Best Supporting Actress 2000

1998 through 2007

Best Supporting Actress 2000

Judi Dench - Chocolot
1
2%
Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
15
33%
Kate Huson - Almost Famous
9
20%
Frances McDormand - Almost Famous
11
24%
Julie Walters - Billy Elliot
10
22%
 
Total votes: 46

bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Best Supporting Actress 2000

Post by bizarre »

1. Kate Hudson
2. Marcia Gay Harden
3. Judi Dench
4. Frances McDormand
5. Julie Walters

I don't remember Walters being anything too special. I last saw the film about five years ago, however. I recall she was funny but reeking of effort as usual.

McDormand is an odd duck here, playing her comedic scenes like drama and her dramatic ones like comedy. An interesting approach to the character but ultimately her mother remained annoying to me - and in a bad way.

Dench gets the kind of role that used to be catnip to awards groups. Not so much anymore, which makes her nomination somewhat surprising for me. Regardless, she brings a nice, dimming warmth to it - it is a sentimental performance but unlike a lot of treacle I don't feel all that sick after eating it.

I really like Harden as an actress but both of her nominated performances kept me at a reasonable distance. She is the definition of solid support here - and her performance is probably the only reason to watch this vanity video - but I do feel like she held back. She plays Lee with finesse but I think a gutsier approach would have helped bring more life into the picture. Still, a strong performance and a decent, nicely surprising win.

I stand by Kate Hudson after all these years. She has the same candle-glow charisma that netted her mother an Oscar thirty years prior, but she takes better advantage of actorly technique in this film. She hits the marks with exacting character shade, but despite the sharpness of the performing her Penny never loses the looseness and joie-de-vivre that now typifies the character. Her first scene with Billy Crudup's character is very well-done. A laudable nomination.

My nominees:
1. Emma Samuelsson, in "Together"
2. Bae Doona, in "Barking Dogs Never Bite"
3. Elaine Jin, in "Yi Yi"
4. Carrie-Anne Moss, in "Memento"
5. Kate Hudson, in "Almost Famous"
Alt. Kate Beahan, in "Chopper"
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

ITALIANO wrote:
Reza wrote:This guy and Penelope come to immediate mind with regards to this Board.
As I said I don't have anything to do with their leaving this board, but honestly I don't remember anything especially offensive here against them. The only one - except me, and I didn't leave - who I admit was often attacked was that guy called Criddic,
I seem to have walked into the room after being mentioned in hushed tones but for no important reason. How interesting.

The performance I liked best that year was Zhang Ziyi's in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Of the nominees, at the time, I would probably have picked Kate Hudson in Almost Famous. She hasn't done much of note since then, but I thought she was lovely in that film. Today, having seen Billy Elliot again not too long ago, I might have picked Walters from the actual nominees.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Reza wrote:This guy and Penelope come to immediate mind with regards to this Board.
As I said I don't have anything to do with their leaving this board, but honestly I don't remember anything especially offensive here against them. The only one - except me, and I didn't leave - who I admit was often attacked was that guy called Criddic,
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

ITALIANO wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:I don't think there was anything vicious in anyone's comments and certainly no attack on Andy himself, but it must have been frustrating for him to read that not only didn't we like his two labors of love, but that they were total crap.
Ok, but we are not our work - we must separate ourselves from what we do for a living, especially when it comes to movies which are a collective job so one's responsability on the final result is really limited. And also, I mean, one can be a wonderful human being (which is, after all, the most important thing in life) and at the same time the editor (or the director) of a dreadful movie. Americans are great people, but they should take criticism a bit more lightly.
I can empathise with a person on the receiving end of criticism. It's one thing to be criticised once or twice....but a constant barrage can be a tad off putting, especially if coming from ''friends''.

This guy and Penelope come to immediate mind with regards to this Board.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Big Magilla wrote:I don't think there was anything vicious in anyone's comments and certainly no attack on Andy himself, but it must have been frustrating for him to read that not only didn't we like his two labors of love, but that they were total crap.
Ok, but we are not our work - we must separate ourselves from what we do for a living, especially when it comes to movies which are a collective job so one's responsability on the final result is really limited. And also, I mean, one can be a wonderful human being (which is, after all, the most important thing in life) and at the same time the editor (or the director) of a dreadful movie. Americans are great people, but they should take criticism a bit more lightly.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Walters and Mc Dormand along with Harden were by far the most interesting part of this year´s lineup.
Gay Harden emerged as the best option IMO
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

flipp525 wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Chcolat wasn't a very good movie, but there were some very good things in it including the work of one of our prolific posters from 1998-2000, a 1999 Oscar nominee who promised to give us a shout-out if he won (he didn't), but who sadly stopped posting here after the drubbing his UAADB "friends" gave the film he worked so hard on.

I always felt bad about that, which is why I try not to come down too hard on any film.
Well, this board does have the habit of finding a person's weakness and then chiming that bell until they're all but driven away (see: Penelope). No one had to pussy foot around their feelings for either of Andy's two films, but I'm sure there was little to no "editing" for tact as well.
I don't think there was anything vicious in anyone's comments and certainly no attack on Andy himself, but it must have been frustrating for him to read that not only didn't we like his two labors of love, but that they were total crap.

Both Chocolat and The Shippng News were family affairs. His wife was co-producer on both films and Hallstrom and his wife, Lena Olin, were/are (?) his Connecticut neighbors.
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

If memory serves, Penelope was spiraling in those last few months, and definitely touched off a number of the confrontations that eventually led to his departure.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

flipp525 wrote:(see: Penelope).
But it was kind of nice that Conviction came (and went) with nary a mention here of "Hilary Skank."
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Kova
Graduate
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: MI
Contact:

Post by Kova »

I'm not over the moon about any of the nominees here. My personal pick, as I recall, was Jennifer Ehle for the long-forgotten Sunshine.

Hudson and Dench were both competent, but neither memorable.

I find Marcia Gay Harden far too mannered (and later, in her second nominated performance, downright irritating), but I was definitely not upset with her win. It showed, if anything, that Academy voters are occasionally capable of thinking on their own--she had no precursor support outside of the NYFCC win.

My top two in this bunch are McDormand and Walters, who both admirably injected as much life and energy into their roles as possible. I'm siding with McDormand, mostly because I remember her more role more vividly.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

ITALIANO wrote:
Uri wrote:Poor Julie Walters. Here she was, basking in the glory of her post menopause state, knowing that finely, at 51, she'd be eligible for the greatest trophy of them all. And then, at the last moment, that professional grand old lady, dame J, came charging from behind and grubbed the Magilla trophy right out of her hands. I hope, for her sake, that for the last decade all she was doing was trying on black maid uniforms in front of the mirror and working on an Irish accent.

:)

Yes, well, now it's really getting a bit pathological... And Big Magilla, trust me please, there WERE viable alternatives to Jennifer Hudson - it's not like one can only vote for dear old ladies or actresses from Bill Condon movies.

True, and I've only realized this, but a quick review of my supporting actress winners reveals that Condon is only the fourth director to have guided three of them to wins (Lynn Redgrave, Laura Linney and Jennifer Hudson). The others: Clarence Brown (Marie Dressler, Beulah Bondi and Elizabeth Patterson); Elia Kazan (Peggy Ann Garner, Anne Revere and Eva Marie Saint); Woody Allen (Geraldine Page, Judy Davis and Dianne Wiest).

There have been ten two-timers: George Cukor (Billie Burke and Edna May Olvier); John Ford (Jane Darwell and Sara Allgood); Edmund Goulding (Joan Crawford and Anne Baxter); William Wyler (Mary Astor and Fay Bainter); Ronald Neame (Edith Evans and Celia Johnson); John Huston (Claire Trevor and Anjelica Huston); Norman Jewison (Joan Blondell and Olympia Dukakis); Fred Zinnemann (Wendy Hiller and Vanessa Redgrave); Lasse Hallstrom (Darlene Cates and Judi Dench); Robert Altman (Lily Tomlin and Maggie Smith).




Edited By Big Magilla on 1291634355
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Uri wrote:Poor Julie Walters. Here she was, basking in the glory of her post menopause state, knowing that finely, at 51, she'd be eligible for the greatest trophy of them all. And then, at the last moment, that professional grand old lady, dame J, came charging from behind and grubbed the Magilla trophy right out of her hands. I hope, for her sake, that for the last decade all she was doing was trying on black maid uniforms in front of the mirror and working on an Irish accent.

:)

Yes, well, now it's really getting a bit pathological... And Big Magilla, trust me please, there WERE viable alternatives to Jennifer Hudson - it's not like one can only vote for dear old ladies or actresses from Bill Condon movies.

As for Editman, strange enough it wasn't my fault - I found The Shipping News terrible (and, now that I think of it, terribly edited), but not the kind of movie one should spend time and energy attacking it - it's so clearly minor. If he left because of that, though, he didnt show much intelligence. We should always honestly say what we think - like we do with our friends in real life. I, for example, never lie.

As for this line-up. Judi Dench is obviously the least impressive - hers is a typical cliche from French movies (and French small-town life), the kind of character that in France was played often by Suzanne Flon and other wonderful character actresses. Dench isn't - can't be - the real thing, just a pallid British imitation.

Now it sounds incredible, but this was the time when Cameron Crowe was called by some - I'm not joking - the new Billy Wilder - a writer-director of immense talent and wit. And what happened to him? After Almost Famous I saw a dreadful movie by him, carefully avoided another, and then honestly I've never heard of him anymore (now someone will say that he's making masterpiece after masterpiece on American tv, I know). Anyway, he wasn't a great writer maybe, but as a director he was at least good with his actors, because Kate Hudson, an actress, as we know well, of limited range and expressiveness, is actually bearable in this movie. She has a nice character, she gives a nice performance. That's all.

Julie Walters - competent acting by a very good actress, but not the kind of role one can do very original things with.

I'd love to vote for Marcia Gay Harden, an actress I like in a performance I like, but then I know that, by implicitly acknowledging her status as "supporting", I would be accused of the most terrible crimes by the army of the "(politically) correct category" and I'm too tired today. And luckily, there's always Frances MacDormand, a truly gifted actress whom I've never voted for. She deserves an Oscar, and this is a warm, humorous, intelligent (and really supporting) acting turn. So she's my pick for this year.




Edited By ITALIANO on 1290540912
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Big Magilla wrote:Chcolat wasn't a very good movie, but there were some very good things in it including the work of one of our prolific posters from 1998-2000, a 1999 Oscar nominee who promised to give us a shout-out if he won (he didn't), but who sadly stopped posting here after the drubbing his UAADB "friends" gave the film he worked so hard on.

I always felt bad about that, which is why I try not to come down too hard on any film.

Well, this board does have the habit of finding a person's weakness and then chiming that bell until they're all but driven away (see: Penelope). No one had to pussy foot around their feelings for either of Andy's two films, but I'm sure there was little to no "editing" for tact as well.




Edited By flipp525 on 1290537804
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Mister Tee wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Chcolat wasn't a very good movie, but there were some very good things in it including the work of one of our prolific posters from 1998-2000, a 1999 Oscar nominee who promised to give us a shout-out if he won (he didn't), but who sadly stopped posting here after the drubbing his UAADB "friends" gave the film he worked so hard on.

I always felt bad about that, which is why I try not to come down too hard on any film.

Actually, my recollection is Andy the Editman -- a very likable poster who I, too, miss -- lasted through to the following season, when The Shipping News got totally eviscerated here. I understand your point, but I wonder how we square offering honest opinions with sparing people's feelings. The films he was working on were the sort alot of us felt were making Oscar season dreary. Were we not supposed to mention that because he was around? What if Michael Bay was a poster? Would we have to pretend his films weren't crap?.

There's a bit of a difference. Michael Bay knows, or should know, that his films are crap.

You may be right, though, that it was The Shipping News that sent Andy over the edge. It may have been the one-two punch of negativity toward the two films that did it.

But, again, there were things about Shipping that I liked. Dench's performance for one, which I thought was much better than her Oscar nominated performance in the same year's Iris. More on that when we tackle 2001 later this week.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1290534668
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Big Magilla wrote:Chcolat wasn't a very good movie, but there were some very good things in it including the work of one of our prolific posters from 1998-2000, a 1999 Oscar nominee who promised to give us a shout-out if he won (he didn't), but who sadly stopped posting here after the drubbing his UAADB "friends" gave the film he worked so hard on.

I always felt bad about that, which is why I try not to come down too hard on any film.
Actually, my recollection is Andy the Editman -- a very likable poster who I, too, miss -- lasted through to the following season, when The Shipping News got totally eviscerated here. I understand your point, but I wonder how we square offering honest opinions with sparing people's feelings. The films he was working on were the sort alot of us felt were making Oscar season dreary. Were we not supposed to mention that because he was around? What if Michael Bay was a poster? Would we have to pretend his films weren't crap?

To the 2000 race:

My replacements would have been Kate Winslet in Quills and Ziyi Zhang in Crouching Tiger -- the latter of whom I actually thought might break the curse of subtitled support, but, alas, it was not to be.

First cut would be Judi Dench. I actually didn't loathe Chocolat. As I sat watching it, I thought, this is perfectly pleasant middle-age soft porn, and I have nothing against it...as long as it's not nominated for best picture. That dastard Weinstein, with his agressive (and all too successful) campaign, MADE me hate it -- and Dench along with it, for such a generic feisty-old-lady performance. Academy members, with Weinstein prodding them, have been way too easily swayed by Dench in the past decade, and I've come to resent it.

Next off, Julie Walters. She's fun enough, but the movie's so blandly inoffensive I can't work up enthusiasm for any element of it.

Kate Hudson was lovable and effective in Almost Famous, but, even at the time, I had the sense it might be the best/only thing of which she was capable. Her widely-predicted win wouldn't have been an outrage, but would likely, after a few years, have seemed a small embarrassment along the lines of Mira Sorvino (another second-generation legacy project).

I'd dispute the utter certainty people are expressing, about Marcia Gay Harden being a lead. She COULD have been promoted that way, were it a lean year for actresses. But I think alot of people are overlooking the fact that she's gone for the film's entire last act. The Academy is famous for cheating people downward, but I think alot of folks here err in the opposite direction -- there are quite substantial roles that nonetheless fall short of lead, and I think Harden's is one of them.

She's also quite wonderful in the film -- much better than Ed Harris, I feel -- and her surprise win gave me such pleasure than I'm loath to "take it way" from her. However...

At the time -- and still -- my heart went out to Frances McDormand, who created a very funny but completely dimensional mother. Though she seemed initially like a free-thinking, let-my-kids-flourish type, as the film went on she displayed a wary side...worrying about all those things (sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll) that so concerned the more uptight mothers of the era. She has more great moments than you can count (BJ has already listed many of them). And, as if she needed the boost, she also gave a wonderful performance that year in Wonder Boys that would have merited nomination on its own. Throw in the fact that I didn't vote for her for Fargo (the Watson imperative preventing me), I see no alternative to choosing her in a tight contest with Marcia Gay Harden.
Post Reply

Return to “The 8th Decade”