Leading Actress 1992

I swear I'm not dead! Just get bogged down with life and then stuck on watching certain films or stuck having to write about them. I've seen none of these films so I'm eager to see what they are exactly since I'm not really familiar with any of them. Let's get to it.

1992 Best Actress

Emma Thompson - Howards End

I have always liked Emma Thompson as an actress and I've stated that in my other reviews for her. She is just a thoroughly charming and pleasant actress who makes her craft look effortless. We got exactly that for this performance, but for some reason it just never grabbed me like her others did. I'm glad that she is an Oscar winning actress (and writer!) but I was very underwhelmed by this performance. She plays a middle class woman who becomes friends with Redgrave's character and is promised Howards End (an estate) when she dies but the children of Redgrave block that and then Anthony Hopkins' character falls in love with her and marries her and dies and Thompson gets Howards End after all. There's a lot of class stuff going on and Howards End is meant as a representation of what the different classes are all aspiring to. Maybe I had too high of expectations for her but I was really left wanting more from her and the film itself. Like I said she's her usual great self, making her character look completely effortless. The big thing I like about her acting is that it's as if she's coming up with her words on the fly or as if she was the one who wrote them. She's very natural in that respect which impresses me greatly. Other actors look as if they have memorized lines and are only reciting them and make it look labored and too much like acting. Thompson makes you forget she's acting and just a character speaking from a script. So all of that is found in this performance but I don't feel like Thompson ever took over the film and gave a truly marvelous performance. It's solid but not amazing. She's clearly done better work since which isn't fair to compare to her work in this one. I really thought I was going to react a lot differently to her Oscar winning performance than what I'm writing here but I can't find the motivation to say anything other than she's a great actress who gave a good, not great performance. Maybe it's because I've seen better performances from Thompson that I'm so underwhelmed or that I thought this was going to be a truly great all time winner but I'm a bit disappointed. Without having seen any of the other nominees yet, I'm already okay with her win and she seems like the obvious choice for a winner but we will see as I watch the others.

Catherine Deneuve - Indochine

This was a little bit of a struggle to find with English subtitles. It was plenty easy to find the French version, though. I've been getting more and more into foreign films, sprinkling them in among the Oscar films I watch for the project and it's been a nice change of pace. This film fell directly in the middle of both those wheelhouses and I was intrigued about what kind of film it would be. It's about a French woman who is raising a Vietnamese princess in Vietnam and the woman, Deneuve, falls for a French Navy officer and they bone but then the officer saves the Vietnamese girl and they fall in love and they eventually find each other out in a remote area and then bone. It's very French. It's also not that great of a film. It's somewhat hokey at times, or at least forced to try to provide drama. Deneuve's character is the owner of a rubber tree plantation and seems to have the respect of her local laborers. Deneuve is good in this aspect, portraying someone that's lived there her whole life and is comfortable as a female boss to Vietnamese workers. It's good and capable and doesn't pander to any stereotypes of a lesser woman or a super heroine. Meaning she just exists as she should in the role. My beef is that the film makes her fall almost instantly for the Navy officer without any real reason for her to do so. He confronts her at an auction and kinda tries to woo her and then she just gives herself to him and it's all done so quickly and sloppily that it drags the performance down. It's completely unbelievable. On the plus side, the relationship between Deneuve and her Vietnamese adopted daughter is very believable. They have a very natural relationship and it doesn't feel like white woman with minority kid. It makes for a more realistic performance minus the absurd romance part but it's only a decent performance, nowhere near great. I think the Academy wanted to take the opportunity to reward Deneuve with a nomination as they seem to love to do with certain French actresses. I understand it's place here and don't begrudge it. This was a lot better than some previous Best Actress nominees.

Mary McDonnell - Passion Fish

This is another review that I already wrote but then somehow Blogger ate it and it disappeared after I worked on it for like a couple hours. It's always pretty cool when that happens. Anyway, I had no idea who Mary McDonnell was when I finally got to this year. I know that's going to happen more and more as I go back in time but it's still a little jarring to not know who they are but also exciting at possibly finding a hidden gem. The beginning of the film McDonnell's acting is very labored and TV movie like, but she does eventually settle into the role. Those first few scenes, though, are really, truly awful displays of acting which makes me not want to vote for her based on that alone and because Alfre Woodard is by comparison immensely better. McDonnell plays a TV soap opera star who gets in an accident and is paralyzed and goes to her home in Louisiana. She goes through a bunch of nurses before getting stuck with Alfre Woodard and the two eventually come to respect each other after a rough start. The biggest thing about this performance is that it's fine and all but Woodard is so much more interesting and compelling as a character. I'd even say she's a co-lead and should have been nominated here instead of McDonnell. It's just plain as day when you watch the film. Woodard has just as much, if not more of, an arc than McDonnell and makes the most out of her performance. It's bad acting to start out with that settles into an average performance and somehow it got nominated over a much more deserving Woodard. Maybe McDonnell was riding the wave of goodwill from Dances with Wolves two years prior, I don't know. Not to say McDonnell is horrible by any means, the beginning issue is a very small part of the whole performance. The two actresses actually have really good chemistry and you warm up to McDonnell's cold, callous woman right along with Woodard. I just don't see how anyone that watches this film doesn't gravitate more toward Woodard for being the better performance and actress. I'd love to hear someone give me a good reason as to why the Academy did choose her besides the disability factor. I think that Alfre Woodard would have been a much better choice and I wish the Academy would have seen it that way, too.

Michelle Pfeiffer - Love Field

I have never been a Michelle Pfeiffer fan. My only explanation to that is that I don't find her attractive at all while everyone else seems to think she is drop dead gorgeous. She's not. And I feel like that's where a lot of her love as an actress comes from, her beauty first then whatever talent she has. I've never liked that when it comes to actresses. Show us what you can do despite your good looks and go from there. Of course, this is a bit unfair because Pfeiffer can't exactly help being considered beautiful, so it's not her fault. Love Field does kinda feel like the Academy loves her and wants to nominate her because she's a star at this moment. The performance is okay to me but doesn't really stand out. She's the main focus of them, sure, but that doesn't mean she's good. Pfeiffer plays a woman who is so into the Kennedy's and worships Jackie O and when the President is assassinated in her hometown, vows to go to the funeral in Washington. Ditzy blonde, which Pfeiffer has down pat, gets on a Greyhound bus and butts her way into a black man and his daughter's life because she has no boundaries. She constantly chats him up or injects herself into his life when it's clear he wants to be left alone. The bus crashes eventually and Pfeiffer notices bruises on the little girl and thinks the father has kidnapped her because he's black and that's what black people do. She calls the FBI and then sets in motion the rest of the film where they are running from the authorities because she fucked up and he really is taking her from a home where they beat her constantly and they have to hide out. They all hide out and eventually fall in love, I shit you not. It makes no sense in the grand scheme of things and they end up happily ever after and it just feels so stupid. Pfeiffer is good at being the innocent blonde woman who cares about the daughter because she lost her own child. But that revelation is just superficial. We don't learn all that much about Pfeiffer other than she's quick to leave her other life behind without too much turmoil shown and told to us. I'd say she and Dennis Haysbert have a decent chemistry but it's almost the same thing as Far from Heaven with Julianne Moore and it's still as weird and inappropriate as that film. I'm never convinced by Pfeiffer of her drastic change and it's important that I buy her abrupt turnaround because the film depends on it. Beauty and historical time frame aside, what is left to judge? Not much at all, which is why I think this performance falls flat for me. Yes, it's competent and she does fine trying to sell the romance and the concern, it's just that it doesn't feel Oscar worthy. I feel like her popularity and sex symbol status got her this nomination because there's just not a whole lot to it. I'd much rather see someone else take her place here.

Susan Sarandon - Lorenzo's Oil

When it comes to Susan Sarandon performances and films, I always end up initially thinking the premise or the woman sounds pretty meh but then I watch them and find that Sarandon is pretty strong and her character is a decent female role. Like in this film, I wasn't overly compelled to watch it based on the premise of Sarandon being a mother whose son becomes ill and she and her husband try to find a cure against all odds. You have no doubt heard of a film like this before, probably seen it countless times before, you could probably write a screenplay about one with ease. It breaks no new ground or anything and isn't all that interesting after awhile. But...I watch and realize that Sarandon gives a pretty good to great performance which is typical of her. It's almost at Meryl Streep levels where she makes undeserving roles/performances better because of who she is. It also highlights how bad a lot of the leading actress roles truly are, they lack a lot of the diversity you get with the men. In this film, Sarandon plays a mother fighting for her son's life after he gets a rare disease or disorder or whatever. It's a very strong role that Sarandon makes more interesting and less basic. She gives it her crusader, advocate, progressive spin and push. She brings that part of her life to the role and it's definitely way better for it. She mostly avoids the cheesiness that can be found in these performances and films. Just look at her husband in the film, Nick Nolte, for an example of that. His Italian accent is so distracting and cringe worthy you wish he'd shut up. Not to overly praise Sarandon, though, as this isn't an award winning role to me. It's solid and better than it needs to be but the film does her no favors. It's great that she is so convincing as the mother fighting for her son because it's exactly what you'd think a tough, desperate woman would be in that situation. It's good, not great, but very Susan Sarandon.


Go ahead and look at the films nominated on this list. Do you think the average person in America in 1992 had heard of any of these films, let alone actually watched them? How about extending that to nowadays? It has recognizable names, sure, but besides Howards End, I've never even heard of these films and I'm a big movie nut. No one talks about these films ever, so 1992 must have been just an awful, awful year for women because Oscar makes it seem that way. I'll have to read this year in my Inside Oscar book to see what else was even in the running. It's really hard to even come up with a winner because I'm so ambivalent about them all. I mean, I guess just stay with the status quo and go with Thompson but it doesn't feel fully earned here. I wish she would have wowed. Then comes Sarandon because she plays a pretty strong female character and is good but I wouldn't want that film to be what she won for, you know what I mean? Deneuve really kinda surprised me because I thought she was solid, just let down by the film. She might even be a number 2 after this all grows on me. But still, not worth a win exactly. Then comes Pfeiffer trying hard to rise above the looks but not fully succeeding for this film, which is kind of a mess anyway. McDonnell is dead last because I'd have taken Alfre Woodard over her and probably given her the win instead of these others. That would have been a great Oscar moment! Instead we are left with this ho-hum group.

Oscar Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
My Winner:  Emma Thompson - Howards End
Susan Sarandon 
Catherine Deneuve
Michelle Pfeiffer
Mary McDonnell

Supporting Actor 1992

I had this thought at work the other day about what it must be like to be an actor, director, writer, whatever and have these uneducated (film wise) goobers like me writing about someone's hard work that became an Oscar nominated film. I've railed against some performances and films because they are pretty bad to me but imagine being the guy who wrote one of those films reading some idiot trash your film. Kind of weird to think about right? I don't pretend that my opinion matters any more than anyone elses - it's just my own opinion. Just interesting to think about! Does what I'm writing really matter? No, but it is pretty fun. This category offers some heavy hitters facing off and two unknowns that I'm very interested to check out.

1992 Best Supporting Actor

Gene Hackman - Unforgiven

Yep, I'm totally okay with this as the winner. Hackman is indeed superb in this role and all the superlatives you've heard about it are correct. The main reason I like Hackman as the lawman Little Bill Daggett is because the performance is so understated. It would be extremely easy to play up the violent parts in a crazy or loud way. To do so would be to make those moments come across as abnormal or for show. Hackman delivers a performance that makes those moments of cruel brutality seem inherit to the character and not something that is out of place for him to do. Hackman is a great lawman because he is a violent man that stops at nothing to ensure peace in whatever place he calls home and patrols. It's great to watch because these moments are that much different from when he's being a nice guy talking about building his porch or just doing his lawful duties. This man would have been celebrated in earlier Westerns as the hero, just an every man keeping the thieves and scoundrels and killers out of his town. The brutal nature of it is merely a byproduct and we would be sad if he was killed. But in Unforgiven, all of that is turned on its head and shown for what it all really is: violence is violence no matter who it is done to. This is a very realistic Western instead of the idealistic stuff we are used to and I think it makes the characters such as Little Bill more complex which is always a good thing. He's the good guy but he's also not the good guy. You can't just blindly except he's good because he has a badge and seems like a decent guy at times. I like that this performance makes you question all of the preconceived notions of good and bad. Plus, there's no doubt that watching Gene Hackman do his thing is entertaining and the idea of him not having an Oscar is kind of ridiculous. I'm just glad he won his for a legit great performance and not because he was due.

Jaye Davidson - The Crying Game

I'll say right now that if you haven't watched the film, then maybe go watch it before reading anything about the film because a big part of it will be spoiled right away. Not that you probably couldn't figure out what the twist is, but at least you can go into it pure and not focused on when it will happen. Anyway, The Crying Game is a film that I didn't much care for, though I can see the importance of it and this nomination in the larger scheme of things. Even today, something like this would be a huge issue so seeing them nominate something like this in 1992 is really intriguing. Davidson plays Dil, a transgender woman who seems to attract drama and falls for Stephen Rea's character. Rea doesn't know and that's the big twist that's revealed two thirds of the way through when Davidson gets naked and we see his/her semi-erect penis. That obviously takes a lot of courage for Davidson to go through with and I feel like that coupled with the transgender thing is a big reason why Davidson was nominated. Not to take anything away from the performance but it's basically the main reason. Davidson's performance is only okay to me. It's sort of dramatic and sassy for most of the performance until the very end when Davidson is able to explode with all the rage that must be bottled up inside the Dil character. I didn't really like the film and Davidson didn't exactly put me over the edge into liking it. I can say Davidson accomplishes what is necessary of his character. I just don't feel all that wowed by the performance outside of the one big moment. It fits the film and that's about it. At least the Academy was enlightened enough to nominate it and that's pretty special. The Academy could certainly do worse and I don't mind it being nominated.

Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men

Here's something you might not have known about Jack Nicholson: he's a pretty good actor. So good that him being in a supporting role is almost unfair to everyone else. Of course he's going to get nominated for playing a memorable villain type role with an even more remembered court room scene. Mention A Few Good Men to anyone and you'll probably get a bad impression of Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" and that's the lasting impression of the film - and performance. Nicholson plays a Marine commander in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where two young Marines killed another guy during a hazing incident. From the initial scene where we first meet Nicholson, we get the sense that he's kind of a bad guy and not just a hardcore Marine. Despite the overt villainy, Nicholson does a fine job with the material. He even tones down the usual Nicholson mannerisms and tics that would be completely out of place for a high ranking Marine officer. Probably what helped Nicholson get nominated is the court room scene where he and Tom Cruise battle it out, mano a mano. It's very entertaining with Nicholson at first getting the better of Cruise and acting all smug and untouchable. But then Cruise catches Nicholson in a lie and the change when Nicholson realizes he has been caught is pretty solid acting. He becomes defensive and arrogant so quickly that it's pathetic to watch, which means Nicholson is very effective in the scene. There can be times in the performance where Nicholson is too on the nose with his sort of evil Marine commander, but it doesn't damage the performance really. And really, the film lends itself to having a character like Colonel Jessup be so overbearing and a bad guy and needs the character to succeed as a story. If he was a pushover, we wouldn't care about the story and the court room scenes wouldn't be so memorable. So this is a decent enough Nicholson performance and has some indelible moments but it's certainly not top shelf, vintage Nicholson (though I'm sure others would argue that it is).

Al Pacino - Glengarry Glen Ross

Holy shit, this movie is awesome! Seriously, this is a new favorite that I'm going to watch again really soon, it's that good. It appeals to what I often like in a film: great acting performances and characters, a minimalist style, snappy dialogue that doesn't feel overly written, and I love the whole rainy background of the beginning of the film. There's a lot more to it that I like but that's the basics. Anyway, great film that everyone should watch. Now, here we have Pacino nominated for his second performance of the year after his Best Actor winning turn in Scent of a Woman. I don't understand when the Academy deems it necessary to do shit like this. They obviously really wanted to get Pacino an Oscar, that was quite obvious. But I feel like the double nomination takes away from another actor getting the credit he deserves instead. Pacino is fantastic in the role of Ricky Roma, a cleverly devious salesman full of bravado and balls, there's no doubt about this. His intro where he lays the groundwork for selling property to a lonely, dejected guy at the bar is masterful. You fully believe he's a great salesman with a unique style. He's a showman and we see glimpses of the loud, frantic, later years Pacino begging to come out. When he gets real angry you think that he might burst into full on Scarface mode but he pulls it back in. You might think this makes the performance redundant of his past work but it absolutely works for the character of Roma. Pacino is deft enough to not let the character get out of control and that restraint makes the performance. He comes off like an asshole salesman who will do anything to make a sale which makes him seem like an amoral scumbag but he shows a bit of humanity and reverence when talking with Jack Lemmon's character, a sort of mentor for him. I think that shows that outside of the world of sales and leads he probably is a somewhat decent guy and really shows the depth of the character. Also of note is how he can shred apart someone with his insults and make them feel so tiny that it's kind of awesome to watch in a twisted way. Now, Pacino is great but I feel like Jack Lemmon - or even Alec Baldwin in his one scene - could have been a good choice here instead of Pacino. If you're going to call it an ensemble film and give a Supporting nom to Pacino, they could have done the same for Lemmon, though some might argue he's Lead. Either way, he should have been nominated because his performance blew me away. I did not expect that from Lemmon and it may be one of the best performances I've ever seen, no joke. That's why I think a double nomination is so silly. Just reward someone once because no one is ever, EVER, going to win two acting awards in the same year. Pacino could have shared the wealth here and still won an Oscar.

David Paymer - Mr. Saturday Night

Even if you don't know the name, you know the face. Paymer is a character actor that you've seen countless times but never knew his name. I like that he's getting his due here, because character actors make the world go round. Paymer plays Stan, the older brother to Billy Crystal's Buddy Young, a once famous comedian. The film, which was supposed to be a star vehicle for Crystal that he wrote, directed and produced by himself is unfortunately a bit on the overly sentimental side. I'd say Crystal has no sense of subtlety or nuance, instead hitting us over the head with moments intended to elicit an emotional response whether earned or not. Immediately we see Paymer's character as this sad sack manager for Buddy who has forgone his own life to further his brother's and we know this because of flashbacks and treacly moments where we are supposed to feel sad and empathetic. Why, I don't know, because we only just met him. Paymer does his best with what he has to work with but the material lets him down and he's unable to really overcome it and bring something to the performance to really stand out. It's also a little repetitive. Paymer longs to be his own man but settles for being his brother's keeper and we see this pointed out time after time. He loses his act with his brother, loses the girl he likes, is unable to break away from Buddy to go off on his own journey. The beats of the performance become familiar and we stop caring for Stan because we aren't seeing anything all that different from the character. At the end, the two have a yelling match and then a tearful reunion and all you feel as the viewer is manipulated. Stan never changed and Paymer never developed the character because he wasn't allowed to. Paymer is good but the character isn't, so the performance suffers. The nomination is the reward here.


Hackman is your easy winner. I'm sure some people like Nicholson a lot, but the dude already had 3 Oscars, would you really give him a 4th for that performance? Nah. Pacino would warrant some actual votes if he wasn't already the Best Actor winner which was why he was nominated twice - to get him a win finally. I'd prefer this performance to his other one but then Hackman would be out and that's not a good compromise. Nicholson is becoming, or already is, his same performance self but with minor twists so third is good enough. Then Paymer is 4th since really the nomination is his reward and he doesn't really stand out in this group. Davidson is my 5th simply because the performance is based around the big reveal which is almost all it has going for it. Outside of that, it's not that great of a performance. The winner really makes the category stronger because after him it's not as great as previous iterations have been. I'm a little disappointed that it's so bland but I know it will return to form sooner than later.

Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
My Winner:  Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Al Pacino
Jack Nicholson
David Paymer
Jaye Davidson

Supporting Actress 1992

Not super excited about watching this group based on its history of under performing but I'm at least getting closer to the 80s. Let's see if this holds any hidden gems for me.

1992 Best Supporting Actress

Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny

Everyone always points to this as a big surprising win, but when you actually look at this category and those nominated, it looks almost like a clear winner. Now yes, her being nominated was probably very shocking because it's not exactly a typical Oscar performance or film. It's the kind of performance that maybe gets some kudos and people enjoy the film, maybe it gets some buzz but then on nomination day some other established actress in a boring film gets the nod. So Tomei being nominated AND winning is a nice change of pace. The performance is actually really good for what it is which is a purely supporting turn. Tomei plays the kind of gangster girlfriend role although Joe Pesci is a lawyer instead of a hitman this time around. She's along for the ride as he gets called to defend some college kids in Alabama who are falsely accused of murder. Tomei is funny and delightful and a lot of fun to watch her and Pesci interact. She motivates him, she grounds him, she helps him figure out some legal loopholes and abstract ways of looking at the case, and her big moment is when she is called as an expert witness on types of cars and tires, thus sealing the case for Pesci. Sometimes something as straightforward and simple as this performance can really hit the spot after watching a lot of the other supporting situations. Alliteration! But seriously, this is a pleasant performance which I can't stress enough. It's nice to watch Tomei do her thing and know she's not gunning for an Oscar, to know she's not trying too hard. And the thing is, compared to some of the other performances in this category, this is a great performance! So it shouldn't be a surprise that Tomei actually won, it should be a surprise that the Academy actually rewarded her and didn't just give the Oscar to an old/British woman for a boring role. Tomei has great comedic timing, working class smarts, and (rough) girl next door charm - what's not to love?

Judy Davis - Husbands and Wives

This is most definitely a typical Woody Allen female character which of course gets a nomination. He's very good at writing female characters and giving the actresses something to really sink their teeth into just like this one. Davis plays a woman who separates from her husband and goes on to live the single life but jealousy and heartache and loneliness ensues causing her to get back with her husband at the end. There's a lot to be said about the dynamics of the relationships being shown in this film, really a ton to be said. Davis is part of a couple who are bored with each other and want to experience the single life again (aka doing what they want and fucking whoever else they want). They are the typical successful New York couple with fantastical jobs bored because their life is so good and they need to inject drama into it to feel alive. At least, that's how a lot of Allen's relationships come off to me since I can't relate to them at all. Davis is a fiery, tempestuous woman. She's very critical and says whatever she wants and doesn't seem to grasp that her words can be hurtful. That seems to be one of the themes of the film is guys falling all over themselves to be with beautiful woman even if it means going against what they believe in and stomping on their own convictions just because they want some ass. It's a very critical film on both men and women and Davis gets to play a strong woman. She gets jealous when her husband starts sleeping and seeing a much younger woman and then reacts in a similar way to him with another "perfect" guy. Throughout this, Davis is bullheaded and extremely selfish and she pulls it off wonderfully. I don't exactly like her character but the performance is pretty good. She's abrasive and unpredictable and that fits perfectly with the tone of the character. She doesn't exactly know what she wants but she'll fight for whatever her whims might be at that moment. Like I said, a very good performance that I'll have to think long and hard on voting for.

Joan Plowright - Enchanted April

Sigh. So this was a made for British TV thing in 1991 that saw a wide US release for some reason in 1992 and garnered all kinds of nominations and awards. It actually won some Golden Globes! I cannot wrap my head around how or why. It looks like it was shot on a budget of about $200 and it's far from Oscar worthy. Plowright plays a Mrs. Fisher, who tags along with Miranda Richardson and Josie Lawrence as like an aide. She's a curmudgeonly old lady who sticks her nose in other people's business. A typical, old time supporting role. And a not very good supporting role. There's nothing to Plowright's performance. She's an old, crotchety lady for a bit and then they all get along at the end and find themselves and yadda yadda yadda. She doesn't stand out. You would have to point her out to me so that I knew who she was in order to say, really SHE got nominated? If you were to watch this and pick out who got nominated for an Academy Award, you might say Miranda Richardson or Alfred Molina or Jim Broadbent or even the random lady there but no, it's the barely heard from old, cranky lady. Go figure. What a garbage nomination this truly is! One of the most undeserving nominations ever.

Vanessa Redgrave - Howards End

This was the main supporting nomination that I was looking forward to watching the most. That's because she's a previous Oscar winner with a couple other nominations and a heavy hitter by name alone. So I wanted to know if this would have been worthy of a win to make Tomei's win so shocking like I've heard for so long. It's clear that Redgrave is a generational actress who brings immediate gravitas to her character and performance just because of who she is. That's evident here as she uses her stature to great effect for her character. She plays a sick/dying older woman of a well off English family who is bored of her place in the world. She's the kind of woman who everyone stops talking and listens to whenever she even whispers and can change the subject of a discussion to something unrelated because she can. She speaks in breathy platitudes, as if she's on autopilot and no one can switch her off. The whole time I was watching her I felt she was like an alien visiting another world. She has this wide eyed look of fascination on her face and she wishes she could be in Emma Thompson's place instead of in her current state. She's bored of the life she is living and Redgrave makes the performance seem as if it's almost from another film altogether - and I mean that as a good thing. I enjoyed whenever Redgrave was around onscreen which was only maybe 15 minutes or so in the beginning because she was such an interesting character. I don't think she blew me away or anything, but I would have preferred more time with her character to get to know her more which is obviously the mark of a pretty good performance. Her presence lingers throughout the film and really highlights how different the beginning is from the end. Not sure this should have been the winner but Redgrave is certainly part of the discussion.

Miranda Richardson - Damage

Richardson had quite the year in 1992, turning out much loved performances in this film, Enchanted April, and The Crying Game. Easy to see why she was nominated for at least one of them since the Academy loves rewarding actors for appearing in a lot of acclaimed films in the same year. The nomination alone is her reward, though it's interesting to note that she won a Golden Globe for Best Actress for Enchanted April. My guess is the Academy wanted to reward her for her year but didn't want to vote for her in Lead so she was nominated for this film. In Damage, she plays the wife to Jeremy Irons. And that's it, should end the review there. But seriously, she doesn't factor into the film at all until a very brief scene at the very end where she wails about her son who dies accidentally and then shows her tits to Irons. It's not even a big Oscar moment. It's just like they forgot she hadn't had much screen time and decided to give her some. That's why I feel like this is absolutely a nomination for the amalgamation of her work. On its own, this is not worthy of anything. Her The Crying Game work isn't all that good, just typical villainous stuff. Enchanted April she's the lead and she's alright but the film is so unappealing that it's tough to sit through. Oh, and did I mention she's 33 in real life here yet playing an older woman with grown up kids? It simply isn't believable and she doesn't fit the part. She was a flavor of the moment and young and the Academy loves that, so here we are with a nomination.


I'm always hoping for the best but expecting the worst. This year is actually somewhat in the middle and I'm glad for that. I started off by watching Plowright and Richardson back to back and was like oh, no here we go again with an awful category. Seriously, Plowright is boring and the movie is bad and Richardson just doesn't get anything to do in her movie. She's voted in for simply having a good year with a couple films to her credit. Then I watched Tomei and really enjoyed it and was glad that she did in fact win. It's a solid performance that is something this category needs more of in spades. Then I got to the other two actual main contenders and watched Redgrave who is really great in her brief time in the film and leaves a hole when she exits the film. But it's short and I like Tomei better overall with how they fit in their respective films. So it came down to Davis and I was surprised and not surprised at Davis. It's good and I wasn't sure I'd like it as much but Woody Allen creates a lot of interesting and neurotic woman characters so I should have expected something good. Now I was left to figure out Tomei or Davis. I prefer to watch Tomei a lot more but I was certainly drawn to the fiery Davis character even if I couldn't relate to her at all. Just interesting and compelling but Tomei is equally so. So with that in mind I think I'll just stick with the Academy on this one. It's a good one though I wouldn't mind Davis winning either. Not a bad category all things considered but I wish they'd stop nominating stuff like Plowright and Richardson.

Oscar Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
My Winner:  Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Judy Davis
Vanessa Redgrave
Miranda Richardson
Joan Plowright

Best Picture 1993

I think one of the best things about doing this project is the fact that I can now have a voice, an opinion, an educated say about a whole bunch of Oscar discussions and debates. There are some blogs and websites that discuss certain categories or this winner versus this other person/film and why it's great or why it's total garbage. Whereas in the past I would just read about these things, now I feel I can contribute and say yes this film is great because reasons or this performance is not good because reasons. There's a lot more of these films and performances to check off for me as I go back in time but I feel like I'm finally scratching the surface of a lot of the internet debates. I can't wait to finish the 90s and get into the 80s and feel like I've made some real progress.

1993 Best Picture

Schindler's List

This was your easy winner and rightfully so. It's a film that has transcended the Oscars and gets talked about as an important work of art for the entire world to watch. It gets mentions on the Best Film of all time lists, which includes films from all over the world and not just the Oscar films. It's a testament and a monument to the subject and people covered by this story. It's a reminder to never forget the atrocities that actually happened and remember with reverence the millions who were killed and affected. Though this is just one of many Holocaust films, it's a great film regardless of the subject matter which of course makes the film that much more important. It's a film that needs to be shown again and again and need to be watched over and over by all generations to keep them aware of what evil can really do in this world. Hard to debate anything else winning because it doesn't feel right and honestly, nothing on this list even comes close. This was a lifelong passion for Spielberg and it shows. He waited until he was older to even make it because he felt his younger self would do a disservice to the story. The acting is all top notch with all of Neeson, Fiennes, and Kingsley giving great performances. It's over 3 hours long but never really feels it's length. I think some of that is due to how the story lingers on certain moments like the liquidation of the ghetto or the moving the Jews to Auschwitz where we sort of sit silently back watching these horrible moments play out for 30 minutes or so at a time. They are so horrifying and engrossing that they suck us in and next thing you know the film is half over. But it also never feels exploitative at all. Everyone involved handles the subject matter with the utmost of sincere respect. The black and white cinematography is effective and works well for the story. The music is eloquent and memorable. It's a culmination of all the parts coming together to make an instant classic that is much more than just about winning Oscars.

The Fugitive

This is a really interesting inclusion for Best Picture, one that I do feel is deserved, because I can't imagine a thriller like this being nominated today. But I guess that speaks to just how good this film is and also to the state of Oscar in the early 90s. The Fugitive stars Harrison Ford as Dr. Richard Kimble, a man who is convicted of the murder of his wife though he is actually innocent. He escapes after his transport van is hit by a train and he goes on the lam with Tommy Lee Jones hunting him down as he tries to figure out who really killed his wife. It's a very simple story but the acting is so tremendous and the way the story unfolds is so compelling that it definitely elevates itself into more than just a regular thriller. Both Ford and Jones are extremely good and their cat and mouse game is a lot of fun to watch. One of the things that this film has going for it is that it eschews all the hokey beats that normally seem to be in your late 80s/early 90s thrillers. The music is decent even if it is totally early 90s, it at least isn't the full on synth weirdness you usually get. I also like that it treats the story with respect and not just as an excuse to see Ford running around like an action hero or Jones firing a gun. So what we get is an honest, dramatic story that focuses on the chase, sure, but also the mystery of who killed Ford's wife and how he is going to solve it. There are some moments where you have to suspend your disbelief like when Ford jumps off the dam into the water but I don't feel as if these moments detract from the overall story at all. In fact, the film has a ton of famous and iconic scenes such as Ford jumping off the dam after being confronted by Jones. The scene where the train smashes the van and derails is another amazing piece of movie magic, too. It does seem amazing to me that this film would be a Best Picture nominee, but I guess that's what the Academy (and audiences) was into back then. To me, it's an inspired choice and I'm absolutely glad it was chosen. I'd love for more films like this to be not only nominated but made today. And if you haven't seen this film yet, it might seem cliché and overly familiar which is only because it was so highly regarded that other films stole from it and it's been parodied for some of its iconic scenes. But this is an action film and thriller done the right way. This might not have been the winner but it's a hell of a good and entertaining film.

In the Name of the Father

As all two of you readers should know by now, I go backwards when it comes to writing my reviews. So Best Supporting Actress is written first and then everything else follows suit. That often means that I've blown my wad when it comes to writing about a film that is up for Best Picture. By that I mean I kind of already wrote part of this review when I wrote about Emma Thompson's performance. I touched base on why I like the film and at this point, I hate repeating myself over and over. I won't say go read that little blurb instead because that would be pretty awful of me. Just wanted to point out that's why I often repeat myself for the same film category to category. Anyway, I really did enjoy this film. I mentioned it's partly because the British-Irish conflict is so intriguing to me because it's so recent and something I'm not all that well versed in. I also love this film because the acting is top notch and the three acting nominations were all very well deserved. It might take some small liberties with the truth such as everyone being freed on a technicality in real life (as I understand it) instead of some shocking new piece of evidence being found. I don't think it changes the impact of the film, however. The story is one that needed to be told. And that's the big thing for about this film is that it's not about exceptional cinematography or amazing music (though having Bono write songs for your film doesn't hurt). I like this film because of the powerhouse acting and the engaging, compelling, important story being told. It's pretty much as simple as that for me. One of the pluses of watching this film is that it really makes me want to dive a little deeper into the history of that time period. I feel like I should know more about the IRA-Britain stuff than I actually do. I think it's extremely well done and a worthy Best Picture nominee. It just happened to run up against the Spielberg Holocaust buzzsaw.

The Piano

I sat on this review for awhile not because I hate the film or anything but because sometimes you get really motivated after watching a film and knock these out quickly. I wrote up the two actress reviews quickly but it was late so I decided to wait for this one. Then the next day I just felt terribly unmotivated to write about this one, which happens. My first impression of the film was that the music was pretty loud at times and I didn't know if that was the intent or just my copy of the film. Minor issue but it was really annoying while watching it. As for the film itself, I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Can't say I'm the biggest Jane Campion fan but I did think the film was gorgeously shot. Some really great looking scenes, though I found it weird that the film seemed so intimate in its scope. It's set in New Zealand but we don't get that many scenery shots, it's mostly up close on the characters wherever they happen to be. I think that obviously adds to the feel of the film and makes it a little more intense. The acting is actually quite good, too. I wasn't sure if Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin's Oscar wins were going to be well deserved but I think they were. Paquin was in a pretty weak group but she still held her own and was better than the typical child actor. Hunter kinda blew me away because I hadn't really liked some of her other work but felt she was incredibly strong in this film even without saying a word. Harvey Keitel also does a pretty great job at playing a white man accepted by the Maori. Without him for Hunter to act off of, this film probably isn't as good and wouldn't/shouldn't be in the Oscar discussion. The story is about Hunter who gets married off to Sam Neill in New Zealand and they make the trip from Scotland and Hunter wants to bring her piano since that's basically how she communicates. Neill doesn't want to haul it from the beach and so Harvey Keitel agrees to bring it in exchange for lessons. The lessons turn sexual in nature and conflict arises between everyone. The worry for me is that the film would be overly pretentious but I felt it struck the right balance between artsy indie film and legit Oscar contender. I must say that the end is pretty bunk. I just didn't care for the way it ended even if it's supposed to be symbolic or whatever. The film, though a strong work done mostly by women, treats the Maori characters as if they were background animals or something. I get that the film is about white people existing in a harsh environment but I don't understand the marginalizing of these people, they feel like props. Anyway, I did like The Piano a bit more than I thought I would, for sure. It's a Miramax film so it probably won't be for everyone and you could debate if it belongs on the Best Picture list but it's not as bad as you might think it is.

The Remains of the Day

This is a really interesting film. If you read the description, it reads like any old boring, stuffy British film focusing on a butler and the antiquated living styles of yesteryear. If you see it's another Merchant-Ivory film, you may have some unfavorable opinions on it before even watching based on their history. All of which is totally natural and totally unfair. I'm guilty of it and I'm always glad to be proven wrong. The film is based on a book by a Japanese-English writer that is a little more modern in style than some of the other classical British books that have been made into films by the Merchant-Ivory team. The film follows Stevens, a head butler portrayed by Anthony Hopkins as he works for a Lord and goes about his duties. It moves back in time between Stevens working for a Lord Darlington in the time before WWII and for an American (played by Christopher Reeves, who was quite decent) who buys the estate after the war. It's framed by writings from Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson) who Stevens is going to see. That sounds complicated but I assure you it isn't. What it is, however, is electric. This is not a boring two hour film about an English estate. This is about a man and his life during some very trying times. Lord Darlington is a Nazi sympathizer and hosts all kinds of dinners to help rally support to the German cause. This acts as the backdrop to the goings on in Stevens' life and it was wholly fascinating to me. It was also great seeing Christopher Reeves in a role other than Superman because I don't think I've ever seen anything else of his. We get to see two really amazing performances in Thompson and Hopkins as they sort of dance around each other with unrequited flirtations. It's definitely a lot better than you think it will be, which was the case for me. To me, it was such a vibrant film. Not this stuffy, boring look at the British lifestyle but a very captivating treatise on Stevens and the British Empire as a whole. It hooked me from the start and I was very glad that I watched this because I'm absolutely sure I never would have otherwise, which is sad. I know I didn't talk all that much about the film really, but it looks great, has a very compelling story with intriguing characters (and great performances), and touches on some pretty deep historical issues. I feel like The Remains of the Day deserves a bit more respect when it comes to Oscar because it's a very forgotten film today. This might not be the winner, but I'm glad I got to watch it.


It's always interesting to go through the acting categories and then get to Best Picture and see a wildcard in the choices. Always makes me wonder what would get in if the number of nominees was expanded and makes for a good guessing game. The surprise here is both The Piano and The Fugitive, which are almost opposite in every way yet are considered one of the five best by Oscar this year. A small indie and a big blockbuster. Just interesting to see the choices of this year. The Piano is the obvious 5th choice, not as bad as you might expect but not on par with the others, really. The Remains of the Day is my 4th because the other three entertain me a lot more than this one did even though it was a lot better than I was expecting and had some great performances. In the Name of the Father is my middle choice as it's hard to go wrong with DDL and the subject is pretty fascinating to me as a whole. The Fugitive would be second because it's immensely entertaining and I could watch it over and over and not be sick of it. It would have won if not for an all time classic in Schindler's List being a choice, as well. That film transcends Oscar and was the easy choice for Best Picture. All in all a decent year for Best Picture. Some different choices and an all time classic, not bad.

Oscar Winner: Schindler's List
My Winner:  Schindler's List
The Fugitive
In the Name of the Father
The Remains of the Day
The Piano

Leading Actor 1993

Great group of actors to watch. Let's dive in.

1993 Best Actor

Tom Hanks - Philadelphia

So here is Tom Hanks' first Oscar win, one of two in a row. As I discussed in the Forrest Gump review, I think a lot of people forget that this was the film he won his first one for. A lot of people might think it was Gump, honestly. But no, it was his turn as Andrew Beckett, a gay lawyer who is fired because he has AIDS and goes to court with the firm that fired him being defended by a homophobic lawyer who changes his beliefs in Denzel. That's quite the Oscar checklist right there and I'm surprised it didn't get a Best Picture nom to go along with this one. Hanks is a totally sympathetic character in this film and portrays Beckett with absolute tenderness. There are no big, overwrought pronouncements that screams Hanks is gay and flamboyant and all the typical cliches that go along with a gay character in Hollywood. Hanks plays Beckett as a normal guy who happens to be gay and dealing with AIDS who is unfairly fired from his job. I think that's part of what makes the performance hit a little harder is that Hanks makes Beckett completely relatable in a way that had never been seen in mainstream media at that time. I also think it's a big reason Hanks won his first Oscar. Yes, Hanks is terrific, but the moral stand voters were able to make by him winning was too good to pass up. That's made to look even better with Hanks' impassioned acceptance speech. This isn't to say it's the only reason he won, just a big factor in why he did win. You can look to the most memorable scene where Hanks is describing an opera for Denzel as the music dominates and the camera swirls and realize that a lesser actor would have completely blown the impact of that scene. You might even give him the Oscar for that scene alone it was so fantastic. So yeah, Hanks' acting is very much a big reason why he won here, too. One of my issues is that the director and I guess everyone involved didn't go deep enough into the gay thing. By that I mean, we never really see much affection between Hanks and Antonio Banderas. It can at times feel like just a man suffering from a disease and that's it, which is part of the message somewhat but the disease happens to be AIDS and I feel something more than kid gloves was necessary. I get that the era wasn't as open and accepting of homosexual themes and subject matter but Philadelphia deserved a bit more emphasis on the gay parts. I don't necessarily think that's a big fault of Hanks, he worked with the script and the times so I can't really neg him on that issue. I do think it's an important role that gets too often overlooked and forgotten about these days because it really was a pretty wonderful acting job by Hanks.

Daniel Day-Lewis - In the Name of the Father

My love for Daniel Day-Lewis has been discussed at length with his previous nominations and wins and this performance just continues that theme. I still think he's the greatest living male actor and I've never seen him give a bad performance, well maybe Nine but I try to forget that film whenever possible. However, when reviewing DDL for Best Actor this year, you also have to look at his work in Scorsese's The Age of Innocence. I had never seen that film before and I thought DDL did a tremendous job with his performance as the equivocating Newland Archer. It could easily have been what DDL was nominated for if not for this film. I do believe that DDL is better as Gerry Conlon, the falsely accused and imprisoned Irishman. He was said to have bombed a London pub for the IRA and was convicted because the British police wanted someone to pay for the crime. Day-Lewis' performance is a passionate one that rightly captures the intensity of the situation. He was just a young guy that wanted to live free and was a very minor thief, a guy that needed some direction in life. Just a young fuck up but not a hateful one. Day-Lewis perfectly shows off this youthfulness in the early parts of the film. He doesn't have much of a care in the world as evidenced by his setting off a riot in Belfast for being stupidly obtuse in the situation of Northern Ireland at the time. Once in police custody, DDL is able to brilliantly display the pain and frustration of being tortured and beaten for a confession. I'd say the best part of DDL's performance is when he and Postlethwaite are together. Their relationship as father and son is so convincing, you'd think they were really related. DDL also transitions from the aimless, oblivious young man into a hardened, fully aware adult while in prison. That transition is handled well as DDL becomes gung ho about the Irish injustice but then further realizes that violence and killing is not a good answer for it. His character goes through a roller coaster of emotions while in prison and DDL handles it all expertly. What we see is a man growing, instead of an actor working different scenes. Day-Lewis does a phenomenal job with a tough character and makes it look easy. Combine this with his other performance and you've got quite the year for DDL.

Laurence Fishburne - What's Love Got to Do with It

This performance feels like it was perfect for Samuel L. Jackson. I mean, honestly, Fishburne channels a Pulp Fiction Jackson before that was even an idea. Yes, it has a lot to do with his many uses of the word motherfucker, but also in the way he speaks and acts at times. Fishburne plays Ike Turner and we see his volatile interactions with Tina that frames her story. Unfortunately, Ike doesn't really have much to offer us. In the film, he's very one note - or I guess is that two note? We see him be the smooth talking band leader that moves from woman to woman promising all kinds of things to being the violently jealous pathetic man he really is. And that's it. That's not really Fishburne's fault that the story limits his character so severely but it's all we are left with to watch. We never know who Ike is as a person, his motivations other than the most basic money, power, sex stuff. We never even really scratch the surface for either character, especially for Ike, more like just giving it a nice dusting off. That's mostly why the film fails for me, it's just not that interesting and Fishburne is a victim of that. He's clearly the 5th nominee and was a surprise nominee on the day they were announced. Many people thought it might be Denzel or another actor in this spot. It's great that a black actor was given his due but I wish it had been for better, stronger performance. This one seems carried in on the strength of Angela Bassett. Fishburne is a good actor and he is far from terrible in this performance but it's something that definitely leaves you wanting more.

Anthony Hopkins - The Remains of the Day

I think it's easy to forget that Hopkins is a really skilled actor and diverse enough to be more than just Hannibal Lector. Having won two years previous for an iconic piece of acting, he came back this year in a few different, more classical roles. This nomination is as much for his work in this film as it is for his work in Shadowlands and a couple other films in 1993. His work in both of those films is very comparable but I'd definitely give the edge to his role as the head butler in The Remains of the Day. The word that sprang to mind immediately while watching him act was solid. He was an actor that was supremely comfortable in the role and in total control of his character. I was impressed because he wasn't just a stuffy, old British butler type. He imbued his character with some great humor and some warmth and some very firm convictions. I was surprised that I liked the performance so much because I was fully expecting a boring, typical butler role but Hopkins made it his own. He was very funny when trying to give the birds and the bees talk to Hugh Grant. The way he handled the death of his father was in line with what a head butler in the middle of a big dinner would have done. One of the better moments of the performance was when he was asked his opinion on something at one of the dinners and remarked it wasn't his place to say, only to serve but the scene dripped with so much unspoken hostility or just repressed emotion that I loved it. Both he and Emma Thompson have some great chemistry both as actors and as characters in this film. In Hopkins' pursuit to being the perfect butler, he misses out on really being able to enjoy his own life so he could better serve the House. Their flirtations never become realized and the sense of if he's doing the right thing haunt Hopkins which is ultimately what the film is about. It's a really tremendous performance that takes what could have been a snore of a role and makes it into this fascinating piece of acting. This one really gave me a better appreciation for Hopkins as an actor and I really appreciate that.

Liam Neeson - Schindler's List

This was a career definer. This is the type of performance you win an Oscar for and become an all time great for. When we talk about all time great Best Actor winners, this gets mentioned because it's so good. Except this didn't actually win Best Actor! How the fuck does that not happen?? Neeson IS Oscar Schindler and everything that comes with that connotation. He is every accolade you can throw at him. He plays Schindler pitch perfect. In the beginning, he's simply a conniving German businessman. He liquors up the Nazis so that they will become his friend and allow him to do business. He's always thinking 4 steps ahead and it shows. Neeson is perfect because he can be this big smiling oaf, yet instantly change into this intimidating man if need be. He has the gravitas to be more than just a business man. He is well suited to playing a hero because that's what Schindler is. He's disturbed by the German actions but never betrays his ulterior motives, always putting the business angle first so as to save himself and the Jews. Neeson is great at pressing the flesh and pretending to get along with these Nazi monsters. He's convincing enough to get away with almost anything, which is a great trait to have for this performance. To me, when you think of Schindler's List, what do you think of first? The ONLY thing I think of is Liam Neeson and his portrayal of Oscar Schindler. The two are synonymous with each other. Can you see anyone else playing this part? I can't and that's the mark of a great performance. I like that it maintains the businessman like quality of his past. There's not a striking, abrupt change for him to becoming the saint he is, it's one where he's still the businessman until the very end. He uses what he knows to help him save 1100 Jews and the heartbreaking moment at the end where he reasons he could have saved 2 more people for his Nazi pin is breathtaking. It crushes you knowing that some stupid gold pin could have saved 2 people's lives and he comes to the same realization. I like that the film didn't make him out to be this superhero figure that saved so many lives. He was a real person that was making money and also saving lives. He wasn't perfect but he did what was right. Neeson perfectly embodied the character and created such a memorable performance to boot.


As usual, another strong Best Actor group. I'm glad to have these tough decisions to make instead of disliking most of them. Even my 5th place nominee is still somewhat good and I can appreciate the performance. Fishburne is my 5th and is the clear 5th as everyone else is just at another level altogether. From here, it gets tough to choose. Neeson is undoubtedly my choice for Best Actor. But as for 2nd through 4th? Tough call. I think the Academy jumped the gun in giving Hanks a Best Actor this year, especially since they didn't know he'd follow it up the next year with another win and be a perennial nominee. Hanks could be my 4th but that might change the next time you ask me. As it is, 4th this year is not much different than 2nd. Hopkins right in the middle for a better than usual butler role and DDL coming in second for just another solid performance. I am loving having to watch this category over and over and I look forward to next year!

Oscar Winner: Tom Hanks - Philadelphia
My Winner:  Liam Neeson - Schindler's List
Daniel Day-Lewis
Anthony Hopkins
Tom Hanks
Laurence Fishburne

Leading Actress 1993

Honestly, I've been super unmotivated to write and watch anything lately. Lots going on in my life and work is all I do it seems. No fun intro just getting to the reviews.

1993 Best Actress

Holly Hunter - The Piano

Lots and lots of interesting things to talk about with Hunter's win here. First of all, this was one of two of Holly Hunter's nominations this year, the other being for her brief cameo in The Firm. That second one wasn't really necessary or well deserved but sometimes the Academy goes overboard on rewarding an actor if they've had a good year. Second, this was only the third Best Actress winner ever to feature a non speaking role after Marlee Matlin and Jane Wyman. And third, well okay, there is no third but let it be known that I'm not a huge fan of Hunter's, having disliked her other two nominations for various reasons. However, I thought Hunter was terrific here. She does so much without saying a single word. She's so expressive in her movements and her looks that her performance is a complete performance. Her hatred of being in New Zealand is quite obvious and Hunter makers her dislike obvious. She meets Harvey Keitel's character when she lands and he asks for piano lessens which she gives in to. Hunter plays the piano to Keitel's liking but they engage in a torrid affair and I can't help but wish she'd just up and run off with him because the two have some great sexual chemistry together. It still goes back to her being a mute and not saying a word and still saying a million things with her body language and piano playing and overall being. Her and her daughter are pretty fantastic together and it's obvious why Anna Paquin won an Oscar for her role. I love that Hunter doesn't give in to her future husband, actually never gives in. I never thought I would like this performance as much as I did, it definitely surprised me. I was worried this might be a weak winner but I'm glad to say it's not. I just like how Hunter is able to make her character so real and authentic without uttering a word. When she's doing her signing you can feel the contempt or frustration or nervousness or whatever emotion Hunter needs to get across. And she does that without overacting. At times it's subtle and at times it's demonstrative without going overboard. If you're going to have a silent character, you need to be convincing in your silence and Hunter definitely is.

Angela Bassett - What's Love Got to Do with It

I can't NOT sing the title of this film in my head (or out loud) any time I read it, it's like an automatic reaction. That said, Angela Bassett gives it her all here and it's quite awesome to see. Unfortunately, the film itself let's her down. Here's the thing: this is a Tina Turner biopic. If you don't like her music, then there goes about half the appeal of the film. I'm certainly not a fan of her music so the songs did nothing for me. I can't connect with any of that to possibly reach Tina on a deeper level. Without the musical angle, you get the Tina as a battered woman angle. That's legitimately all that's left. Sure, we get told how Tina was discovered as Anna Mae Bullock and then used and abused by Ike Turner. The abuse continues for years as Tina becomes the breadwinner and Ike fades into the background which he hates. So Bassett starts off as this naive, young thang and does a good job communicating that. Her big smile and naivete make her endearing. Then the Ike abuse takes over and while Bassett looks absolutely the part (muscles and all), she doesn't embody the soul of Tina. We have no idea as to the motivations and all that of the characters because the film only ever scratches the surface and never, ever gets too deep. Not the fault of Bassett, who is supremely dedicated to Tina. She is the physical embodiment of Tina. It's remarkable. But there are scenes where the singing doesn't match up with Bassett's lip-synching. You can tell Bassett is putting in her all for the performance but the sound just doesn't match her actions. Which tells me that Bassett dedicated herself to the character but was let down by the film. She's so strong and beautiful in a couple scenes but unfortunately it's all window dressing. We never dive deep into Ike or Tina and the film suffers because of that. There are some quick tearjerker moments from Bassett, but they just feel like lip service really. Bassett is trying her hardest to give a great performance and the Academy recognized it as such, but I was really hoping for something that would tell me more about Tina Turner. I still don't really know who she is as a person and that's unfortunate. But Bassett is pretty great and I'm glad she got a nomination here.

Stockard Channing - Six Degrees of Separation

This is kind of a weirdly interesting film. It has a lot of famous people in it and focuses on a young Will Smith who scams his way into some really rich people's homes on the conceit that he knows their kids and is Sidney Poitier's son. The acting by Smith is pretty good but the whole film is based off a Tony nominated play so everything is largely theatrical. Stockard Channing was nominated for her role as the main woman who Smith encountered and duped for a Tony award for Best Actress so I guess the Academy liked it so much that they followed suit. I can see this as being the sole representation for a film with many famous actors that the Academy enjoyed and wanted to show it's appreciation in some way, so Channing became the choice. Now I honestly don't think her performance is anything special. She's obviously very comfortable as her character which makes sense when she portrayed the character for a long, long time on Broadway. She also has great chemistry with Donald Sutherland who is an actor that makes anything look easy. Their rapport is back and forth and quick and they are both great storytellers which is how this film is framed. The interaction with Smith gives these rich people fodder for their cute cocktail stories of being hoodwinked and links them to other couples that have been fooled the same way by Smith. This speaks to the notion of the whole six degrees of separation theory that we are linked by only six people in this world. Smith unites all these different couples and gives them a link to each other. Channing, though a victim, seems almost maternal and proud when talking about Smith, as if she wants to believe his lies because it makes her life more exciting. It's a sturdy, if unexciting, performance from Channing who is at ease as the duped socialite. In another year, this might have been bumped for a stronger performance but the Academy could have done much worse than this. It's actually grown on me a little the more I think about it which is always a good thing. Plus, I got to see a really interesting film that makes me wish I could have seen the play because I know it was probably way better than this. And I'm sure Channing was more impressive in the theatrical setting than in this film.

Emma Thompson - The Remains of the Day

This is not a Leading Actress performance. She never once takes over the film or any scene and is never more than just a side character working behind the scenes. Not a Lead Actress at all. No. I get that Thompson won the year previous but this is absolutely Supporting. Okay, she plays a housekeeper but factors into none of the big moments of the film, or at least is on the periphery of all the big moments. She is a new hire that speaks her mind and feels like more of a modern day person which is part of her appeal. It's the typical Emma Thompson role where she uses her trademark wit, her sort of deadpan delivery of biting remarks, and her warm humanity to create a character we can all love. My main thing is that this is more of a Supporting role even though yes, she is the only real strong female character in the film. I guess that's part of why she gets a nomination in this category but let's be real - it feels really Supporting to me. And this isn't to say it's not a great performance because I do feel that Thompson adds another dimension to the film that without her would turn it into something completely different. She makes the film better, no doubt. I was just waiting and waiting for her role to broaden and become more important but it never did. After an hour of watching I figured okay, now she'll factor into the story a great deal more but, no, she didn't. But like I said, it's a good performance and the chemistry between Thompson and Hopkins is quite something to watch. Two great actors that know what they are doing and doing it so well just as two actors and as the two characters in the story. They have such a faintly flirty romance that you are for sure rooting for them to get involved but nothing ever really happens with their relationship and that's okay. Thompson is a strong character in the film, even if on the sides, and she makes the film more enjoyable to watch. I don't know if she really needed two nominations this year because you could maybe put this in Supporting instead, though I guess I see why it nominated for Lead. I'm glad she was represented in some capacity because her year was a pretty good one.

Debra Winger - Shadowlands

Okay, so I sat on this review for a little bit. If you've followed this blog at all you know I do that from time to time when I'm not very motivated. That's only natural. Not every performance is going to elicit a passionate response one way or another. Sometimes I'm going to watch a film and performance and go okay, that was alright. Winger somewhat fits into that category. She's good. Better than I anticipated because I wasn't sure of what to expect really. I had heard the name and knew she was popular for a bit and supposedly a pretty great actress. I see why all of those were true when it comes to her performance here. She plays an American woman who goes over to London to meet up with C.S. Lewis of the Narnia fame and ends up marrying him. She's a gruff American lady who instead of being demure and classical, shouts in a crowded restaurant if anyone is named Lewis. That's the kind of woman she is. She never backs down from Lewis (played by Anthony Hopkins) and they enjoy a good, friendly argument. She's a woman who isn't afraid to say what she thinks. Now Winger is kinda perfect for this role, portraying the New York woman with gusto. She also comes off very motherly/wifely, even from the very beginning that nurturing aspect is quite evident. She's frank and quite straight with Lewis at times and it's enjoyable to watch her and Hopkins nicely play out the relationship. But that's why I'm a little tepid towards her performance because yes, it is good, but it certainly isn't going to wow you. The relationship is average and one of convenience at first but then it delves into coming to terms with accepting the inevitability of death and dealing with loss and grief as Winger's character finds out she has a terminal disease. What I like about Winger in this part is that she doesn't play the weepy woman at all. She's strong for her son and for Hopkins and, really, for herself. What could have turned into a real awful Oscar bait tearjerker but Winger keeps it from flying off the handle. It's a good performance, just not one that's going to inspire many people to check it out and champion it for a win.


Another shitty Best Actress group. I'm completely uninspired by every woman here. Debra Winger is my least favorite simply because the film and character and performance are all so blah. She's okay but really doesn't stand out. Channing is next and actually really interesting and a pretty different choice for a Best Actress nod. She played the role on Broadway and was nominated there so might as well nominate her here right? It's decent but definitely not must see. Bassett is 3rd because, well, the other two suck more or are at least not as inspiring. Bassett has the fact that she plays Tina Turner in her corner. Gets to sing and be feisty, so that works well. It's not bad, just not great. Thompson is my second because it really doesn't fit the whole Lead Actress thing but whatever I guess. Can't quite vote for her to win for the second year in a row so that means Holly Hunter is my defacto winner. And that's it - defacto winner. Don't care to change the result because she's good and no one else can really claim the throne. Just an overall really meh year that should be better than it is.

Oscar Winner: Holly Hunter - The Piano
My Winner:  Holly Hunter - The Piano
Emma Thompson
Angela Bassett
Stockard Channing
Debra Winger

Supporting Actor 1993

Hopefully you will excuse my lack of consistent updates lately. Just one of those things where I need to detach myself from movie watching for a bit and try to do other things instead. There's so many TV series I need to watch that I keep putting off to where I feel burdened enough to finally sit down and watch them so I can move on. Same goes for video games and I'm not even a big video game guy. Sounds goofy to say I need to relax from movies to watch TV or play video games but it's the truth. When it feels like a chore, it's time to step back and take a moment. Good thing is that I won't be taking any months and months and months long breaks like I have in the past! I'd love to finish the 90s by September-ish but we'll see!

1993 Best Supporting Actor

Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive

It's seems kind of a given that Tommy Lee Jones is an Oscar winner. You go down the list of names of the winners in the male acting categories and Jones doesn't seem out of place at all. You glance at his name and move on without much thought. Then when you look at the names of the other guys he went up against this year and their performances and it's a miracle almost that he won. I don't mean to say Jones' performance is crap and deserved to lose. Just that this is a hell of a category with some great performances throughout. This would also be what I consider to be the quintessential Tommy Lee Jones performance. It has everything a Jones performance typically does. He has that sarcastic, yet authoritarian demeanor where he's a stickler for the rules but has a softer side and cracks subtle jokes throughout the performance. He's a hard ass that does his job well and never quits or gets discouraged and endears himself to the audience even if he comes off like a stick in the mud at times. Jones plays a U.S. Marshall who is hunting down Harrison Ford's character and matches Ford stride for stride in this film. You could really say that Jones is a co-lead and you wouldn't be wrong and we know the Academy loves putting people in the wrong categories. I guess this one doesn't bother me as much because I can somewhat understand the reasoning but still, he's basically a lead. I like to look at this performance as the precursor to Jones' character in No Country for Old Men as they seemed linked in spirit. That's why I view this as the quintessential Jones performance because it sets the tone for the rest of his body of work to come. It's a good performance and a very memorable one at that, so it's easy to see why the Academy would vote him for the win for a thriller that was well liked. It's also pretty straightforward and though it doesn't quite stretch Jones' acting ability, it certainly deserves to be nominated - I'll just have to see if it deserves the win, too.

Leonardo DiCaprio - What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

When people think of Leonardo DiCaprio, I think they forget that he was quite an accomplished and good actor before the Titanic popularity. That would be evidenced by his nomination here a few years before his mega success, but also by his other films which were noted for his strong performances. It was easy to see even this early in his career that he was destined for greatness and would win an Oscar at some point in his lifetime. He finally did this year, over 20 years later, and you could probably compare this first nomination with that win. In this film, DiCaprio plays Arnie Grape, a mildly retarded boy about to turn 18. The film focuses on how Arnie affects Johnny Depp and his family's life. It's a sweet little movie that tries to give an honest look at what life is like with a handicapped relative in a small town. The singular thing that elevates this film is DiCaprio's performance. Just like in his winning performance for The Revenant, DiCaprio is fully committed to being Arnie to the point where if I had no idea who DiCaprio was, I'd honestly think it was a real developmentally disabled person. And I don't even mean to overexaggerate how convincing he is because it's Leo, it's just that good. It's even annoying how good he is because the mannerisms and his persona fit what a mentally retarded kid would be like. Laughing at inappropriate times, random outbursts, well intentioned things that end up bad, repeating words and phrases, it goes on and on. DiCaprio nails it all without being too precious, existing within the story but never acting too hard to keep the spotlight on himself. I like it because the performance feels natural and not like a desperate attempt to win an Oscar or anything like that. DiCaprio never tries to take over the film, either, which I enjoy because this kind of role is ripe for someone to overact and make a big splash and dominate the film. He just portrays his character and that's that, which is extremely refreshing to see. It's a great performance and one that I'll look hard at for the win. I'm glad, too, that the Academy didn't screw this up and not nominate him because who knows where we'd be in DiCaprio Oscar watch right now!

Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List

My man, Ralph Fiennes! Playing one of the most evil characters of all time. Seriously, Amon Goeth has become synonymous with evil because of this film and because Fiennes' performance is so haunting and memorable. From the moment he is introduced to us and asks why the fuck are they driving around with the top down in winter, we get a sense of just who this man is. From there, we see him randomly shoot Jews from his balcony for sitting down as a way to wake up, before he's even had his coffee which annoys his mistress. Killing Jews is just a game, a way of life, a moment of distraction for him. And Fiennes sells every moment of this as if he shared the same belief. Even when Schindler tries to talk some sense into him about being Amon the Good and Amon tries it out, it just doesn't work and Amon needs to kill to feel the power and control that he talked about. He laughs and laughs when Schindler wants to hose down the boxcars of Jews before they depart because he thinks Schindler is being extra cruel and only later realizes it's because he genuinely wants to give them water and to cool them down. His face and whole demeanor changes when he realizes this, as expertly portrayed by Fiennes. There's a scene where Goeth tests a Jew on his speed in making a hinge and then takes him out to be shot when he completes it very fast only to see he's actually completed very few. Goeth's gun jams a few times and the other SS Officers inspect the gun and talk about the misfire as some interesting event while a man waits to die. It shows that Goeth and the other SS Officers don't really care about the act itself because he just wants to kill the guy for no real reason and can't and gets frustrated at the inconvenience of the gun not working. Fiennes is a very strong presence in this film even when just walking around or talking to people. The prisoners react to him as if he is the devil incarnate while the man just walks to get from point A to B without thinking of them. Meaning he is their God, essentially. That's the power these men had and Fiennes taps into that vein in his performance. It's an incredible performance that leaves a lasting impact no matter the subject. I'm not quite sure how Fiennes didn't win because it's hard to shake his evil Goeth after watching the film.

John Malkovich - In the Line of Fire

You know, I'm okay with these type of nominations. For one, it gives me a chance to watch a film I never would have otherwise. And honestly, this film isn't that bad. Straightforward thriller sort of on par with a Die Hard or something but with less fun moments. Starring Clint Eastwood as a secret service old guy and John Malkovich as the villain obsessed with showing him up. You can compare it to this year's big thriller in The Fugitive and see just how good that one is and how mediocre this one is. Anyway, second reason I'm okay with it is that it gives us a chance to watch Malkovich who is always entertaining no matter what kind of character he's playing. As I already said, he plays a villain tormenting Eastwood but doing so in a very measured, methodical, mastermind kind of way. Malkovich has that disarming demeanor where he speaks softly and comes off as highly intelligent which makes for his crazy side hitting that much harder and more intense. I think he gives us a hell of a bad guy that is up there with your Hans Gruber's. I feel that villains are so easy to portray and when done well are very memorable characters. The Supporting Actor category is littered with these types of roles and that's not a bad thing. It's one of my favorite things to watch when it comes to this category and thankfully Malkovich delivers a great performance. His assassin is so batshit crazy but so calm about being that way that it's a lot of fun to watch. He pulls no punches either, killing people without hesitation and I read online that he wanted scenes to be even more graphic to show his character's depravity. The thing about Malkovich is that he fully invests in his characters and we benefit from fully formed performances such as this. I just really like the mix of calm, collected, calculating CIA assassin and diabolical madman. I also like that we mostly see the former instead of the latter because it makes his outbursts more powerful and meaningful. When he flips out, it's earned and not just because the film needs a big moment. Malkovich's performance in this film really makes me wish we could have seen him as the villain in a Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or something instead of an Eastwood vehicle. Oh well, this nomination is a good reward anyhow.

Pete Postlethwaite - In the Name of the Father

I will have already said a ton about this film by the time you read this review so I won't go too deep in explaining my love for it. I think it's a great film with some powerhouse acting and Mr. Postlethwaite certainly is a big reason as to why I think that. The first time I saw this film, I was completely blown away by Postlethwaite. I liked his unique look but I also thought his acting was so no nonsense, so much like a bull charging through a field that I sat up and took notice. Then I somehow saw him everywhere in a couple different films and he was just as great at being a character actor as he was in this film. He plays Daniel Day-Lewis' father who gets wrapped up in his son being falsely accused of bombing a London pub for the IRA. He's just a hardworking, loving father who wants his kid to stop fucking up and earn an honest living for himself. He goes to London to try and help his son but ends up getting included as part of a big terrorist cell because the British cops are desperate to pin it on anyone and look good. Postlethwaite and DDL have really great chemistry as the father-son duo and I read online that Postlethwaite was DDL's mentor in the Irish theater scene. That makes their chemistry all the more believable which in turn makes their relationship more compelling and the events of the film hit even harder. Postlethwaite's character keeps the faith while in prison, both literally and figuratively as he prays every day like normal and believes that they need to focus on getting out instead of involving themselves in the political goings on. His morally righteous nature never feels like it's a construct of the writing or the story. It always feels natural to the character as Guiseppe just wants to live a good, quiet life with his family free from the violence going on around him. Postlethwaite really gives this film it's emotional center and the film is much stronger for having him in it. Just a great performance overall.


Yes, it's a Supporting Actor category that's awesome. This is old news now. Malkovich brings up the rear simply because the film is so early 90s action film even though Malkovich is a bit better than the typical villain. DiCaprio shows from an early age that he deserves an Oscar and I'm glad he finally got his due. This one was seriously impressive and certainly age was a factor. I'll put Jones 3rd because it's just a typical Jones role and the performance isn't that amazing. It's solid as hell but not a winner for me. Postlethwaite is the runner up because I just really like his strong, fatherly performance. Great character actor that deserves some attention. Fiennes is my winner because his Amon Goeth is so memorable and evil. A really great category that I hope to continue.

Oscar Winner: Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
My Winner:  Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List
Pete Postlethwaite
Tommy Lee Jones
Leonardo DiCaprio
John Malkovich

Supporting Actress 1993

Before I go to this year, I was reading up on it and you'll notice two actresses from our Best Actress group in this category, as well. It's the first time two actresses have faced off against each other in both the acting categories in the same year. I think it's the only time that's happened, too. But I was reading about 1993 and what I read was basically that the Supporting category was so exceptionally weak that the Academy double dipped on two of it's Best Actress ladies. That obviously doesn't bode well for me having to watch this group and just sucks overall. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I'm now anticipating.

1993 Best Supporting Actress

Anna Paquin - The Piano

I've always been curious about this winner because Paquin was only 11 when she won, the second youngest Oscar winner ever (in a competitive category). I wanted to know was it earned or gifted? Paquin plays the daughter of the mute Holly Hunter. Paquin has a lot to do within the film, she has to translate and be the voice for Hunter, she plays the daughter, and she also moves the plot along. That's a ton of responsibility placed on an 11 year old kid (and probably 10 years old when filming). This character is the precocious child, almost. Paquin has a lot of substance and her translation is almost comical but then you realize she really is the mouthpiece for her mom. So when she's reading the signs and then yelling a short answer at whoever, it's coming from the mom. Paquin is a great conduit because though Hunter can seem calm, she might sign frantically and then Paquin squeals the missive at whoever. Paquin is important in that regard for the film. I read on another blog that Hunter's signs came with subtitles but the version I watched did not. I had no idea what she was saying until Paquin spoke. I liked my version better because it's more authentic. Paquin is also way more than just a child actress. She has this monologue of sorts and is unwavering in her delivery of the lines. It's frankly impressive and one that makes me realize why Paquin was the winner. I can't see Quvenzhane Wallis ever delivering a scene like that. In fact, I can't see many actors delivering a scene like that. Paquin was absolutely great and if she wasn't so young, she might be a shoe in for the vote. Instead, we have to determine if she's a legit actress not just reading lines. She is really wonderful and it'll be tough to figure out if I keep her as the winner or not.

Holly Hunter - The Firm

So I can't come up with any good reason why this was nominated. Hunter herself said she was nominated because there was nothing else worth nominating, though not quite in those words. The Academy was double dipping because there was nothing else to nominate which seems like a load of hogwash to me. Hunter doesn't even have that much screen time. I believe I saw online that it was 6 minutes and 59 seconds. I'm not one that usually likes the short supporting nominations, mostly for wins, because I feel some performances can leave a lasting impact in a short time and be worth a nomination. Hunter clearly isn't worth one in this film. She plays a secretary for Gary Busey who only lasts two frenetic scenes before he's gone. She plays up her Southern charms and goes all in with her accent and well, it's a very typical secretary type of role. Hunter doesn't elevate it in the slightest. She becomes like a sidekick for Tom Cruise as they try to figure out how to save themselves and expose the corruption going on in the firm. The film is interesting because it has so many famous people in it that you remember from other things and it's kinda fun figuring out what else they've been in. Hunter's performance is almost like a glorified cameo. I frankly don't think this is an Oscar caliber performance. It's one any actress could have delivered. And I don't understand giving Hunter a second nomination this year when the Best Actress nom should have been plenty enough. It feels like overkill by the Academy and I'm just simply bewildered by it. I would have loved seeing anyone and anything else nominated here instead, regardless of whether or not this was a weak category.

Rosie Perez - Fearless

Rosie Perez is another person I've met through the film festival I work for and she was just as beautiful in person as she is on screen. She also has that New York attitude that thankfully comes off pretty funny. The New York thing was on display in this performance but without the comedy. Perez plays a woman who loses her baby in a plane crash. She was told to hold onto the baby instead of belting it in and she was unable to hold on which is partly why the baby died. She meets Jeff Bridges character who was on the same plane and now thinks he's invincible and has this new outlook on life. These two characters show two different sides of PTSD which is essentially what the film is about. People react differently to traumatic events and we see Rosie become the grieving mother who blames herself for her child's death instead of realizing that she was never going to be able to hold on to him during a crash like that. We see the two sort of bond together which helps Rosie deal with her circumstances and allows her to begin the process of healing. There's not a lot of flash to the performance, just a straightforward grieving mother begins to heal and accept what happened kind of thing. Her Puerto Rican heritage is on full display and maybe adds a little bit of flavor that makes the performance a bit more intriguing. I wish I could say it was an amazing display of talent but it's really just an average performance. She's the guilt ridden mother and that's about it. Watching her and Jeff Bridges interact is nice but there's nothing to want to champion there, unfortunately. It's a strange, interesting little film that I'm glad was able to showcase Rosie a bit even if it's not an outright brilliant performance.

Winona Ryder - The Age of Innocence

I've always had an issue with some of Ryder's performances feeling like they were lacking something. Sometimes it was like she was just doing some line reading and never felt fully comfortable in her role for whatever film. I thought that about her Little Women role but didn't quite state as much. There's times where she feels stiff and I'm wondering if she just isn't a good fit for period pieces. There's other, more contemporary films that she's totally fine in but with roles like this, something just feels off. Like she's trying too hard to be actorly and proper. Ryder plays Daniel Day-Lewis' betrothed in this Scorsese flick and she's not entirely bad. There are instances where her acting is a bit stiff and not as natural as it should be. As if she were in a play instead of a film is how I'd also describe it. Ryder starts getting suspicious that DDL is falling in love with her cousin, Countess Olenska played by Michelle Pfeiffer, which causes some issues. There's actually a scene in the middle of the film where Ryder and DDL are talking because DDL wants to get married quicker and Ryder suggests it's because he's done something wrong he wants to atone for or because he cares for someone more. It's the first time that Ryder is completely believable in the role and the turn sort of surprised me because Ryder really shined and took over this scene, which is quite the feat. She continues with the little bit of time she gets to coyly ply DDL with hints that she knows what's going on and that she wants to keep him. It's a lot of unstated words and glances that give the performance some nice depth. Ryder does well with saying things without actually saying things. So while she's good with the implied acting, it's only a small bit at the end. She does look great in a gown which are what a number of her shots are, her looking lovely and loving at her husband. While this may not have been my favorite, it did get better as her role expanded. I'm okay with the nomination since it's not the Academy going back to same well like always.

Emma Thompson - In the Name of the Father

I really, really enjoyed this film. I find the whole British-Irish conflict to be so interesting because it's between what you'd consider two normal countries that are very much alike basically warring in modern times. There's so much about this conflict that I don't even know about that I'm glad I can learn a little bit through film. It's obviously something I need to look into further to better understand but films like these are a good start. Sure, the story is changed to better serve the narrative but I expect that of any real life story. Thompson plays a lawyer, or I guess solicitor is the more correct term, who looks into the case of Gerry Conlon's false conviction along with his father and some other people. They were accused of bombing a London pub for the IRA and railroaded into giving false confessions and ultimately convicted. Thompson doesn't show up until about an hour and a half in but when she does her impact is immediately noticeable. It's not one where her star power takes over and she has all these clever lines or anything like that. No, she enters the film almost quietly and with a purpose and puts her character to work. There's not even any big Hollywood scenes for her to have her Oscar moment. You could say when she's in court and yelling over the crowd noise about the information she uncovered that proves Conlon et al were innocent but it's far from Hollywood. It's just a great piece of acting from Thompson and some great directing, as well. I really love that she just comes into the film and gets to work and makes an impact in that way. It's kind of refreshing to see instead of getting some glorified Oscar bait heroine role. She's a real woman who believes in what she's fighting for and wants the truth and to set innocent people free while prosecuting those who perverted the judicial system. It's not a showy role, just a real strong performance from Thompson that fully belongs here in this group.


Interesting group to consider. There's some out there who believe Paquin should not have won due to age or just due to not being the right choice, but what choice was there exactly? You've got both Thompson and Hunter already duking it out with good performances in the Best Actress race so why vote for them in this category? Although I believe Thompson was probably the best of this bunch, I don't see the Academy going for the split of Hunter and Thompson in both categories. So throw those out as potential winners. You're left with Perez, Ryder, and Paquin. Ryder is a first time nominee where the nomination feels like the reward and the Academy can pat itself on the back for another star making nom. However, I did read that Ryder was somewhat favored in this category. But what is there to vote for in her performance? Not a whole lot, honestly. So then Perez maybe? She's a minority with a role I don't think is all that meaty and it feels again like the nomination is the reward. So maybe Perez and Ryder split some votes and others shy away from the other two and then Paquin who is so precocious ends up winning by default. Seems likely and very plausible to me. This is why I wish the Academy would release the votes at some point in time to see how close these races were. My other issue is that at this point, I have no fucking clue if Thompson will be my choice for Best Actress because I haven't reached that category yet. I cannot and will not vote for her twice as the winner. That would never happen so is she a winner here or in Best Actress? Let me publish this and update it when I get to that point. Hunter, Perez, Ryder is my bottom three. Probably Paquin, Thompson for my winner.

Oscar Winner: Anna Paquin - The Piano
My Winner:  Emma Thompson - In the Name of the Father
Anna Paquin
Winona Ryder
Rosie Perez
Holly Hunter