Leading Actress 2018

I know some people saw this as a bit of a shocker on Oscar night, but if you were paying attention to awards season this wasn't all that surprising. The race was between Colman and Close for most of the season with Gaga starting strong but fading early. Colman had a few wins coming into this so it wasn't much of a surprise and probably years down the line will cement itself as the right pick. Trying to get Close an Oscar for anything she does just feels wrong on the surface, though I say this having not seen any of these performances. Aparicio is just glad to be there and McCarthy has become a darling of the Academy for a comedic actress going dramatic. It's an interesting list, so let's get into it.

2018 Best Actress

Olivia Colman - The Favourite

I wasn't totally sure of what to expect from this performance. I knew Colman from some TV work and an indie film a few years ago called Tyrannosaur. And then you look at her wiki page and see she's been in a bunch of great films and is doing lots more TV work and is a phenomenal actress. But going into this film, I thought she was going to be this uproarious, funny, active Queen. I say active because I thought she'd be on the move in the film, but she's not. I'm not smart about British history and don't know who Queen Anne is but now I know she was this depressed, sad, lonely, diseased woman. In the film, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz are vying for her love and trust and affection. They really just want to be the true power behind the throne and the Queen doesn't understand or see that. She's a bit oblivious and doesn't seem to enjoy being a leader. She likes her rabbits and her younger women and not much else. Colman put on a bit of weight for the role and looked very frumpy. The Queen had gout and I feel like at the end of the film she had a stroke or at least mumbled and had a vacant look in her eyes. I think Colman played her part extremely well. She has to look frumpy and dumpy, throw tantrums when she doesn't get her way, wail depressingly because she's sad and lonely and can't have kids. She's like this manic depressive person, just up and down all the time. Colman also gets to have some comedic moments of her own, often more subtle than overt. I like the scene where she addresses the Lords and one of them thanked her for not doing what she was just about to do which made her panic and then faint. She later said she didn't know what else to do so she just collapsed. It's that darkly funny physical comedy that is ever present throughout the film but allows Colman to show off more than being simply morose and glum. My one issue is that this performance and role feels more like supporting than lead to me. I know that the other two ladies are fighting over Colman's power and that she is the Queen, but it feels like she takes a back seat at times to the others. You might say all three are co-leads but this doesn't feel like her film even if it's about her. It's still very strong work, even if I was expecting something different. I suspect I'll come to like this performance even more over time after it settles into my brain. But overall I'm happy with her win and feel like I will agree with the Academy.

Yalitza Aparicio - Roma

I love nominations like this one. Aparicio was a first time actress who decided to try out for an open casting call because she was waiting for test results before starting a teaching career. It's great that a native Mexican actress can be an Oscar nominee because she did do an amazing job with her character in the film. Roma is a film that demands a naturalistic performance. It doesn't need someone "acting" because it would stick out so badly. It needs an Aparicio because she lends that authenticity to her character. She plays a housemaid for a wealthy family who we see has some problems, but also Aparicio encounters her own issue when she gets pregnant by a guy who immediately leaves her. She rings true as a maid and as a loving caretaker of the children and as a good friend to the other maid. Her performance is one that doesn't have much extensive dialogue which is probably for the better as she gets to act with her body and her looks and demeanor. So when she does say something, it usually hits harder because the emotion is earned. She's such a sweet woman who just wants to provide for the family that provides for her and she wants love. She's the calm in the chaos around her even when it involves herself. As a first time performance it truly is wonderful work to watch. She looks right at home on the screen but also as the character. She exudes warmth and has this quiet strength about her. Aparicio may never do anything like this ever again, only time will tell, but this is very good introduction to the world and is such a real, raw performance that I'm excited to see what she does next, if anything. I definitely feel like she belongs on this list and she holds her own against the other women in this group. It's just a great, solidly quiet performance for a woman who tried out simply because she was bored one day.

Glenn Close - The Wife

Poor Glenn. This was her 7th Oscar nomination and by all accounts was probably her best shot at finally winning. It was between her and eventual winner Olivia Colman and she didn't quite make it. Even today as I write this, I have no idea what the film is about and I feel like not very many people actually saw this one. It's a short film, coming in at just over an hour and a half, but feels much longer. It's a story about a long suffering wife - but with a twist. Her husband has just been informed he's going to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. We then learn that he was unfaithful a few times and he was the dominant force in the marriage and part of the reason she, who was a promising young writer, stopped writing. I think you can guess the twist already and I figured it out pretty quickly in the story. It's telegraphed and then revealed eventually and then you understand even more where Close's resentment truly springs from. The role and film and performance is definitely Oscar bait and it's unfortunate that her two most recent nominations are for that kind of role. But unlike in Albert Nobbs, this is a good performance that doesn't take the Oscar bait qualities to extreme heights. She is obviously uber talented and she can act with such ease and make it all seem so effortless. She does that for this performance but it still feels like it's lacking something. Maybe it's a heart or soul to the performance but it feels calculated to hit certain beats and measures at specific points and doesn't arrive with much feeling. The role and film remind me a ton of Julianne Moore in Still Alice and Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years, though with less emotional impact than either one. I want a Glenn Close nomination to have a quality other than being great acting work and looking for an Oscar. I know that sounds a bit weird because obviously you need great acting work to win, but you get my point that there needs to be something more to her performances than what she's given us the last two times out.

Lady Gaga - A Star Is Born

I don't really know if we can call this a first time acting performance as Gaga had done some TV work and basically been playing Lady Gaga for years. But this was for sure the role she was born to play as her story and her characters' journey are very similar. Yes, Gaga is a brilliant singer, songwriter, musician, entertainer. But she nails the homely small town working girl who has a dream part of the character just as much as all the singing and performing ones. Which is to me why her performance works so well for the film and just on a purely acting note. Yeah you can be an entertainer and sing but can you hit those emotional beats and allow those real moments in the film to land with the viewer. She does. Easily and brilliantly. It helps that she and Bradley Cooper have incredible and undeniable chemistry throughout the film. The moment they first meet is cute but also feels so real and relatable. She's a nervous, awestruck mess backstage when they are talking and he's been so charming. Those moments are terrific to watch in part because Gaga is so good in those small, quiet moments where her character has to be real and authentic. Of course, she's also amazing in the scenes where she is performing her songs, too. Those are just as important to the character and the film and it helps that she's actually singing and performing and actually helped write super catchy songs. She deservedly won an Oscar for Best Song and gave one of the best, if not the best, song performances on the telecast with Cooper that's ever been done. She does well as an actress though and you see that it moments where she has to stand up to Cooper's drinking and in her enabling him and in her heartbreak. She has to hit all those acting notes and does a great job at it. I was impressed after being worried that she wouldn't be able to hang with Cooper. She will be in play as a possible winner for me because I did enjoy her performance so much.

Melissa McCarthy - Can You Ever Forgive Me?

This always felt like an afterthought when following the awards race this year. This was Glenn Close's year to win pretty much from the start, although Lady Gaga had her brief time at the top. Then Olivia Colman came into the picture and made the race competitive and ultimately won the Oscar. But Aparicio and McCarthy were the ones who came along for the ride, just happy to be there, more so for Aparicio. So McCarthy was kind of like the well, we have four nominees and McCarthy was in a drama film, let's just vote her in for the fifth spot. No one talked about this film or this performance and I'm sure all those that love McCarthy's comedy wasn't scrambling to find this in a theater near them to watch her play an alcoholic writer. But that's unfair to McCarthy, who it's obvious that the Academy really loves. She is a talented dramatic actress and uses her frumpy, chubby look to help aid in delivering authentic performances. I say that because Julianne Moore was actually cast first but had creative differences and so McCarthy came into the role. Moore would have taken this performance in a different direction I feel like, so having an uglified McCarthy just works better. But the performance is more than just looks. McCarthy has to inhabit a character that is so insular and sad and pathetic and averse to human interaction and just a miserable person overall. So when she does become friends with Richard E. Grant's character, it makes it feel more authentic and gives her some humanity. Two poor souls can connect and appreciate each other even when their lives are at the lowest point. The story is about McCarthy who is down on her luck as an alcoholic writer who decides to forge correspondence of famous people and sell them to book shops and collectors. An interesting story but this is a character driven piece and a look into the life of a sad, depressed person who pushes everyone away. McCarthy does a great job of becoming that person and she and Grant have a great working chemistry together so that all we really care about in the film is their two performances. There isn't a lot of range that McCarthy has to show but I wouldn't call this a one note performance exactly. It's good work but it does feel like it's missing that Oscar moment or quality to it. The kind of performance that gets nominated but not thought about too much. I feel like comedians really shine in these types of performances where they have to play these lonely, pathetic individuals who feed off being miserable. There's a fine line between that aspect and comedy and makes it easier to transition to playing these dramatic type of roles. Anyway, it's a good role for McCarthy and her nomination is fine. I do feel like this will be a forgotten performance of hers since t wasn't seen by many people. Who know, maybe this will be a hidden gem for someone doing this project in twenty years or so.



I am kinda glad Close didn't win this year. Her performance just feels like Oscar bait from an actress who could do that work in her sleep. I'd rather she win for something amazing that challenges her and isn't so predictable and boring. Aparicio is up next mostly because it's her debut and because her strength is not in doing a lot of acting. It's her face and body language and the silent moments where she shines, which is a smart move from her director to not make her do too much. McCarthy is up next because she gave a pretty good dramatic performance. And I actually kinda like the film. It's grown on me a little since watching and I gave Grant my win in Supporting Actor. It's one more people would need to see but I think it was a perfect role for her. Gaga comes in second. I thought about giving her the win because I just adored her and the film, but she gets the Oscar for Song and that's a good enough trade off for me. Colman is great and I like all her other work that she's done lately not that that matters here, but I will agree with the Academy. It's good stuff and I'm glad she won over Close, as petty and shitty that is for me to say. It's the truth, though! Earn the win, don't just do Oscar bait crap. Anyway, pretty good year overall and I'm happy with that.

Oscar Winner: Olivia Colman - The Favourite
My Winner:  Olivia Colman - The Favourite
Lady Gaga
Melissa McCarthy
Yalitza Aparicio
Glenn Close

Supporting Actor 2018

It's weird how set in stone the Supporting categories were for this awards season. Ali was the presumptive leader almost from the start and never really relinquished his lead. By Oscar night it was a foregone conclusion that Ali would win his second Oscar in just three years. There was some hope that Elliott could get a veteran win but he was the only real competition. Rockwell had just won the year before and Driver and Grant were just happy to be there. I hope that when I do watch them all, the competition will at least be a little closer than just a runaway favorite.

2018 Best Supporting Actor

Mahershala Ali - Green Book

So I was definitely unsure if this was an earned second win or just a win because he was well liked and had won before. I'm not a big fan of the film as a whole but I do like his performance. He plays Dr. Don Shirley, a piano virtuoso who happens to be black and embarks on a concert tour in the Midwest and Deep South. Ali plays the character as this sophisticated, holier than thou kind of guy. We first see him in sort of regal African garb sitting on a throne interviewing a white man to be his driver. He's cool, calm, collected at all times because he's been trained to be that way. He's on an even keel always and rarely gets excited or heated or deviates from being the same. He tolerates Tony and tries to educate him but also gets educated about black culture from a white man which seems inherently wrong. He's also gay and tries to step out and get some but is found out and arrested and beaten. There is a lot to this character that really goes unexplored. This gay aspect is only alluded to in one scene that makes Tony look tolerant and that's it. Never mentioned after that. I commend Ali for creating this character that is so proper and robotic at first but eventually melts into an actual human being. Yes, he and Viggo have great chemistry which is important to make the two seem friendly. Their burgeoning friendship is what makes the film fun to watch even if the whole shtick of becoming more tolerant and all that is a bit cheesy. Ali is fine in the role but it never really captured me as being the best overall. It's something you watch and know is a good performance from a great actor but just doesn't wow like a winner should. Ali's first win blew me away with how powerful his acting was and how he created such an interesting character. This character and performance feels a bit more milquetoast than anything truly interesting. Yeah, Dr. Shirley is an interesting guy but the way he is written in the film makes him seem like an alien. It is enjoyable and there are way worse winners and nominees throughout the years but this feels like the Academy going back to the same well again out of comfort. A decent performance but nothing to really get too excited about.

Adam Driver - BlacKkKlansman

Adam Driver is a guy you've seen everywhere and is immensely talented. More talented than you'd assume a Star Wars character to be. But it seems like he is becoming a hot commodity in Hollywood and elsewhere and that's what really defines him as an actor. He's won Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival. This is his first of two straight Oscar nominations. He was recently nominated for Best Actor at the Tony Awards and is an indie darling as much as he is a bonafide movie star. He's got a couple Emmy nominations under his belt so all he's missing is a Grammy nomination, which I'm sure will come down the line. He's amazingly talented and you can see why. He melts into his role yet still keeps them distinctly his own. That's a fascinating quality for an actor to make you forgot about them but still recognize it's his work. In this film, Driver plays an undercover cop who is the white face that infiltrates the KKK for John David Washington's black voice who initially sets everything up. It's a really great film and Washington owns his role, but Driver does some great work in support of him. We don't really get too in depth in who Driver's character is besides a brief scene where he talks about his Jewish faith. But we do get a character who balances the serious with the comedic expertly and doesn't go over the top with either one. Driver has perfect comedic timing and it helps buoy this character. He never overshadows Washington, though, which I think is important to make the film work so well. He's supporting character that shines when he needs to and steps back when he's not needed at all. This is the kind of performance you watch and think is a perfect first time nomination for someone that is bound to win an Oscar at some point in his career. And the beautiful thing about Driver is that he takes on risks in his role and with the projects he takes on and who he works with. He kinda does what he wants and makes good art and isn't looking for the fame and the awards. He just goes out there and delivers incredible performances in everything he does and the Academy has finally taken notice. I can't wait for what else this man does in the future.

Sam Elliott - A Star Is Born

There was a lot of hope that Elliott could actually win an Oscar because so many people adore him as an actor and a person. Obviously he didn't win but it was great that he did get nominated because it just feels right for him to be here. His role is rather limited and short but he still is able to impact the film in an emotional way. He plays Cooper's older brother who raised him and gave up a music career to do so. Now he is the manager of Cooper and covers for him when Cooper shows up drunk. It's a very loving brother role that has these tough, no bullshit moments. He gets punched by Cooper but also stands up to him and calls him out on his alcoholic behavior. He enables him but then quits to take another job. Elliott seems to just pop in at the right moment to spark a confrontation or give some fatherly/brotherly/human advice to Cooper about not screwing everything up. Then he has his Oscar scene where he cries with Cooper and it's super emotional and feels real and also shows that Elliott can do more than be this tough Southern cowboy type with a thick drawl. That's what I really liked about the performance is that it's not exactly to type and Elliott gets to play a real person and not just a caricature that we can sometimes come to expect from him. It's a short but perfectly supporting role and one that Elliott nails wonderfully. I really enjoyed it but understand why he didn't win.

Richard E. Grant - Can You Ever Forgive Me?

I didn't know who Grant was before this nomination but I did find out he was in an indie film years ago that has become sort of a cult favorite called Withnail and I. It looks interesting and I'll check it out eventually and that's what I like about this project - discovering new films and actors. Now, he's an older guy and that indie film is from 1987, so Grant isn't exactly new, but you get what I mean. Grant is one of those quintessential British actor types. He reminds me of a Bill Nighy or Steve Coogan type of actor with his boozy, witty charm and carefree, irreverent demeanor. His character is a writer or artist type (he runs in the same social circle as McCarthy's character but I never could figure out what he does) who is down on his luck and runs into McCarthy. They form an unlikely friendship of two melancholic alcoholics who start forging letters from famous people and selling them to collectors. The film is really more about the two performances of Grant and McCarthy and their friendship and look at their sad, insular lives. There's a dark wit to them both as they delight in their sad state of affairs and feed off each other's desperation. Grant has an effortless charm to his performance that endears him to us. He's a gay man who is constantly drinking or doing drugs or trying to get laid. But his earnestness in wanting a friend in McCarthy is a touching thing to watch because we can identify with him in just wanting a friend. We all do, even if that friend is mired in misery like we are. This is a strong performance because it's not showy, it's just good acting. Grant was really the only other choice acting wise to possibly win. I'll have to finish the category but he may just have my vote when this is all done.

Sam Rockwell - Vice

Rockwell had just won the year before so this nomination was very much in the Academy's wheelhouse of nominating someone who had just won for whatever they did next. It's happened many, many times in Oscar history and this is just another iteration of that. Not to say Rockwell is bad, because his George W. Bush is very funny and is a good performance overall. It's just that it felt like he was going to get nominated no matter what he did because that's what the Academy does. Anyway, he does play W and at times looks nothing like the man and at other times looks dead on. I get that his portrayal was supposed to come off as treating Bush like a frat boy or just here to have a good time because that parodies what we know of the man as a doofus who somehow came to power backed by some truly awful people that started some wars that killed many. Run on sentence aside, Rockwell does well with the material and is hilarious at times as Bush, which is all you can really ask from him. That should end the review because it sums it up perfectly. But I do feel like Rockwell does do a good job with the material and the role. I want to point out that yeah, he probably was nominated for the reason I stated above but if you take it on it's own and someone in the future is watching this in reverse...well, maybe it will have a better look than just automatic nomination. I dunno, it's a good supporting nod but there was probably better acting this year but this is what we got.



I gotta say, I'm not the biggest fan of Ali getting his second Oscar for that role and performance. I think the performance is fine, if a little put upon, but it could have been better. I think he's middle of the pack here and really shouldn't have won. Just goes to show that the Academy has favorites and likes certain films. Rockwell is last because he had just won the year before and is nominated for playing W. Bush. I'd rather he not even be nominated to get someone else on here but the Academy loves rewarding those who already have won. Driver is next because really John David Washington is the star of that film. It feels like the Academy anointing Driver as the next big thing, which is true and they want to recognize that with nominations. That's fine. He deserves to be here. I put Elliott second because it would have been awesome if he won and because he was very good in a way we haven't really seen from him before. It was nice to see a different side to him. Grant is my winner, though. I really enjoyed his performance and felt he helped elevate that film. Now I want to see more from him but it seems we might not get that, which is a shame. So I'm glad we got this at least. Would have really liked a new winner as I can't stand multiple winners now. Spread the love! Give other people their time to shine unless of course the performance is just too amazing not to reward. Ali didn't fit that this year, no matter how nice and gracious he always comes off. A good year, but not an amazing year. We could have done better.

Oscar Winner: Mahershala Ali - Green Book
My Winner:  Richard E. Grant - Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Sam Elliott
Mahershala Ali
Adam Driver
Sam Rockwell

Supporting Actress 2018

This was Regina King's award all the way through the awards season. She won basically everything and Oscar night was more of a formality. You had two previous Oscar winners from the same film splitting the vote and a foreign film nominee who came out of literally nowhere to get a nomination. Marina de Tavira literally had no precursor nominations from anyone so her inclusion was a huge surprise. She wasn't going to win, though, and it was basically up to Adams to try and beat King. But she mostly seemed to just come along for the ride with her film which she has done a few times now with her nominations. So, easy win for King. Now I just have to actually watch them and see if I agree.

2018 Best Supporting Actress

Regina King - If Beale Street Could Talk

This was Barry Jenkins' follow up film to Moonlight and it carries on his luscious cinematography and moody interpersonal dramatic style. This film is more melodramatic and follows in the footsteps of Douglas Sirk with the languid pace and lingering shots of the main character as the moody score plays on top of it all. It's a well done film and visually beautiful. I had issues with some of the acting and with how the dialogue seems unnatural. King plays the mother of the main girl whose husband is falsely accused of rape and ends up in jail. The girl becomes pregnant and the film is about their situation and trying to get the guy out of prison. So King is the strong, protective mother character and while she doesn't get many scenes, she does make great use of her time on screen. I felt like King stood out because she felt like the most natural character in the film. She speaks normally and doesn't talk in the prose from the James Baldwin novel the film is based on. And her character has a singular mission to protect her daughter and fight to keep her world from collapsing around her. So she has this protective mother role and that's all she has to do. I would have liked more depth to the character and even the story as a whole because I feel it probably doesn't quite live up to Baldwin's novel. But King brings an intensity to the role you'd find in a mother determined to help her child and we see that the scene where she appeals to the guy in prison's mother about not cursing her grandchild. It's sincere and from the heart and makes you instantly on King's side. Her other big scene is when she goes to Puerto Rico to confront the woman who is accusing her son-in-law of rape. It's heartbreaking and intense and you feel for both women in the moment. But at the end when the woman starts screaming and is taken away, you feel King's desperation as she mutters fuck! because she knows she may have screwed up the chances of getting him out of trouble. I think it's strong work from King and seems very deserving to me. I'm happy she won and I'll figure out if she is indeed my clear cut winner, too.

Amy Adams - Vice

Poor Amy! She just can't catch a break when it comes to winning. For most of her performances it seems like she is being swept up along with the film as a whole and gets nominated that way. So she just comes along for the ride and doesn't get a proper look and here we are sitting at her 6th (!) nomination without a win. Other than her first nomination for Junebug, you could say she got carried into a nomination because the films were heavily liked and got lots of acting nominations. That's not denigrating Adams by any means, it's just that she has been incredible in so many ensemble films that do well at the Oscars and she hasn't been the winner. I don't think she campaigns, at least much, and others do and so she goes by the wayside. She's an amazing actress and probably should have won one Oscar by now. I loved her in Arrival and The Master and those would have been good wins. In this film, she plays Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne. She is sort of the driving force behind him. She spurs him into action and kicks his ass when he needs it after getting a DUI or having a heart attack or whatever it may be. She looks the part, plays the character perfectly when it comes to accent, and just delivers her routinely strong performance. I would say it stands out in the film because she does have such a domineering presence but the film forgets her as soon as she isn't on screen and Adams doesn't do enough to keep her memorable once the focus is back on the historical moments. So she's good as usual, but not good enough for the win, especially having already seen the winner and knowing King does a great job.

Marina de Tavira - Roma

When nominations were announced, this one was the big shocker of the morning for the acting categories. Marina de Tavira had not shown up anywhere else for any of the precursor awards or even critics groups. She was just nowhere to be found and then bam, here she is nominated for an Oscar. It's clear that she came along for the ride with Roma and clearly there was a lot of love overall for the film. It's good then that de Tavira doesn't just come along for a nothing role. She plays the wife/mother in the film and is the employer of Yalitza Aparicio's character. As the story unfolds, we see that de Tavira's relationship is not as wonderful as it seems and her husband is always gone and then we see it's because he's seeing other women. de Tavira has a couple strong acting moments in the film, namely when she is on the phone with her cheating husband and comes out of her room and finds one of her sons listening in and she slaps him and then immediately starts crying and consoling him and then yells at Aparicio for letting him listen. It's this rapid fire emotional outburst that is impressive and adds to the film overall. There's a couple other good moments for de Tavira who does what is needed from her character and does it very well. It's a natural performance that serves the film wonderfully and is great that she was recognized by the Academy. She was never going to win but it's nice to just have someone different on this list for once, someone that would normally always be overlooked. She may not be amazing and a sure thing winner, but she gives a strong performance in a great film.

Emma Stone - The Favourite

It's great that we got the double nominees back to back so this will actually flow well together a be a bit more cohesive. I'll start off by saying I don't really see these two as supporting actors in this film. If anything, they are both co-leads, as the film is about their rivalry and their striving to be the real power behind the throne. Stone is a cousin to Weisz's character but her father lost her as a bet in some game, if I'm not mistaken. So she goes to the palace to work as a maid before inserting herself into the Queen's life and helping her with her gout. Then it becomes a game for the two to see who can win the Queen's affection and trust, which Weisz has had for awhile now. Stone is very good in the role. She excels at those roles where she's at the bottom and/or not considered pretty or talented or whatever. Then she becomes some kind of force and is this beautiful, confident woman who is determined to succeed. Stone and Weisz's back and forth as the film goes on is great to watch as both women are such incredible actors and watching them being snarkily savage to each other in the nicest way possible is hilarious. Their dialogue and the way they deliver it in such nonchalant ways while actually tearing each other down is something that takes finesse to come off as intended. They both clearly have a lot of fun with their roles and then throw Olivia Colman in the mix and all of their scenes together is a hoot. You are just waiting for the next savage take down masked as a compliment. It's also about their physical comedy and timing like Stone walking down a hallway saying Fuck!. A lot of it is in how they move a certain way or how they walk or pausing before saying something funny. Both are fantastic at doing all of that kind of comedy and keeping it from being such a ham fisted, broadly obvious thing. I think it's good work that they both had fun with and enjoyed immensely which in turn made their performances that much more believable and better for the audience.

Rachel Weisz - The Favourite

I think Stone had more of an upper hand with this kind of role because she came from somewhat of a comedy background. Weisz has always been a serious actor to me, but can also shine in other ways, as well. Weisz is already the confidante of the Queen. She is also her lover and in turn the real power behind the throne. As Queen Anne is in the throes of depression and seemingly overburdened with having to lead, Weisz is the one who makes all the decisions and guides the Queen in what to do. Then enters Stone and the two are cordial at first but then the claws come out and it's game on. Both are hilarious and see above for most of what can be said here for Weisz. Both are very similar in this film, though Weisz is more serious and dignified. I think she also does a great job in the role and feel like the two actors probably split the vote. Plus, they both already have their Oscars, so this was just two (or three with Colman) women having a grand old time acting together in a savagely funny film. I slightly like Stone better because I think the film gives her more to do as the one who is plotting and conniving her way into Weisz's role. But Weisz is strong in the role and is able to stand on her own and gives a good performance herself. Both are good and even though it doesn't really feel supporting, I'm cool with the double nomination.


This was a foregone conclusion for the whole awards season and in the end I feel King was the right pick. It has that right amount of intensity and tenderness that a motherly role like that should have. I'll stick with the Academy on this one. Adams is just along for the ride and happy to be nominated. I didn't think it was amazing and kinda wish someone else took her spot to be honest, but it was still fine overall. Marina de Tavira would be next simply because she doesn't get all that much opportunity to shine. She has some good scenes but doesn't quite have the same impact as the others. The rest is the women from The Favourite. They have a ton to do in the film and make the most of it. I like Stone a bit more than Weisz, but both are good. Both had also won already, so I'm glad they probably split the vote and allowed King to win. This was a decent year with some very good films represented here. I like the minority representation as it doesn't feel forced and all of these women are very good actresses. A decent year for a category that can often disappoint.

Oscar Winner: Regina King - If Beale Street Could Talk
My Winner:  Regina King - If Beale Street Could Talk
Emma Stone
Rachel Weisz
Marina de Tavira
Amy Adams

Best Picture 1970

Ahhhhh, finally here we are finishing up the 70s! I feel like I've been doing this decade for an actual decade so I'm glad to be done. I can't wait to move on to the 60s but first I'm going to clean up last year's Oscars (2018) and will do this year's (2019) after that. Those nominations will actually come out in a few hours from when I publish this, so this is perfect timing. Some big films down below here and I've only seen the winner. Let's get this started so we can finish the decade out strong!

1970 Best Picture

Patton

I forgot just how great this film is. When I was thinking back on this one, I was remembering a great acting performance and a long story about the General. But the whole thing was so engrossing that the just under three hours doesn't feel that long at all. Plus, George C. Scott's magnificent portrayal is one of the very best ever and a true joy to just watch play out on screen. I really shouldn't have to write out what this is about other than to say it's about Patton's WWII exploits. It's got one of the most memorable opening scenes where Scott stands in front of a giant American flag and addresses his troops in full regalia and delivers a bunch of classic Patton lines. The film has some really amazingly shot scenes and great cinematography. It's so well directed and deserved the Best Director award for Franklin J. Schaffner. Some of the scenes look like art and you sometimes get these great shots of Patton as there is a voice over and it just feels like the film is on another level. The score is also memorable with those haunting trumpet sounds that give the film a necessary serious tone. The story is great and actually mostly written by Francis Ford Coppola. The battle scenes are thrilling and not so heavily edited like today's films where you have no idea what's going on. It's just a great film, one that ranks up there as one of the better winners from the Academy. I had to rewatch it to appreciate what I had forgotten, but I'm glad I did because this is such a great film. I could just write that over and over and have that be my review but I'll spare you the headache. Just know that it's awesome and you should see it if you haven't done so yet.

Airport

Ahh, Airport! This film birthed the disaster flick genre and ushered in the blockbuster era for Hollywood. Yes, other films had done the whole bunch of famous people in a big drama thing, but not quite like this. It's funny because you look at this inclusion in the Best Picture pantheon and you think what a joke, couldn't they find anything else to take its place? But then you realize just how much this film captured the zeitgeist of the time and the fact that it was a huge hit and is now considered a piece of film history. The Academy did only what it should have - made it a very heavily nominated film. It is also a very entertaining film and really not that bad of a nomination. It's also interesting because the disaster part doesn't really come into play until almost the very end. Before that, it's all about the drama of running a huge international airport. Burt Lancaster is great in his role but I found Dean Martin to be even better in his. He is a terrific actor who never really got his due. Of course, he wouldn't have won anything this year but he was still very talented. You've also got Jean Seberg as the I think head customer relations manager or something. She's really strong in the role, whatever her title, and anchors this film. The film has a little bit of everything and is fun to watch. It did lead to a genre that is ridiculed today and this film itself was lampooned and parodied. But I do think it's a film everyone should watch just to see where all your favorite popcorn flicks come from. It's entertaining to the max but I'm glad it didn't win. It can take solace that it was nominated and became this cultural icon of a film and appreciate it for what it is.

Five Easy Pieces

This is an interesting film to choose for a Best Picture candidate. On one hand, it's representative of the kind of slice of life, character driven films we would get to see in the 70s. But on the other hand, the film feels a little shallow and like it needs more depth to it than just being a star vehicle for Jack Nicholson. I really love these types of films that showcase a more gritty side of life than we normally see. It's about a once promising classical piano player in Nicholson who now works on a California oil field and has a ditzy waitress girlfriend he steps out on any chance he gets. It's a sad existence especially once we learn he comes from a family of amazing musical talent that he for some reason squandered. We never actually get to dive deep into Nicholson's character to find out why he is living a hard, yet simple life working on an oil field. We know there's a lot more to him than just boozing and cruising and we get really quick glimpses of that, but I wanted a lot more than what we got. He has a heartfelt talk with his dying dad at the end of the film that doesn't feel earned and I was struggling to come up with a reason why I should care. Nicholson is a mostly awful person because we don't get to explore his deep flaws and make sense of him as a human. I like seeing the country as it was back then and all the fashions and the old cars and beers and bowling lane, but I need more depth in my character driven drama. Everything seems to be an afterthought made simply for Nicholson to act against. He's good, but he's good in anything. I like the feel of the film and the historical aspect of it, but this one just left me wanting a whole lot more.

Love Story

This is one of those films that I had kept an eye on for some time because, I mean come on, it's Love Story! I think most film fans have heard about it, know of it, and have seen parodies that reference it already. But it was for real a Best Picture nominated film?? Yeah! It made a crap ton of money and was the first film to cross $100 million. It's such a simple, yet effective film that actually stands the test of time. This film is 50 years old currently and it feels like something that could be made right now and probably has been copied very recently. It's timeless, honestly. It's about a Harvard guy who falls for the local girl (she goes to the local college) and he is from money and she is not. That's the crux of the film. Girl thinks guy is just hanging with her for the short term and doesn't care but he does and they become a couple. They now have to talk to his parents who expect someone of stature. So guy doesn't listen to parents and marries her and forges his own path before they eventually work their way back into money. And then of course she *SPOILER* gets diagnosed with a terminal illness. It's so very sad but done in such an honest way that it really does earn your tears and sadness. It's easy to see why this was such a smash hit. You have a relatable story told in a simple way and you have two leads who are also charming and relatable. And the run time is short so you can squeeze in more showings. But it's a simple, yet effective telling of a story that we can all relate to regardless of our financial situations. It's a mega hit that presses all our buttons and makes us want to see it again and makes us want to root for it. Easy to see why it's included and why the Academy is good at its job.

MASH

So many people are like MASH? Isn't that a TV show my grandparents used to watch? Yes, it is. But this film from Robert Altman came first and allowed that TV series to become one of the most beloved comedies of all time. The film version is a very black, absurd comedy that highlights the hi-jinks of an Army hospital unit during the Korean War. Though it is set in Korea, the underlying context is really about the Vietnam War that was going on at the time. The film is so darkly funny and is buoyed by great performances from both Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould. The format is almost episodic as we watch this unit get up to all kinds of crazy antics. There's lots of pranks and boozing and trying to get laid and getting out of actually working and doing military things. And that's what the film is in a nutshell. It's similar to Catch-22 for me in that regard and even has those serious moments sprinkled in when the surgeons save a little Japanese boy while in Japan. I kinda wish there was more of that contrast thrown in but I don't know what the source book is like. Even still, MASH is a fantastic film and stands in stark contrast to this year's winner, Patton. I think which kind of flavor of war films you like will determine your choice between the two. I also think it's pretty great that the Academy can include both in the same year and recognize the different viewpoints. I highly recommend MASH as it really shows the absurdity of the military life while deployed (to a greater degree, obviously) and shows that not all military life is heroics and blood and guts and danger. Deployed life can be boring and full of people filling that void with pranks and booze and sex and trying to work as little as possible. This will definitely be in contention for my win, but I do have to point out how the film comes off as being gleefully misogynistic. The women are relegated to sex objects and though I understand this is 1970, it makes the film feel a little gross. So maybe it won't be in contention for the win? I love the acting performances and the dark humor, but it could be better to the women in the film. A tough choice to ruminate on.


Yay! The 70s are finally done! Hallelujah! Now I'll finish up the last two years before hitting the 60s, which I'm super excited to do both. As far as this year goes, it's funny how this category is full of the top grossing films for 1970. You have the top four and then Five Easy Pieces would be like 11th or 12th. I say that because maybe some of these nominees could be replaced with better films but we see exactly where the Academy is coming from. Airport is interesting because it does kick off the disaster flick genre and it's decent from a historical standpoint but I wouldn't call it Oscar material really. It's enjoyable but not on the same level as other, better Oscar films. Love Story is a cute and charming and sad romantic film. It made a ton of money and captured everyone's attention and got rewarded for that. It also probably shouldn't actually be on this list but here it is. Five Easy Pieces is such an interesting choice because it feels like a 70s type of film but I feel it meanders around and needed a more cohesive narrative and focus. Still enjoyed it, though. MASH is like the opposite war film to Patton and it's neat to see that juxtaposition this year. It's funny as hell and really does get a lot right about military culture but it also is not very fair to the women it has. It's a very masculine film and I have issues with that. But still very watchable and hilarious with some great performances. Patton is just an all timer, though, and the Academy gets it right. Easy winner this year and probably most other years, too. All in all, an enjoyable year with some nominees that could have been way stronger.

Oscar Winner: Patton
My Winner:  Patton
MASH
Five Easy Pieces
Love Story
Airport

Leading Actor 1970

Some big names on the list and a performance many consider to be one of the all time best in George C. Scott. I've seen it and loved it and can't wait to revisit it. The others look interesting but this feels like a race for second place. Let's see how it ends up.

1970 Best Actor

George C. Scott - Patton

When you think of General George S. Patton, do you not think about George C. Scott in full military dress talking in front of a giant American flag? Because I know I do. Scott's performance has become synonymous with Patton himself and that's the mark of an all time classic performance. Scott honestly wins this Oscar just for the opening scene alone where he addresses the troops. It perfectly captures what the film and Patton are all about. A man that wants the glory but has the talent to back it up, who says what he wants, and respects his troops as long as they fight for him. He's a soldier's soldier. We follow Patton as he starts out in North Africa, goes on to Sicily, is removed from command for slapping a battle fatigued soldier, and then picking back up as he races across Europe. I like that the story focuses intently on Patton and his different episodes throughout the war. We learn about who he is as a person and as an officer leading men into battle. We learn what motivates him and what he doesn't like from his troops. We see how controlled his chaos is and how others view it as reckless. He's a fascinatingly complex individual that Scott has to mine the depths of to show us who this man really is. Yes, he's a rough man born for combat but also deeply intellectual and well versed in history and even a bit religious. Scott wraps all of this up into a nice portrait of a soldier who is alive in the right time at the right place and hampered by those around him who let him have free reign. I do like that we see how Patton's time away from command somewhat changed him to be more in tune with his troops yet still keep his edge. This is simply one of the best acting performances ever that seems to perfectly match the actor with the subject. Scott famously rejected the Oscar because he felt awards shows were just a meat parade but he fully deserves it nonetheless. If you haven't seen it, go watch it now and see what you've been missing out on.

Melvyn Douglas - I Never Sang for My Father

I wasn't a big fan at all with Douglas's second Oscar win in 1979's Being There. So I was definitely curious as to what kind of performance I would get from him in this film. I had never heard of this one before the project and it co-stars Gene Hackman as Douglas's son and the film is about their strained relationship. It's a very acting heavy film and I love those types of stories. Hackman is really terrific as the son but Douglas is equally great as the father. I was so glad that Douglas was able to do something that showcased his talents because I didn't get that the first time around. Now what does bug me about the performance is that I feel like Douglas is more Supporting than Lead, as Hackman is in almost every scene and is the focus of the story. Douglas disappears for some stretches so if you were to flip those two categories, I'd like both performances even more. But I can also see how Douglas ends up in Lead as he has a domineering presence every time he is on screen. Much of that is due to the character being such an overbearing force in the family always somehow relating everything back to himself. And Douglas's character gets a few monologues where he waxes on about some old memory of his life which kind of have this serious tone to them. Some may find those annoying but I didn't, mostly because of Douglas's acting ability. That ability is also why his character has such a dominating presence in the film. I like that Hackman and Douglas go toe to toe with each other without either one trying to one up the other. The two just put on a pure acting showcase that is both of them doing their best on their own so that it works in harmony together. The relationship is emotional and the acting matches that tone and you get some terrific scenes throughout the film. Both characters and actors expose themselves emotionally and it's so rewarding to watch them act it out. The stubborn nature of Douglas's character eventually wins out at the end but the process of getting there is fun to watch. Glad Douglas didn't disappoint me this time around.

James Earl Jones - The Great White Hope

I think many people don't realize that James Earl Jones was a hugely talented and respected actor in his hey day. He is more than a voice from The Lion King or as Darth Vader or of CNN. He's an EGOT winner, having been given an Honorary Oscar a couple years ago. Just an all around great actor in all different mediums. This was his only acting nomination and it's for a role that he won a Tony Award for playing a fictionalized version of legendary heavyweight champion boxer, Jack Johnson. He was hugely popular and also hugely controversial in the early 1900s and this story covers some of that in brief. He had a white woman as a girlfriend which got him in trouble with the law since racism was out in the open back then. That's where the film title comes from as people were looking for the great white hope to defeat the successful black man. We see his success and his downfall as he tried to find fights but couldn't. And then there's the tragic ending that leaves you sad. Jones has such strong charisma in the film and his performance is magnetic. He's got so much energy that he dominates the film and his comfort level in the role is quite evident. His stage role was like training for this moment for him. He's loud and brash and bold and everything you'd expect a heavyweight champion boxer to be like, including being temperamental in his love life. He and Jane Alexander have good chemistry and that makes sense given they had been in the roles for so long. It's a great performance that has it's theatrical moments but also gets to use Jones' physicality. Fun performance to watch and see just where Jones had come from. Shame this was his only Oscar nomination, though.

Jack Nicholson - Five Easy Pieces

This was Nicholson's second nomination and his first for Best Actor. It's weird that I'm coming to the end of my time with Jack because it feels like he's been ever present throughout my whole project. He has three wins and a ton of nominations and I'm almost finished with his amazing output. I had been looking forward to this one for a long time because I didn't really know much about it but people had mentioned it as a classic and a very good performance. You can't ask for much more than that. This is quintessential Nicholson. If you had told me this was his 5th or 6th nomination, I'd believe you. It's absolute Nicholson at the top of his game even though it's earlier in his career. Now, his character is a complete and total asshole. He is a once promising pianist who for whatever reason is now working in a California oil field living with his waitress girlfriend who he constantly cheats on and treats like dirt. It's actually nice to watch him in this role because we don't get all those Nicholson tics that we see in his later performances. The ones where he has that big grin and one raised eyebrow and his yelling lines in his distinctive cadence. This is Nicholson as a pure actor finding himself and delivering some amazing acting. There are those flashes of brilliance and timeless acting like in the highway scene where he plays piano on the back of a truck or in the diner scene where he doesn't get his order of toast fulfilled. Those are the moments where we see what Nicholson would become and the film is nothing but Nicholson. It lives or dies on his performance and he thankfully delivers, allowing for it to be nominated for a few awards. He's also good at showing all the complex relationships in his life with his family and with his girlfriend. My one complaint is that we don't really know who his character is. We don't get that deep dive as to why he's such a raging asshole at times and why he doesn't play the piano professionally and why he steps out on his girlfriend yet drag her along to his family home. We don't get to learn too much about the character other than what we see and I wish that Nicholson would have had a chance to show us the depth to Robert that we know he is more than capable of showing us. It's a good performance that shows you exactly what Nicholson is going to give us for the next few decades and coming up short against George C. Scott isn't a terrible thing.

Ryan O'Neal - Love Story

I hate that I've written three other reviews from this film before doing O'Neal's. But honestly his felt like the hardest to do. I really like O'Neal's other work in Paper Moon and Barry Lyndon. I really enjoyed him in the Kubrick film the most. This film came first, but it's easy to see how much charisma O'Neal exudes. It's effortless for him and he has such a soft quality to his performance which is very necessary to a role like this. He's absolutely an obvious leading man, it sucks that he was such an asshole in real life which prevented more of those roles. But in this film he is so sweet with MacGraw, even if their courtship is rather unusual. They both insult each other and it goes from there. They continue that tête-à-tête throughout their relationship and give each other shit which is so nice to see. O'Neal is the main focus of the film and he plays the part perfectly. I feel that neither of the leads probably felt like they had anything Oscar worthy but here we are discussing their performances all these years later. I say that to mean O'Neal does nothing flashy with his role to attract attention. He plays it as he sees it, maintaining that simple, yet effective mantra I've talked about. He just does a great job and then it blew up, but O'Neal does everything necessary of his character. He's charming and loving towards his wife and also so delicate to her once he finds out her predicament. His strength is in being able to be all of those things in the same role and the same film. It's honestly a great performance from him even if the film is something that might get looked down upon. He's done great work and that is evident here. Too bad he couldn't capitalize on that.



I love when there's not a bad one in the group. Even better when we have an all time classic performance like Scott's. A well deserved win there. O'Neal is the last place but he still delivers a charming, effective portrayal of a rich guy who loves his woman no matter the circumstances. It's very watchable and not a bad choice here. Douglas surprised me a bit by delivering an emotionally charged performance I wasn't expecting. But I'm glad I got to watch it even if it's maybe more supporting than lead. Nicholson actually places in the middle. I think he's very good and we see what kind of an actor he will become for decades to come but the film kind of meanders and I think he needed more focus as a character. Jones ends up in second place because he is just magnetic and full of energy and gives us an interesting look at a man who defeat the best but who society defeated in return. Cool to see Jones nominated, as well. This ends the 70s for Best Actor and I'm pumped to finally be done and to move on!

Oscar Winner: George C. Scott - Patton
My Winner:  George C. Scott - Patton
James Earl Jones
Jack Nicholson
Melvyn Douglas
Ryan O'Neal

Leading Actress 1970

As I've said before, I do love that I get to categories where I've seen none of the films and sometimes have never even heard of the actor/actress that's been nominated. That's true here as I know Jackson and Alexander but don't know the rest at all (MacGraw by name only because of the film she's in). It always makes it exciting because I find those diamonds in the rough occasionally and it always feels good when that happens. Of course, I also have to wade through the muck to find those and there's a lot of muck to wade through! Anyway, I do hope that this category brings it home for me and wraps up the decade nicely.

1970 Best Actress

Glenda Jackson - Women in Love

Jackson was probably one of the most anticipated viewings for this project. Here was this two time Oscar winner who had a flurry of nominations in the 70s and then all but disappeared and I had no idea who she even was. I've learned more about her and wrote about that in her other reviews (she got into UK politics and won a Tony in 2018). Interesting lady and interesting nominations. I wasn't a fan of her work in Hedda but I did really like Sunday Bloody Sunday and enjoyed her work enough in A Touch of Class, for which she won her second Oscar. This was her first nomination and first win and I'd heard some very mixed reviews about it. Some people praising it and some thinking it's one of the worst wins for the category. It's certainly a divisive film and performance because of that reason. It's an adaptation of a D.H. Lawrence novel and the film is pretty avant-garde. It feels like a late 60s film (it came out in 69 in the UK) with it's empty philosophizing and psycho babble. There are strange scenes of Jackson dancing wildly in front of cattle of some sort, the two male leads (Alan Bates and Oliver Reed) wrestling buck ass naked in front of a fireplace, an odd ballet dancing scene, Bates running through fields rubbing trees and bushes all over his naked body. Just strange, avant-garde scenes abound in this one. So Jackson has a demanding role of trying to make sense of her character so that her character can make sense to us, the viewer. And it's a tough role and I don't know if Jackson does quite enough for this to be an actual acting performance with depth. Everything is overdone in this film to extremes and that makes the characters come off as if everyone is completely insane. It feels like they are going for this deep, sexually liberated, philosophical treatise on life but it all comes off as clumsy madness. It was probably very shocking in 1969 and had more of an intended effect but now it looks absurd at times. The story is about two sisters who meet a pair of friends at a wedding and then romance ensues in different ways. But as one reviewer put it there isn't much actual women in love as there is everyone talking about love. And I feel that represents the film and the performances as lacking depth and only barely scratching the surface. Maybe in 1969/70 this kind of work was seen as bold and innovative but Jackson's performance left me lacking anything to grab onto. I'll have to see what the rest of the category offers up, but this isn't looking good as a winner for me. Though I wouldn't say it's one of the worst wins ever. It's interesting for sure and Jackson is obviously a very talented actress which comes through here. The pretentiousness, however, has it failing to live up to an Oscar winner type of hype.

Jane Alexander - The Great White Hope

Alexander is one of those underrated actresses who somehow quietly has four Oscar nominations and all of them are good to great. I had no idea who she was before this project, even confusing her with someone else. I imagine anyone reading this doesn't really know her either and that's a shame. She blew me away in Testament and her other two nominations in between were good work. This was her film debut but she had already won a Tony Award for the same role in her stage debut. She played the white woman in black boxer Jack Johnson's life (different name in the film and portrayed by James Earl Jones, who also won a Tony Award for playing the same role) which was controversial back in the early 1900s. Johnson was a heavyweight champion who was an animated guy just like Muhammad Ali and so brought the hate of a lot of folks who didn't like him winning and this was back when racism was the norm. Anyway, like I said, Alexander plays his white girlfriend/lover. I was worried at first because she doesn't do anything for the first almost 30 minutes but then she has a scene where some white DA is asking her questions to try and find some way to charge Johnson with some crime because the whites don't like him. She figures out quickly what he is trying to do and makes a 180 degree turn from being an emotional mess to a woman not to be fucked with. She rebukes him with a great line where she calls him a slimy, two-bit, no dick, mother grabber and storms out. It's an awesome exchange and shows her range and that she won't just be the simple girlfriend type of performance. There's also a great extended scene between Alexander and Jones where the two argue and it's very theatrical and clearly is probably taken from the play they did together. Still, it's great to see them both go at each other and see how comfortable both are in their respective roles. That's the plus of having done the role so often on stage that you can make the film version feel lived in and like a natural extension of their self. It's really well done work for a debut that probably didn't feel like a debut for Alexander and I'm so glad I got to discover her as an actress in this project.

Ali MacGraw - Love Story

This was one of those films that when I looked at the list always threw me for a loop. I knew it was a romantic film and had been made fun of a ton but I thought it was just a cheesy love film and nothing more. I do think it is slightly elevated above that and MacGraw's performance helps a lot in that regard. Now, I'm gonna be real as well and say that I feel like any actress could have played that part and been successful. That's no fault of MacGraw, it's just how the part was written. It's definitely written from a male point of view and so her real story is subdued, or really stifled if you want to be accurate. She doesn't even get told that she has a *SPOILER ALERT* terminal illness. That's kept hidden and the film is very male centric. She's good looking and equally charming to O'Neal and the two have great chemistry. But she doesn't really stand out as you hope she would. MacGraw exists in the film but isn't the reason you are watching. She is essentially an accessory in her own film. But MacGraw is terrific with what she is given to do. She's pretty, smart, charming, funny, says bad words - all of that. And for such a hugely popular film, there was no way she wasn't getting nominated. That's what the Academy does and I won't say it's not deserved, but MacGraw should feel glad she got the opportunity and nomination with this film. That sounds awful to say but here we are talking about her 50 years later, so that's something. It's not amazing but it is effective and we can't deny that.

Sarah Miles - Ryan's Daughter

I'm always curious going into a performance where I don't know the name. I've said this a million times it feels like, but I know it's either going to be good or really bad. It's rarely just a meh. So I knew this was a David Lean epic (he of the Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago films) and it wasn't well received by critics which led to Lean not making a film for like the next 14 years or so. But I rather enjoyed it! I love big epics like this with amazing cinematography and memorable shots. It's about a woman (Miles) who marries an older fella (Robert Mitchum, who the critics say was miscast but I enjoyed in the role) but then cheats on him with a British officer. This is during WWI and right after Easter Uprising and it takes place in Ireland so they hate the Brits. It's scandalous and we see the fallout. It's a small romantic plot dressed up in an epic film. Miles is so very good in the role. I really love the fact that she plays the character so restrained. She's like a true sheltered Irishwoman who knows nothing beyond her village yet longs for so much more excitement. It's why she marries Mitchum and why she cheats on him with a war hero British officer. She plays it like a young woman trying to find something better to grab onto and fill a void. I feel like other actresses would have played this in such a grand way or been a really loud, domineering presence in the film. But Miles' way is what the film needs to succeed. She's an innocent girl who gets caught up in her search for excitement. And Miles has to carry this very long film almost on the strength of her performance alone. She's the only real lead and the British officer she falls for does not give a very good performance at all. The fact that she has to act opposite him so much and he gives such a bad performance and she still comes out looking great is a testament to her ability. The guy even admitted his heart wasn't in it because he didn't find Miles attractive and because Sharon Tate was killed during production and they apparently had an affair not long before she died. So Miles is trying to have a romance with a guy who is an awful actor and makes it believable and salvages what she can for the film. That's reason enough to be nominated but she is so good throughout the whole film. She shines in the end when the town comes together to rip her clothes off and cut off her hair because they feel she ratted on their local Irish rebels to her man and got them arrested. She, with her hair cut and ragged looking, looks pitiful but also almost saintly, like Joan of Arc. That sounds wild but it's how she comes off. It's like the experience matured her and though she is separating from Mitchum, she seems at peace. It's great acting and she grows in the performance from the beginning, which is awesome to watch. I think it's a strong performance that really makes this film work. It got shredded by critics but without Miles, it probably wouldn't even be Oscar nominated.

Carrie Snodgress - Diary of a Mad Housewife

This is a name I'm sure nobody recognizes for a film no one has probably seen before. I've read some other bloggers say this one was hard for them to find but I found a copy rather easily, though it wasn't the best copy ever. I'm always interested in these performances from actors and films I know nothing about because it's a wildcard. I have no idea what to expect and it makes for a fun watch. This one happened to be a very good performance in a rather interesting film. It's about a housewife played by Snodgress who has a husband who belittles her at every turn, emotionally abuses her, and just in general is an absolute dick head to his wife, treating her like hired help or a slave even. Her kids are no better and she's just so unloved. So she has an affair but that's with a man who treats her poorly as well. She tries therapy but they also are abusive and belittling. It's a story about a woman who is constantly under fire from everyone around her and she has to placate them all as if it's her job to take the abuse. Like I said, an interesting subject and Snodgress has to be effective for it to work and she is. She gives such an understated performance where she just takes the abuse and the emotional belittling without saying much or reacting at all. She gives it back a little bit at times which makes those moments hit harder because she does take so much grief from everyone. It's such a strong performance because her character is downtrodden and I feel like she reacts like a woman in 1970 might. It seems real to me and I appreciate that there isn't this big, theatrical element to her performance. It's subtle and understated and really drives home how awful everyone else is around her. Is this a winner? I'm not sure, but I like that it's different and shows her perspective only. She is the saving grace of the film and I'm glad I got to see her restrained performance of a mad housewife.



A solid group to be sure. I don't agree with the Academy with Jackson's win. I think some would say this is a middling/weak year and I could agree, I guess. It's just that I didn't hate any of these and liked most of them, even if there wasn't a runaway favorite. So I think it's solid enough. Jackson is just in a weird film and I don't think she wows enough to win. Maybe the Academy was shocked and thought it was bold acting or something, I don't know, but I felt it could have been better. She's my fifth. Next up is MacGraw who does exactly what the role and film need. She's good and funny and charming and that's all you can ask for. I do feel like many other actresses would have had equal success so that's why I'm keeping it ranked lower. Next would be Alexander as she does a great job with a role she was very familiar with. She has two really strong scenes but does kind of disappear a little for the rest of the film. It's good, though. Now as for my next two, I really don't know. I like both of them for what they bring, as both have to be good so that their films work. Miles carries her long epic of a film and even has to act opposite a guy who wasn't into her and gave a poor performance and still made it work somehow. She makes the three and a half hours bearable, which is no easy task. I think I'll give my win to Snodgress. It's a very 1970 woman's film and role and I like how understated she plays it. It feels so real and is like a breath of fresh air. Just feels different and in this group, that matters. So there we go, 70s almost over and a decent little category this year.

Oscar Winner: Glenda Jackson - Women in Love
My Winner:  Carrie Snodgress - Diary of a Mad Housewife
Sarah Miles
Jane Alexander
Ali MacGraw
Glenda Jackson

Supporting Actor 1970

Well, we've got one big name we all know and four that most people have probably never heard of, myself included. I like that these early years offer up new people I've never seen before. I always hope to find my new favorite performance and I hope it's in this category this year!

1970 Best Supporting Actor

John Mills - Ryan's Daughter

Oh man, I really hate roles like this and I've heard that this was a very poor win but I didn't expect it to be like this. Ugh. Mills is the village idiot in a little fishing town in Ireland. The film is about a woman who marries and then cheats on her husband with one of the occupying British officers. This is set in 1917 during WWI and just after Easter Rising. So the affair is a big no-no and this is everything that leads up to it and after. It's a David Lean epic and it looks amazing and is very long at three and a half hours. Oh, should I actually be talking about this wholly undeserved win and performance? Mills' village idiot has a deformed leg and really bad teeth and he's a dumb mute. Mills doesn't say a single word and the performance is very much a physical one. You can say that Mills tries to imbue the character with a humane quality and tries to get to the core of the person he's playing but that's all whatever. He plays a village idiot that is laughed at and mocked and seems to always be at just the right place at the right time to watch the events of the story unfold. But that's all it is: a village idiot role. It's acted as well as Mills can do but there's nothing really to it. He supposed to be this sympathetic figure who sees people for what they truly are but he doesn't say a word and relies on the physical element of the performance because that's all there is. There are other, better supporting performances in this film. Trevor Howard as the priest is so great. If you want to call Robert Mitchum a supporting character, he'd be a good choice as well. Even the local pub owner who is the Ryan in the title is a better choice because he brings something to the film even though the acting might be a bit over the top. I say that because this is not something I would ever vote for and for some reason the Academy has had such a hard on for these simple/special ed type of roles for some reason. I think it's the lowest form of acting and is too easy to do and no one ever gets it right because it's always so exaggerated. It's never true to life and always feels like someone hamming it up or playing it for awards love. It's a bad win, plain and simple. I can't get behind this and these types of wins (because there is another one coming up for Best Actor, though I haven't seen it yet) just feel like pandering and just all sorts of wrong. Howard would have made an excellent nominee and possible winner. Even the star of the film, Sarah Miles, said he would have been a better winner. When your own Oscar nominated actress says that maybe you should listen! Bad win and I hate to go off like this but this kind of shit from the Academy bothers me.

Richard S. Castellano - Lovers and Other Strangers

This is one of those names you see on the list and don't recognize and if you saw a picture of Castellano, you probably wouldn't recognize him from that, either. But when I tell you he was in The Godfather and ad libbed the famous line "Leave the gun, take the canoli" you will know exactly who he is. Castellano seems to have mostly been a character actor on TV, stage, and in film. He already did this very same role on Broadway a couple years before the film came out and I feel that maybe that's part of the reason he was nominated because the Academy loves to do that. The role/character isn't much. Castellano plays the father of a guy in the film who is getting married. His other son is getting divorced and his wife is portrayed by Bea Arthur from The Golden Girls fame. He plays an almost stereotypical Italian married father who doles out marriage advice despite constant bickering with his own wife and only sticking with her because that's just what you do even if you don't love them any more. So Castellano and Arthur go back and forth and bring a little comedy to the film and both are loud and demonstrative and you've seen that same couple a hundred times before/since. Castellano is good in the role for what it is as he should be, but he often gets overshadowed in the film by the other supporting men. To the point that you wonder why Castellano was chosen and not them. He does have a little wistful monologue towards the end of the film where he tells his divorcing son about how he wanted to marry another woman before he married Arthur that comes off as a good scene but doesn't feel like it particularly stands out to me. It's more a sad indictment on marriage more than anything.

Chief Dan George - Little Big Man

It worried me going into this film that this would be some really racist, outdated mess. Some of the pictures I had seen from the film looked a little goofy, so I was expecting the worst. But instead, the film is a revisionist Western where the US Cavalry soldiers are the enemy and the Indians are shown in a more sympathetic light. It's about Dustin Hoffman and his life as he was saved from an Indian massacre by another tribe and then raised as an Indian and then "rescued" and brought back into white society. It's about his life and he eventually goes back to the Indians. But this is about Chief Dan George who is, well, the chief of the Cheyenne that adopted Hoffman. At first he comes off as the measured, wise chief who takes in Hoffman. Eventually he becomes blind and is a bit more philosophical. All the while he has a great sense of humor. It's just that George isn't used all that much. He's on the peripheral and it would fulfill the stereotype of the Indian chief, though George lends a bit more warmth to that role. It's still not much. I think others are going to find deeper meaning in his performance that just isn't there. He's playing a specific part and nothing else. I don't see much here and Grahame Green, who is the other male Native American nominee from 1990, falls into a similar issue: be more than just the token Indian. I like Green way more than George here, but I'd honestly rather see General Custer nominated because he offers up something interesting and that feels like blasphemy. George does what is needed from his character but it's not something that will make you perk up every time he is on screen. It is great, though, that the Academy diversified it's nominees and went a different way than it normally does, especially in 1970. It's just a shame that the performance isn't better than what it is.

Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father

The project does it again, delivering me a wonderful hidden gem of a film with some really great acting. You'd think I'd have known about this one since it features Hackman, but I had never heard about it or knew what it was about. Even my guess as to what it might be about was really wrong. It has nothing to do with singing or music and is very much an adult drama about the relationship between a son and his father. Hackman is the son and this is such an emotionally acted film where the acting is the star. The son wants to love his father who is overbearing and who makes it tough to actually love him. And that's all Hackman's character wants is that fatherly love. Nothing he does is enough to impress his father and get that love and so Hackman grows to resent his father and the relationship is strained. His father is obstinate and stuck in his ways and it takes the mother dying for them to come together again and butt heads and bond a little bit, though the ending is certainly not a happy one. Hackman, though, is terrific. This is soulful acting where the emotions are at the forefront and this really shows his range as an actor. I honestly like this performance more than his iconic work in The French Connection. You can see that internal struggle of his relationship externalized and it's truly strong, memorable work. The mother was the buffer and once she was gone, the two had to deal head on with their issues with one another. Their little clash, though it's only with words, is heartbreaking to watch the frustrations and disappointment stream from them both. It's an acting showcase type of film and I love watching those kinds of performances. Both Melvyn Douglas (a two time Oscar winner) and Hackman are at the top of their game and deliver something exceptional. My one issue is that Hackman is really the lead actor as he is in almost every scene and the focus of the story. Sticking him in Supporting seems wrong and I feel like he and Douglas should have switched categories. But that's the only mark against this nomination. It's wonderful acting from start to finish and will probably end up my winner.

John Marley - Love Story

I'm not gonna lie, I actually really liked his performance. It is short and I normally can't stand those kinds of nominations, but this meant something. That's what I ask for: bring something to the film and the story. And Marley did. It's not much and some people might not enjoy it and that's okay. But I thought he brought so much needed humanity to the role and the story as the father of Ali MacGraw. I love that he's a father to her in the scene where they visit as a couple and is deferential to Ryan O'Neal because his family is so influential. He's playing off these two different emotions of be a father and also be a good citizen and placate this man. It's really good! It surprised me because I thought it would be a nothing performance but it had heart and earnestness and I loved it. He was great at the wedding and he was heartbreaking at the end. All you could ask for. And you might be asking where have you seen him before and that would be as the man who wakes up with a horse head in his bed in The Godfather. Yep, that's him. But I really did enjoy his performance here. It's simple and effective and that's the theme for this film for me. Will it win, I dunno, but I'm glad it's so much better than I thought it would be.



Ayyy, I really don't like this win. It might very well be the worst one for this category that I have seen so far. Eventually I'll make a list ranking all the winners or something to that effect, but this one will be at the bottom for sure. Mills is my last place and it's really no fault of his own. He does what is needed for the role and it's not like he purposefully played a village idiot to win an Oscar, but still. It's a bad win and I wish he wasn't even nominated. Chief Dan George is an inspired nomination but unfortunately it's not that awesome. He's funny but he just plays an Indian. I need more depth and substance to my nominees. Castellano is pretty good in his role. It fits the film and is one of those Broadway roles that transfers over to film and the Academy loves nominating those. Marley was a pleasant surprise and I enjoyed his small role a lot. It's what a supporting role should be, so he's my second. Now Hackman is my winner even if he should be in the Lead actor category. But he's here and I'm taking him as my winner because he is head and shoulders above everyone else. I love his performance and we can see why he won the next year for his first Oscar. Anyway, disappointing year to round out the 70s. Was hoping for much better, but hey, I watched some really interesting films!

Oscar Winner: John Mills - Ryan's Daughter
My Winner:  Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father
John Marley
Richard S. Castellano
Chief Dan George
John Mills

Supporting Actress 1970

Here we are finally at the last of the 70s. Can you believe as I write this that 1970 was 50 flipping years ago?! That's insane to think about because the 70s was just the generation before me and watching movies from that decade now for kids growing up would be like watching something from the 30s for me. It doesn't seem that dramatic of a time difference but here we are. I am so glad to be finally finishing this year and I'm ready for a new decade, in more ways than one! I haven't see any of these performances, though they are some pretty accessible films if I might say so. I'm ready to see if Hayes is a bad winner like I've heard for so long. Here we go!

1970 Best Supporting Actress

Helen Hayes - Airport

Okay, I get why this won and was nominated, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Hayes is this old lady who scams her way on to planes to get places supposedly to see her family. She comes off as this sweet, little old lady but once we really get to know her she is nothing but a grifter who is a pretty awful person. This is supposed to be an endearing role where the little old lady provides some comedic relief in being a criminal by sneaking onto planes and playing her old lady part to a T. But her character is just an awful person who uses her age and gender to take advantage of everyone she meets so she can get her way. I know that sounds like some liberal PC bullshit but her character just comes off as such a terrible person, no matter how endearing it's supposed to be. Hayes does exactly what the role needs and is honestly perfect as the old lady grifter. I would say she owns the role and knocks it out of the park. I just don't like the role. It's designed to be taken one way, but I take it another. Maybe this will be the only choice for the win but I don't know yet. I know it has that sheen of a veteran nomination for an older woman the Academy likes for whatever reason and I'm sure that's part of the reason she won/was nominated. If this is the best the year has to offer, it's going to be one very bad category and I hope that isn't the case.

Karen Black - Five Easy Pieces

It's funny how going backwards can line up some interesting familiarities or similarities between the years. Sometimes it's the same actor being in the same spot where all I have to do is change the film name. And sometimes it's like it is here where Black is in a film with Jack Nicholson and the previous review (which is actually the next year, 1971) has Ann-Margret in this spot in a film with Nicholson. It's weird how that can work out and maybe I'm the only one that cares about it, but it's neat. Anyway, Black plays Nicholson's waitress girlfriend, Rayette. She's a meek woman who is scared of Nicholson but devoted to him even though he mistreats and manipulates her into staying with him. She's kind of pathetic in that she can be with anyone else since she is a beautiful woman, but continues to put up with Nicholson's antics like being a drunk douchebag and sleeping with other women. It's the dumb, ditzy blonde character (I think she's a blonde and not strawberry blonde anyway) to a T and she does a good enough job in the role. She's just a loving person who loves the wrong man who doesn't love her back and we see that at the end of the film. It's a heartbreaking portrayal but Black doesn't get to do much other than be pathetic and needy and make us scream at her to leave that asshole. There are some other women in the film who get to have an arc even in their brief scenes but I guess Black is representative of the film as a whole. It was okay, but I was really hoping for an Oscar moment that never came.

Lee Grant - The Landlord

Grant was a highly respected actress who was nominated for an Academy Award 4 times and won in 1975 for Shampoo. She also was nominated a bunch of times for the Emmys and won a couple of those, too. But after her first Oscar nomination in 1952, she was blacklisted in the McCarthy era bullshit and relegated to mostly TV for a while. And then came the redemption arc as she started to work more in film and started getting nominated again. This was her second nomination and she played Beau Bridges' boozy, bougie, racist old mother. She's from a rich family and her son, Bridges, buys an apartment building in a rundown black neighborhood in order to fix it up and gentrify the place. But then Bridges is swayed by the tenants and becomes sympathetic to their plight and even sleeps with a couple black women and fathers a child. The racist, old fashioned Grant doesn't approve at first and stops by the apartment building and talks with one of the black women who lives there and gets drunk with her and enjoys some ham hocks and can't remember who her husband is. It's a funny moment that shows Grant's character was just never exposed to anything other than her own way of life. It's a scene where other actors might ham it up too much or not bring the authenticity that Grant does. It's a film that is part social satire and part political statement and Grant plays her part wonderfully. She shows you exactly why she was such a beloved actress and highly awarded throughout her career.

Sally Kellerman - MASH

MASH is a great film and everyone knows the TV series, so I was expecting a lot more out of this performance. Kellerman does a fine enough job with the role but it feels like this nomination just comes along for the ride as she is the only real female performance in the film. Meaning she is the only woman that really gets to do much in the story, which is one of those things that we see over and over in this category. Her arc is that she is a straight laced Army Major who plays by the rules that the other personnel call Hot Lips, which she hates. She has a tryst with Robert Duvall's  straight laced Army officer who no one else really likes. She gets pranked into everyone seeing her naked and has a scene where she erupts and screams to the commanding officer about court-martialing but he doesn't really care. That's about it for her arc other than her being a dumb cheerleader at the football game at the end. Not exactly amazing Oscar quality stuff. Entertaining, absolutely, but not anything that should be up for a win. I would say the TV actress of the same character does a better job with the role, but in fairness, she did get 11 seasons of growth to work with. The film is well worth the watch just not necessarily for this specific performance. It also hurts Kellerman that the film is so misogynistic to the women in the story. Kellerman is seen more as a sex object and doesn't get the chance to bring a lot of depth to the role because the film just won't allow for it. Tone that down and maybe Kellerman can pop through all of that, but instead this is what we are left with.

Maureen Stapleton - Airport

I have not been all that enthused with Stapleton's other nominations/her win. I guess they are decent enough but not anything to make me say wow, she's such a great actress. But she was a very gifted actress who made a lot of films, did a lot of TV, and was a force on Broadway if Wikipedia is correct. So that makes her nominations make more sense to me and that's how this game gets played. This was Stapleton's second nomination and she plays the wife of the airline bomber in this film. When we first see her, she's a supportive wife and worried about her husband going off to some Midwest city for a job. But then she gets some mail about a ticket to Rome and heads to the airport to find him but he has already taken off. She is obviously concerned and wants to talk with whoever in charge to find him. It's then made obvious that he's mentally ill or at least been acting strange and is about to do something drastic. Up until this point, the performance is nothing special. Just a concerned wife but nothing that you'd point to as something to single out. There is a slight Oscar moment at the end where she runs up to the departing passengers of the plane after it's landed and is hysterical and apologizing for her husband who blew up a bomb on the plane. That's the reason she got nominated. But I don't think it's anything to truly gush over and reward. It could be done by any capable actress and doesn't stand out. It's overwrought and just some tethered, obvious acting that I wished for something different from her. I feel like this one came along for the ride with the rest of the film and is easily forgettable, especially for an actress who has done a lot of good work. The positive is that she is easily better than Helen Hayes, who hams it up. I'd choose Stapleton over Hayes every time but neither truly wow me and make me want to champion them for the win.


I definitely feel like Hayes is one of the worst Oscar winners of all time. I don't care at all that she was a very respected stage actress since this isn't the Tony Awards. I can only go by her only nomination and it's just not a good performance. I get why people liked it and voted for it, but it struck the wrong tone with me and that's on Hayes. Plus, it's just not very good acting. Easy 5th place for me. Kellerman unfortunately is treated as a piece of meat in her role and doesn't really get to do a whole lot. Plus, she has the specter of her TV counterpart that had like 12 years with the character hanging over her unfairly as that may be. I would have liked to see more but it is what it is. Stapleton is better than Hayes by a ton. But her role is small and a bit overwrought and while she does a fine enough job, it's not something that should win. Black is pretty good in her pathetic, needy girlfriend role and that's all you can ask from an actress. She's the clear 2nd place for me. Grant just does a great job with her racist, boozy old white woman role which sounds awful lol. But she stands out head and shoulders over everyone else on this list, which is pretty weak overall. I feel like there could be some better nominees from The Landlord like Pearl Bailey or Diana Sands but this is what we got. Let's close out the 70s and move on!

Oscar Winner: Helen Hayes - Airport
My Winner:  Lee Grant - The Landlord
Karen Black
Maureen Stapleton
Sally Kellerman
Helen Hayes

Best Picture 1971

Ahhh, I love Best Picture time! I also love when I get to finally cross off films that I've wanted to see for forever from my list. There's a couple in this group where I've only seen one of these films. So I'll get to enjoy crossing some films off my list and hopefully get a good group to go with it.

1971 Best Picture

The French Connection

What I like best about this film is how matter of fact the whole thing is. The film is only one hour and forty-three minutes long and yet it zips along telling a very tight, concise story without any of the extraneous plot threads that can doom other films of this nature. It's a manly New York City cop movie where a narcotics officer foils an international drug ring from France. And I do mean manly. There's barely any women in this film and the two partners (Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider) talk frankly and give each other shit. There's so much tension and edge of your seat thrills that you can cut it with a knife. There's also a ton of action, including what some people say is one of the greatest car chase sequences ever put to film. I was excited to finally watch it and can say that it is exhilarating and the fact that it's a car versus an elevated train, really adds to the dynamic. It ranks up there, for sure. Hackman gives a great performance in a role that really made him into a leading man in Hollywood. But I just love how straightforward everything in this film is. Hackman as Popeye Doyle is just a cop who wants to get his man and will doggedly follow them all over. I enjoyed this film a lot and think it's a deserving winner and is a classic, but I also kinda was expecting to be genuinely wowed because I'd heard so much about this film over the years. I figured it would hit me like an All The President's Men and become an instant favorite of mine. Alas, I think it's awesome but not a top film for me personally. But I do appreciate how to the point the story was and honestly it makes it that much better of a film. My one big gripe is that ending. It's left ambiguous as to did Popeye kill his man and then we get the run down of the criminals and that the main French guy was never found and Popeye and his partner were reassigned. So anti climactic and unnecessary if you ask me. Will this be my winner? I'm unsure as of now but it is a very good film that everyone should see.

A Clockwork Orange

The more I watch this film, the more I appreciate it for different reasons. Yeah, it's a cool film with some provocative images but it's more than just some ultra violent flick you find as a teenager. It's got all the usual Stanley Kubrick director trademarks. The use of classical music with the visceral images on screen goes so well together and is something Kubrick is great at including in his films. There are scenes taken straight from a painting. This film has a scene where prisoners are walking in a circle that is taken straight from a Van Gogh painting, I believe, and just points to Kubrick's attention to detail and his aesthetic overall. So much care and detail put into every scene is clearly evident and makes the film an even better viewing experience. Most of you should at least know what this one is about by now, but it's a near future where we follow a teen who goes off with his little gang committing acts of ultra violence but is caught and then reformed through aversion therapy. It has a ton of memorable scenes that evoke all kinds of different emotions, which is an area where this film excels in. It's got a really great lead acting turn from Malcolm MacDowell who should have been nominated for Best Actor and it's a damn shame he wasn't. This film lives on his smarmy, cocky, self assured, wild character as we experience everything through his mind. Just a really strong performance that buoys the film along with Kubrick's direction. This is one of those films that I forget was a Best Picture nominee every time I watch it because it just seems so out of character for the Academy, but they do get it right sometimes. This is an all time great film and just another feather in Kubrick's cap, which is amazing to think about - and he never even won a Best Director Oscar!

Fiddler on the Roof

Amazing that this musical film about poor Jewish farmers in Russia could become this cultural touchstone and be remembered fondly even today. It's incredible to think that this film did so well and made money and got a ton of awards recognition. One thing I found funny when reading about this film was that the producer's hired director Norman Jewison because they thought he was actually Jewish, which he is not and that was the first thing he told them after he was hired! But I think the film really succeeds on two things: Topol's performance as Teyve and Jewison's direction. The film won the Oscar for Best Cinematography in a really stacked year and it is what really stood out to me about this film. It's painted in these drab, muted earth tones and yet it looks as beautiful as any film or musical has a right to. There are so many fantastic shots including the opening with the fiddler on the roof and the closing of the fiddler walking behind the villagers on the move in a cold, snowy, very gray landscape. There's a lot more in between and it surprised me just how well shot this thing really was. The other reason the film does so well is because of Topol's acting as the main character, Teyve. Topol had originated the role in the London stage production and you can tell he knows that character in and out and brings a certain gravitas to the film. Without his performance, the film fails to connect with audiences if you ask me. It's the role he was born to play and he gives us a memorable performance. I will say my biggest complaint is that the film really starts to drag in the third hour. The memorable, catchy songs almost cease totally and the film goes from a lively, good natured story to a serious, dramatic, sad one when the Russians ramp up their hatred. It at least ends in a very hopeful manner but the last hour felt every bit of an hour as I was watching. But the music is very good and honestly iconic. The songs are mostly catchy and ones you want to hum along to. It looks great, has great direction, and a very good main performance. Fiddler is well worth the three hours, especially if you have been sleeping on it like I was.

The Last Picture Show

I had been wanting to see this one for so long. I had appreciated Peter Bogdanovich's other films I've seen and knew that he was part of that auteur movement in the 70s. You could say this film helped usher in that era for the Oscars because this is totally a film with a certain unique style. The film is shot in a gorgeous black and white that makes the setting of a small West Texas town seem even more bleak and desperate. I love Bogdanovich's use of closeups on his characters as the film is full of the shots and it really lends an intimacy and gravitas to the material. The story is about the town but specifically a couple high schoolers and how life is for a small town in the 50s. It's a coming of age story but not one where we end up happy at the end. It's more true to life that growing up isn't this idealistic thing with happy endings and warm fuzzy moments. Life can be cruel and cold and callous. The performances are the highlight because there are so many really great ones in this film. There's four Oscar nominations from it but also Cybill Shepherd and especially Timothy Bottoms standout as well. Bottoms effectively carries the film as the lead actor and gets screwed by not getting a nomination for himself. The film is a classic for all of these reasons from the acting to the incredible directing and cinematography to the writing itself. I love that a film like this could be nominated for Best Picture because it represents a lot of what I am looking for in my films. I love that depressed sorta feel to a story where you enter people's lives and get the raw and real version of what would really happen. This is an incredible film and one that's definitely going on my list of new favorites.

Nicholas and Alexandra

I kept wanting to call this Fanny and Alexander but that's a Bergman film and this is a historical epic clocking in at over three hours about the Russian Tsar (or Czar, however you want to spell it) and the end of his rule. This is a holdover nominee from the previous decade. By that I mean the 60s had a ton of these grand historical epics that were routinely nominated for Best Picture. This film and nomination feels like the last gasp of that era before the 70s style and attitude fully took over. Is this a bad film? Absolutely not. It has some utterly amazing set production and costumes and the visuals are a sight to behold. There are some very fine cinematography moments where you might mistake you're looking at a painting or a picture taken. The visuals are the highlight of the film. But yes, it is a very long film that covers a lot of actual history and crams it all into a stuffed three plus hours. Rasputin makes a brief entrance and is killed, there are uprisings and revolution, the son is diagnosed with hemophilia, the Czar abdicates, the family is murdered. Everything that you know about the last royal family of Russia plus some other characters like Lenin and Trotsky all make their appearances. The acting is fine enough, though nothing really stands out to me. It is a bit jarring to hear English accents for every character even though they are all supposed to be Russian. That probably bothered me more than it should have honestly. It's also not entirely boring. The first half is somewhat enthralling and zipped right along but that may be due to me enjoying the historical aspect of events I don't really know that much about. I do think it slows down in the second half right when you think it should be picking up steam with the tension and terror of revolution and the end of the monarchy and the eventual deaths of the Romanoffs. The final scene is memorable but the lead up to it is a bit of work. This is clearly a holdover nomination but it is also an interesting film. It has no chance in winning going up against those other four behemoths but I do enjoy the variety this nomination brings to this year.


Man, what a list! This is one that you look at and might think meh, I have heard of these but maybe never actually sat down and watched them and it doesn't seem like a strong list. But it is though! The French Connection has become a sort of classic I think in part because it did win Best Picture but also because of Gene Hackman and that great car chase scene. That's why I am leaving this as my winner. I love most of these films a lot but I really did enjoy watching this winner. A Clockwork Orange is such a classic and such an inspired choice by the Academy and I'm glad they didn't ignore it. It's different than most BP films but it deserves to be here without a doubt. I had heard great things about The Last Picture Show and it completely delivered on becoming a new favorite of mine. It's so moody and just has a great feel to it with some amazing acting and direction that it ushered in a new auteur driven decade. Fiddler on the Roof surprised me in how much I enjoyed it. I was not expecting to like it as much as I did, but it's got great songs and great acting and you can see why it was a cultural touchstone. Nicholas and Alexandra is the last gasp holdover from the 60s and is the end of that kind of grand historical epic. It's somewhat enjoyable but really doesn't hold up to the rest of this list. It's interesting to watch for that reason but definitely is the bottom of this list. Overall, a great year that I was very happy to watch - and now finish.

Oscar Winner: The French Connection
My Winner:  The French Connection
A Clockwork Orange
The Last Picture Show
Fiddler on the Roof
Nicholas and Alexandra