skip because I couldn't find it (the first was Javier Bardem in Biutiful which was a foreign film that was only still in theaters when I first tried to review it and had to wait until it hit DVD later on). I'll update this whenever I actually get to watch his performance. Updating in 2019, as I have finally watched it. Got a VHS copy from Ebay and borrowed a VHS player from parents. Anyway, about the performance: this should really be called A Tribute to Jack Lemmon's Acting. It's basically a showcase for everything he can do as an actor and if you love Lemmon like I do, you'll really enjoy his performance. It's about a man who finds out he has cancer and is dying and his estranged son comes over to spend some time with him and he tries to be a better father and man. It's got that trademark Lemmon charm and humor where he quips a mile a minute and just fires off zingers and witty remarks one after the other. His usual frenetic style is abound here, so if you've watched his other films before you know exactly what you're getting. He also can be very dramatic and serious and showcase both that and the softer, more emotional side. He's just such a great actor that I feel like some of his performances and nominations just get overlooked. Like it's expected for him to be so good that he doesn't get as much credit as he should. But I do realize it's Lemmon and he's celebrated as one of the best to ever do it, but still you know what I mean. If you can find this one, I'd say it's worth a watch for Lemmon alone.

Peter O'Toole - The Stunt Man

So far I really liked O'Toole's work in Venus and was pretty meh on his role in My Favorite Year. I get that he was basically riffing on a mashed up version of himself and Errol Flynn in the latter film and he was good, it just didn't click or seem all that Oscar worthy to me. I had heard that this film was a bit of a hidden gem and was hopeful that this might be another great find from the project. After watching, it's a strange little film. O'Toole is a megalomaniac director of a WWI film who has a stunt man die in an accident because he swerves to miss a man on a bridge running from police. O'Toole makes a deal with that man to make him the new stunt man in exchange he won't tell the police. The film is all about O'Toole directing this film and the stunt man getting more paranoid that O'Toole is trying to kill him and the stunt man falling for the leading lady. The film makes it hard to tell at times between what is real and what is part of the film on purpose as we see all these tricks of getting shots and how they are really done and it's quite interesting. O'Toole's role, however, could really be classified as supporting. The stunt man guy dude bro is really the lead as the film focuses on him. O'Toole just plays the crazy, dedicated, overbearing, tyrannical director who oversees the project. His performance is pretty good and you get a lot of his deadpan British humor and play on words that is his charm and trademark. He's sort of the villain of the film though he's not terrible and he is actually quite funny at times. The performance works but I don't see how it is a leading one. I guess they don't want to put him in supporting because of who he is? It's also very reminiscent of his work in My Favorite Year, so it seems like this was Peter O'Toole in the 80s. The difference this time is that he wasn't playing a drunk but still has that overbearing charm. It's an odd little film and O'Toole is the only reason to watch it besides seeing how stunts are done behind the scenes. Unfortunately, this isn't going to compare all that well to the others in this category.


Obviously, I'm going to wait until I see Lemmon's performance before I write anything here, so I'll update when that happens. Updated: Having finally seen Lemmon, I can finish this! So De Niro is an all-time classic performance. The clear cut winner. Hurt, though, gives him a run for his money and in a weaker year would have easily won. More people should watch that film. Lemmon actually comes in third for me, so good thing I waited to sum these all up. He's such a solid actor and this was a showcase for his abilities. Well worth the watch if you can find it. Duvall makes a good military man and gives a good performance here, but is clearly not on the same level in this role as the first three names on this list. O'Toole is entertaining in a strange film but also in a smaller role than you'd think. He's good but if he was left off here, I wouldn't be upset. All in all, a pretty great year with no bad performance and some really fantastic ones. Glad to finally be done with this year, though!

Oscar Winner: Robert De Niro - Raging Bull
My Winner:  Robert De Niro - Raging Bull
John Hurt
Jack Lemmon
Robert Duvall
Peter O'Toole

Leading Actress 1980

I always come up with interesting introductions to write when I'm thinking to myself in the shower but then I forget to write them down so now you're stuck with a visual of me thinking about movies in the shower, so there you go. I've seen Spacek's performance a bunch and know it's very good so I'm looking forward to if anyone else can compete.

1980 Best Actress

Sissy Spacek - Coal Miner's Daughter

I most associate Spacek with this role, probably because I watched it a few times growing up, instead of say, Carrie or another film. I always liked her performance when I watched and thought she was a great singer. I didn't realize it was Spacek actually singing, though, which is super impressive to me because she sounds amazing. And that is the strength of the performance because you actually believe she is Loretta Lynn because she sounds so country and so good. If the singing was mediocre or bad or clearly dubbed, I think the performance would fail entirely. I also like that Spacek grows the character from the beginning. Now, she doesn't look like a 13 year old girl when the film starts, obviously, but her mannerisms and voice and demeanor all seem appropriate for the age. What I like is that Spacek shows the confidence of Loretta growing as she gets older and wiser and more weathered in the ways of the world. Contrast a moment towards the end of the film where Spacek gives this intense, almost pained look that says a lot more than words could with a moment from the beginning of the film where Spacek is shyly hiding on the couch and looking like a teenager. Those two moments show the range in which Spacek had to work to make Loretta into a believable character for the film. Spacek nails both ends of the character and everything else in between, too. She has great chemistry with Tommy Lee Jones who plays her husband, even when they are arguing and it's fun to watch them both go at it because they clearly both elevate each other's game. I also like that Spacek isn't a loud actress. By that I mean, she has a lot of subtlety in her performance and doesn't rely on theatrics and broad acting to create the character. Even when singing, it looks and feels natural and not like a performance. Spacek inhabits Loretta's essence or persona, so to speak, and becomes the country music legend and it doesn't feel a slight bit out of place. She embodies the tough, back country gal who works hard at her music and even harder at her marriage and family life. Spacek is fun to watch become Loretta Lynn and there's no doubt she deserved her Oscar here.

Ellen Burstyn - Resurrection

This film is actually pretty interesting and I luckily found a very good copy on Youtube to watch. It's about a woman who gets into a car accident that also kills her husband and she has a near death experience. She sees the light and various people from her life all hanging out in this in between kinda world. It's a brief thing in the film but it affects her profoundly. She is severely injured but she finds out eventually that she has the power to heal people, even herself. So she does and this film riffs on the scientific and spiritual issues that presents to her. The role can be a difficult one. Burstyn has to sell being crippled and then her recovery where she demonstrates she can walk to her family. All of that could be corny but Burstyn manages to keep realistic and impactful for the audience. She also has to make the healing process believable. For that, she lays hands and talks to the person and even contorts and moans for some of them. Obviously, the chance for that to come off looking ridiculous as hell is high but I think Burstyn does a good job of grounding those moments and not letting the scenes get away from her. Burstyn grows into the role, too, from a wounded, desperate, crippled woman to a confident, strong, hopeful woman. The transition is organic to the film and is interesting to watch Burstyn become this healer. She also has outside pressure from her boyfriend who is convinced that she is the second coming, her father who thinks she's a devil whore, religious folk who think she's a phony, and scientific folk who want to poke and prod her for research. Through all that, she handles herself very well and keeps a mostly calm demeanor with occasional emotional outbursts that are understandable. There isn't anything flashy to the performance, which I like, ad Burstyn is the conduit through which you think about faith and love and healing and spirituality and hope. She allows the viewer to use her as a blank stand in for how we might act. Burstyn's performance is strong and I even liked her final scene that so many people seem to outright hate. In that one, she's older and running the gas station she visited in the beginning of the movie and has gray hair and doesn't look much older. I didn't care about the look, I just enjoyed her acting with the little boy no matter how saccharine and cliche the scene plays out. It doesn't make anything that comes before it any less intriguing or good.

Goldie Hawn - Private Benjamin

I'm not going to lie, I really thought this was going to be a mess of a film. When you read the description of this being a Goldie Hawn vehicle where she enters the Army and ends up in Europe, your eyes can't roll fast enough back into your head. But I have glowing remarks for Hawn and the film. First for the film, most Army movies just don't get the little things like patches and language and uniforms and all that right. I pay attention to all that because I am an Army veteran so it bugs me when things are not accurate. This film is legit spot on with it being highly accurate. It surprised me that it was so accurate because most films just don't take the time needed to get things right. Hawn, too, was pretty great. She's funny and she does the expected too good for the Army funny thing and sells it well. The thing I like and admire is that she respects the Army with her jokes. I know probably no one else is writing a review like that but I appreciate that she really went through the training before filming and also didn't make it a farce on film. She shows that you can use what's real and make it hilarious as anyone that's ever served realizes. This is a starring vehicle for Hawn and I feel like she carries the film perfectly. This is something that she can nail down and give a great performance with. It's funny but also a little telling of women in the armed forces at the time. I like that she becomes a Thornbird but also exposes the rampant sexual misconduct that goes on even today. It's done in a natural way, too. As for it being a vehicle for a female star, I don't think you can get any better. Hawn shows all kinds of strengths while still being sexy and kind and warm and funny and all kinds of great accolades. This isn't a winner, obviously, but I do feel like you could show this to a young woman (with caveats) and say that's a strong female. I might not like the ending and the wedding and all that. I feel the film fails once Hawn stops being a soldier. Which is weird because I sorta kinda know Armand Assante, her French boyfriend, through my local film fest and have talked to him and he's a good dude. But it's weird seeing someone you've met and know making out with Goldie Hawn. Anyway, I think this is probably the perfect vehicle for Hawn and she really knocked it out of the park. I think her being nominated for an Oscar is just a cherry on top of a long process.

Mary Tyler Moore - Ordinary People

I have seen some of Moore's TV work on like Nick at Nite and reruns in my youth but I don't know her all that well from her TV stuff. So I don't carry any TV baggage into this on what to expect from her performance. I use that caveat because prior exposures lead to unwarranted expectations. Moore plays the mother/wife who is dealing with the death of her son and we see how the family moves on from that. I think you can sum up the character in the scene where she is taking a picture with her son and she says hurry up and gets restless at her husband for taking so long for a simple picture. It's telling and honestly, very brutal for the relationship with her son. She can't even stand to fake a smile in a picture with him for more than four seconds. Moore's wife/mother is such a cold, stand offish woman that it's hard to figure out when she is actually being a caring human being. She had this tragedy occur yet she goes on like life hasn't changed but is also clearly upset with the surviving son who was there. Obviously, her way of dealing with tragedy is to pretend everything is okay and just deal with things. The upsetting thing to me is that Moore almost never blinks in this film. Watch her! She has these cold, dead eyes that are probably Moore's actual eyes and this isn't a stylistic choice, but she just stares, unblinking, wide eyed and it's disturbing but also contributes to how her character is unloving. I like Moore's intensity but she's just not a pleasant character. And then at the end of the film, she takes off and it seems to me like she leaves the family even though Donald Sutherland as the father tries to play it off as her taking a vacation. Moore's character just wasn't equipped to handle being a part of a non perfect family. That's the vibe I get in that Moore just isn't a person who tolerates or wants to deal with things. In this regard, Moore is great in the acting though I'd call it very one note. It might be against type for what people know of Moore but it's still just the same distant mother type of role. Moore is very good at being the distant, cold mother, however, and I feel like she belongs on this list.

Gena Rowlands - Gloria

I can definitely see why Rowlands was nominated for this role. She is a tough as nails, badass, gangster type of chick. It's unfortunate that the film she is in is pretty awful. This is a John Cassavetes film, but one that even he didn't really like. He admitted that he wrote the script just to make money with no plans on directing it before no one else wanted to and the studio begged him. So he employed his wife, Rowlands, and we got this film. It's about Gloria, a neighbor to a family who is about to be murdered by the mob who takes in their young son to protect (along with some book of payments or numbers or something). The film drags on with her running from motel to motel with the boy in tow avoiding the gangsters who want to kill the boy and take the book back. The boy is also really annoying for the most part, coming of too cutesy and precious so that contributes to me not liking the film as a whole. But Rowlands does a good job with what she has to work with. Like I said already, she's this badass woman who doesn't think twice about killing the gangsters to protect the kid and herself. She's like an action star without this being an action movie. You don't see many roles like this for women, especially going back into the 80s, so it's nice to see a strong woman role even in a mostly boring film. Rowlands is the only reason to watch the film with her energetic performance and devil may care attitude. It's actually refreshing to see, but man, the film around her is just not interesting. While Rowlands is indeed entertaining and gives an interesting performance, it's not amazing or anything. I think it's just more that it is different than what you usually see in this category. Rowlands is good but I certainly don't see it as worthy of a win. I'm cool with her being nominated for this role, though it's not a very complicated performance by any means. Rowlands is worth checking out but be forewarned the film isn't very good so your mileage may vary.


Sissy Spacek is clearly the easy winner in this group as I feel she separates herself from the rest with a really awesome performance that I'm happy to watch again and again. Unfortunately, Rowlands has to act opposite an annoying kid actor in a not very good film and can only do so much with the role in those circumstances. She's a badass female gangster, which is actually pretty cool and we certainly don't see very much of that in this category, but the film hurts the performance too much. As for the three stuck in the middle, I keep going back and forth in my mind on where to place them. Burstyn is interesting in a warm, compassionate performance about a healer dealing with her gift. Hawn is a very funny Army recruit whose performance takes a nosedive once she begins her romantic subplot part towards the end. And Moore gives a very cold, distant, seemingly unemotional performance as a mother who has lost a son. I liked all three overall and was surprised that Hawn actually had some depth to her performance. Burstyn delivers about what you'd expect, I think, and Moore goes against type in a role that leaves you feeling chilly but is no doubt great acting. I guess it's more about who you like than anything technical. Maybe just do a pick em and see who you get? Moore, Burstyn, Hawn seems like a good lineup. Good thing is that none of the performances this year were bad, just some lesser films, really. Luckily, the Academy got the winner right as Spacek is the only logical choice to me.

Oscar Winner: Sissy Spacek - Coal Miner's Daughter
My Winner: Sissy Spacek - Coal Miner's Daughter
Mary Tyler Moore
Ellen Burstyn
Goldie Hawn
Gena Rowlands

Supporting Actor 1980

I'd love for people to leave comments on these reviews. My Supporting/Leading Actress categories actually get the most views by like 1, so it's 5 total views instead of 4. But I'd love for someone to just call me out and tell me I'm wrong in some belligerent comment post because they love so and so and not my choice. I dunno, just hate shouting into the void because it gets old. I have seen none of these, though one is said to be a classic. I look forward to them all.

1980 Best Supporting Actor

Timothy Hutton - Ordinary People

Hutton also had tried out for O'Keefe's role in The Great Santini and I honestly couldn't tell you the difference between the two. By that I mean, if O'Keefe had gotten this role and vice versa, I think he would have done just as good a job as Hutton. Same goes for O'Keefe's role in his film. Both are young men who do a great job in their film roles. Hutton, though, is far from a supporting role. Hutton is the leading role in Ordinary People. The film follows his every move and is all about what he does after the tragedy. It's absurd to think he's actually supporting. They moved him here because he was a nobody and young nominee and this was an easy spot for him to land. Meanwhile, Peter O'Toole lands in Leading Actor with a supporting role because he's a legend. It's fine, though, because Hutton actually won here and could have won here, period. Hutton plays the son of a rich couple who was there when his brother died after a rough lake outing on a boat that he survived. Hutton feels extreme guilt that caused him to eventually try to kill himself by slashing his wrists. We come into the story once Hutton returns home and goes back to school and resumes swimming on the school team. Hutton's character is clearly still depressed and affected by the events and his heart isn't in the swimming. His mom (Mary Tyler Moore) doesn't love him and his father tries to placate the family. Hutton sees a shrink that helps him out as does seeing a new girl in Elizabeth McGovern (who gets an Oscar nomination the next year, probably to make up for this year partially). The film is all about the family aspect and how sad and depressed Hutton truly is. Hutton has so many different emotional qualities to portray that his recovery is amazing. Hutton's display is one that is all over the place. He has emotions of sadness, and happiness, and pain, and confusion as to how he should feel. Hutton portrays all of this with an ease that is admirable. Hutton never lets the role get the best of him. He controls how he should feel and what the scene calls for which is nice to see. It's a very emotional role and Hutton controls that aspect wonderfully. It's fine that Hutton won for this role but I wonder how O'Keefe would do in the same setting. I think that's only natural to question. It's a leading role that even compared to Pesci, doesn't stand a chance.

Judd Hirsch - Ordinary People

If you want to compare Hirsch to Robin Williams' performance in Good Will Hunting, I'm not sure it would be a very long comparison. You could just hold up a mirror between the two performances and there you go. Hirsch is basically the original Williams. They both are psychiatrists who are seeing patients who are in denial at first and then become more talkative and then finally explode into a rage against them exposing their issues and deep seeded fears and then the men can connect with them and get them on the right track. Both are a little kooky, Williams obviously takes it to the extreme but Hirsch brings it a little bit, too. Really, Hirsch is there to poke and prod Hutton as we learn more about him through these sessions and Hirsch is in service to this main character. I don't really know why Hirsch was nominated other than being swept up with the good will of the film because Hirsch doesn't do all that much. He certainly does less than Williams. There is a moment where Hirsch sees the father, played by Donald Sutherland, and it goes off well but is nothing special. Hirsch is more of a mile a minute talker and that translates well here but doesn't lead to much else. Hirsch is a therapist and seen as that but is forgotten about once he's not on screen. It's cool he has a nomination but it's nowhere near a winner.

Michael O'Keefe - The Great Santini

You would recognize O'Keefe if you saw him, I guarantee you that. He's been in a ton of films and TV shows and is a very good actor. Here, he was a young man who had to deal with an overbearing and abusive father who happened to be a Marine Corps pilot officer. He was the first born son so his abuse and bullying from Robert Duvall was extra heavy. O'Keefe is a great basketball star even though he moves around because his dad gets stationed all over. He has to deal with moves and a father who wants him to be a Marine as well and treats him that way even though he's in high school. Duvall is a bully to O'Keefe and it's really unfortunate because he's a good kid. There's a subplot where O'Keefe befriends a local black kid and then has to go to him because the kid pissed off some white asshole bully and shot him. He tries to save him and get him help and it just shows his good character. The performance is actually really strong because O'Keefe doesn't hide behind being a kid in the film and accepts being a de facto parent and adult stand in. And O'Keefe does more than just be a child. He takes charge when necessary and stands up to Duvall at different times sparing the rest of the family. He has an explosive, almost Oscar moment where he gets serious and yells a bit. I think he gives a really strong performance that is made better by Duvall being a dickhead father. But what I do like about O'Keefe is that he clearly loves his father. This isn't a one note performance where the son hates the overbearing dad. O'Keefe can bond with his father at times, while also clashing with him at other times. That's why I like O'Keefe in the role because he can sell both as believable from the same person. Also interesting to note is that Timothy Hutton auditioned for this role but was cast in his Oscar winning role instead. O'Keefe is very good, though, as Duvall's son.

Joe Pesci - Raging Bull

I love Joe Pesci as an actor. He's brilliant in everything he does. The way I look at this nomination is trying to look at it as if I was in 1980 and going through Oscar season. Imagine watching this film and seeing Pesci and never having seen him before and he gives this powerhouse performance right along side Robert De Niro. I would be blown away then just as I'm blown away now that he indeed lives up to the hype. Pesci is so natural as an actor that it just feels like you are watching Pesci. I know that could be misconstrued as a bad thing but Pesci certainly has a style of acting that he adheres to and the result is a ton of great performances. Sure you could compare Pesci in this film to his role in Home Alone, but you could do the same for any actor of merit with two of their more well known performances. My point being that Pesci has an indelible style that is easy to recognize and one that can overpower scenes because he is so good. Pesci goes toe to toe here with De Niro and comes out looking just as good. With Pesci's acting, you are drawn to him as a character. You want to see more of him that he almost begins to dominate and become more than supporting. Pesci is must watch acting at it's finest. That goes for all his roles but it's so true for his turn as Joey La Motta, Jake's brother and manager. I can't imagine what seeing him back in 1980 fresh for the first time had to be like. He's a generational talent that was clearly evident here with his strong performance. I just hope that Pesci comes back to acting for Scorsese's The Irishman that might hopefully get filmed soon with De Niro, Pacino, Keitel, and a few other big names. We need more Pesci in our lives.

Jason Robards - Melvin and Howard

This is one interesting film. Directed by Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs director), it's about a normal guy named Melvin and Howard Hughes. Rather I should say the opening of the film is about those two, as Hughes is only in the film briefly for about ten minutes or so. Jason Robards plays Howard Hughes. There's not much to the role other than Robards playing the famous eccentric and talking with Melvin after getting picked up out in the desert after crashing his motorbike. The two talk a bit and Melvin gets Hughes to open up and sing a little and it's a nice human moment between two people. Robards doesn't play up the eccentricity or make his Hughes weird or crazy or anything. Just more of a grumpy old man who just crashed his bike who then warms up to Melvin. And that's it, that's the performance. Normally I might rail on and on about how stuff like this takes away from deserving actors and yadda yadda, but I won't. The film is just more interesting to me than the performance. Apparently, Paul Thomas Anderson loves it which is partly why Robards has his last role in Magnolia. And apparently, this film was an inspiration for how The Master would be shot by Anderson. I can see some similarities at times, honestly. Particularly the scene where Melvin goes to the Mormon headquarters to drop off Hughes' will. The camera movements tied with the abstract score is very PT Anderson like. The film got a lot of love but it's definitely an odd duck. It must have been seen as something different back then because it's not all that funny and is pretty short and we just follow Melvin around his cruddy existence until the will comes into play at the very end. But that's partly why I started this project. I can watch this and read about how it inspired one of my favorite directors and then actually see the inspiration. It's like a mini film education just right here. Robards didn't need the nomination because he is one of the rare people to win back to back Oscars. He won in 1976 and 1977 which is impressive and makes me eager to see those performances.


This category is a thing of interest. There are two young folk that give very similar performances and then a couple other guys. Robards is a non factor. I'm sorry but the dude has no business being nominated (I know I promised not to get upset about it, but still). He has a nothing performance that is not really all that interesting and is nominated for it. Garbage. Let's nominate Tommy Lee Jones for Coal Miner's Daughter. If that's a leading performance, who cares, because so is Hutton! Hirsch is lucky to be included. He gets swept up in the good will of the film and nothing more. Hirsch = Williams for real. O'Keefe is third because he's good but the other two are better. Hutton is a lead performance yet he's chilling in the supporting group - and won! But not today, as he comes in second. Pesci blows all of these guys away. Combine all four men into one and they still don't come close to beating Pesci. I can't believe the Academy went for Hutton over Pesci. I need to read up on that one and see why they loved Hutton so much. Minus the bottom two, this category is good. But those two drag this group down a little and Robards should be replaced.

Oscar Winner: Timothy Hutton - Ordinary People
My Winner:  Joe Pesci - Raging Bull
Timothy Hutton
Michael O'Keefe
Judd Hirsch
Jason Robards

Supporting Actress 1980

Interesting factoid for this category is that these are the first and only nominations to date for all five women here. I've seen exactly zero of them so I am looking forward to judging these without any preconceptions, Oscar-wise anyway.

1980 Best Supporting Actress

Mary Steenburgen - Melvin and Howard

I said a lot about this film when writing Jason Robards review and how it is interesting in a strange way. People really seemed to like the film because of the two acting nominations as well as a writing nomination and lots of pre-Oscar love back then. I have always liked Steenburgen because she has a nice, charming, woman next door quality to her. I've enjoyed a lot of her performances throughout the years and was interested to see what led to her winning the Oscar in her only nomination at the very start of her career. She didn't have but two films before this one, so it wasn't like she was this hot thing building up steam. She plays the wife of Melvin, a normal guy who picks up Howard Hughes out in the desert one day. That doesn't really factor into the relationship with Melvin until the very, very end of the film and even then it's not important. She is this pretty young thing who keeps escaping from Melvin and running off to do something better and ends up stripping and dancing. It's a mildly funny and warm type of performance where you just can't help but like Steenburgen. Then eventually she comes back to Melvin very pregnant and they get married and she goes on a talent show to win money and then they get divorced again. The performance is filled more with the cutesy, quirky, flightiness persona than any real meaningful personality. Luckily, Steenburgen is good at being just that and can turn what could be a shrill performance into something a little more charming. She somehow took all the major awards for this performance but it kinda leaves me scratching my head that people would latch onto this character. She flits about and has energy, sure, but like the film itself, we never really get that deep into the actual person Steenburgen plays. It's all a fun show and I feel like I'm missing the point a bit but I know you can't tell me this is over my head. Maybe it was just too of the moment in 1980 that it doesn't resonate today because I've seen her other work before. I like the performance, just not for the win - though I say this having seen none of the others yet.

Eileen Brennan - Private Benjamin

If you read about the film and it being a Goldie Hawn vehicle where she joins the Army, you might not think it will be very good. I really enjoyed most of this film, though. I say most because what it gets right is actually the Army part, surprisingly enough. The ending part of the film is not so great and it definitely should have been changed to something else. But that's a whole other story. Brennan (great name) plays Captain Lewis, the officer in charge of the basic trainees that includes Hawn. The first scene with Brennan is hilarious. Hawn treats Brennan as the upper management coming to rectify a wrong and Brennan's facial expressions are perfect. She goes along with the absurdity that Hawn was promised yachts and lakes and all kinds of things. The way she reacts when Hawn grabs her arm to bring her in for a private chat is priceless. A lot of what makes Brennan's performance great to me is her reactions to Hawn. She might be the villain but she's so funny with her looks and on point with her actual Army bearing I guess you can say. The role normally would be just a cliche mess. But Brennan brings it to life and though she's a villain like R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, she maintains a likable quality. It is after all a comedy. To me, it's a great supporting role. Brennan plays a source of constant tension and makes it funny and interesting and it definitely belongs. I just kinda hate that the film returns to Brennan after she has been transferred to Europe and has to encounter Hawn again. It could have been better utilized to make it actually funny and not cringe-y. Brennan is great but the way she is used towards the end kinda brings her down. I'd rather know her as the crusty old Captain of new recruits. Not a bad performance though.

Eva Le Gallienne - Resurrection

I think most people that watch Resurrection wouldn't be able to tell that Le Galliene's performance is Oscar nominated if they were made to guess without any help. Most would nail Burstyn's performance and maybe say Sam Shepard as a guess. But I think most people would enjoy Le Galliene's warm, loving Grandma Pearl because her presence in the film is one of love and calmness. It's a short performance of a few scenes scattered throughout the film, but Le Galliene fills the role and character with much more importance than you'd think it deserves. Her role is the familial, supportive elder woman. She serves to tell Burstyn's character about seeing the healing performance done before when she was younger and that it was a gift and a natural thing. The thing you notice the most about her performance is that she does feel very grandmotherly and like you know her. Her major Oscar moment is her goodbye to Burstyn at the end of the film that is a pronouncement of loss and love and is a very touching moment. If you couple all that with Le Galliene apparently being a very respected stage actress and this being one of her only film appearances, it's easy to see why the Academy decided to reward her with a nomination. That's just one of those things the Academy likes to do. Interesting fact is that Le Galliene was the last actor period that was born before 1900 that was nominated at the Oscars. For me personally, I wish Le Galliene had more screen time so we could actually get to know Grandma Pearl. Her performance plays more on our own sort of nostalgia and love for our grandma or whoever and it's more reactionary to Burstyn. It's still very good for the limited time she has and can leave an impact for sure. Just wish there was more to her role to make it even juicier and appealing to take for a win.

Cathy Moriarty - Raging Bull

I didn't know until I did my usual digging that this was Moriarty's first film role. How cool is it to get an Oscar nomination in a Scorsese flick for your debut film? And I wonder how many times a debut performance has been nominated before? I know it's happened a few times but it has to be rare. Moriarty plays Vickie LaMotta, De Niro's wife. Moriarty makes quite the entrance when the camera caresses and lingers on her like a pinup girl. She is a beautiful blonde and I felt her introduction was quite fitting. There are a lot of reviews (from the actressexuals mostly) that rip her for her performance and blame Scorsese for not paying as much attention to her that he does to the LaMotta brothers. That all is patently absurd because I think Moriarty knocks it out of the fucking park with her performance. Sure she's a sexy blonde woman that the camera is in love with, De Niro acts the same way as the camera does! She does probably benefit from the black and white photography but Moriarty is a strong woman and wife that can stand up to LaMotta even when he beats her. Her husky voice seems appropriate that she isn't some meek pushover of a woman cowering and sniveling in every scene. Vickie will do as she wants even if it means catching Jake's ire. That's what I love about Moriarty's performance is that she might take his shit, but she isn't letting it bother or effect her much. Moriarty withholds a lot of emotion but that seems to me to be at Scorsese's behest, maybe so as not to upstage De Niro, I dunno. But I'm not going to tear down her performance because she is stoic at times in the face of a beating. And of course the film isn't all that concerned about Moriarty as a character as this film is all about De Niro and his role. Moriarty is supporting so that's okay that she doesn't get special consideration in the larger events of the film or its message. Those are some of the criticisms for Moriarty and they just feel absurd when they tear her down yet prop up a very small Eva Le Galliene performance that really only has old age going for it. That's somewhat unfair but it irks me when those Supporting Actress Smackdown people wax poetic over small performances then disregard something like Moriarty with ease. I think Moriarty is tremendous because she affects De Niro's Oscar winning performance and leaves me wanting more from her because I can't get enough. I enjoyed Moriarty as a strong piece of Raging Bull and I think you can consider the same thing when you watch her performance.

Diana Scarwid - Inside Moves

Had to rent this one off Amazon since I couldn't find it anywhere else online. It's a strange little film about disabled peoples. The basic gist of it is a guy tries to kill himself by jumping off a building but he lands on a tree and then a car and is seriously wounded which cripples him for life. After he gets out of the hospital he wanders around San Francisco (I think) and ventures into a bar that is a hangout for other crippled guys. He makes friends, especially with a bartender with a gimp knee who loves basketball. That guy eventually fixes his knee and then plays professional basketball with the Golden State Warriors, which is hilarious when you really think about it. Anyway, Scarwid is a waitress at the bar who the initial suicidal cripple guy falls for (he saves the bar by buying part of it at one point). She isn't sure she can love a disabled dude even though she says she loves him. But then she turns around and dates the basketball guy when he's healed. Then suicidal guy confronts basketball guy about being selfish and not being a good friend only to learn she dumped him because she loves suicidal guy. The character really doesn't amount to much more than just love interest, though Scarwid is at least believable. The love stories are rushed and mostly unearned but Scarwid does try to make the character charming and relatable. It's a slight performance that is undermined by a B movie and weird plot. I can't tell you at all why Scarwid was nominated, the only nomination the film had from any of the awards groups. I guess she does have one sort of Oscar speech where she cries and admits she loves the suicidal cripple guy but really that's not enough for a nomination. Maybe it was to bring awareness to disabled people? I don't know. If you ever watch this film (which you won't) you will wonder what the Academy saw in this and I'm right there with you. I know I didn't talk all that much about her performance but there really isn't much to be said other than she plays her role well enough but it's not something that will stay with you after you finish.


Well, this was a very underwhelming group. Steenburgen puzzles me as a winner. Besides being quirky and cute, not sure what was worth a win here. It's not like she was this hot commodity that had been building up steam, this was one of her very, very first films. I felt that Scarwid is the clear last choice for a weird movie and a mostly nothing performance even if she tries to create something for her character. Just a weird choice overall. I feel like Le Gallienne, Brennan, and Moriarty are all better and more interesting than Steenburgen. La Gallienne has a short couple scenes but she leaves an impact on the film and is decent enough. You could probably put her right with Steenburgen and I'd be fine with it, honestly. But Brennan is very good in her comedic role which is tough to pull off. I almost had her for my winner but the last part of her performance brings her down a notch. The film didn't need her to return at the end and link up with Goldie Hawn in Europe. Leave her as the Drill Sergeant Captain and I probably take her as my winner because she was that funny and that good in her role. Moriarty gets my vote, though. I think she is perfect in her role as the wife to De Niro and I really like how understated the character is. She doesn't go crazy or act too broadly when I think others would have taken the character into histrionics. I was just really impressed with Moriarty especially when the actress bloggers really put her down as not worthy. She definitely is worthy of the win and I think would have made a better winner. I'm hoping when I get to 1979 that those women give better performances on average than this mostly meh group.

Oscar Winner: Mary Steenburgen - Melvin and Howard
My Winner:  Cathy Moriarty - Raging Bull
Eileen Brennan
Eva Le Gallienne
Mary Steenburgen
Diana Scarwid