Big Magilla wrote
I didn't think he deserved any of his three Oscar nominations although he came closest for me with this one. He would have been my sixth choice behind Anthony Hopkins (he was nominated and won in the wrong category), Ned Beatty (at his best in the overlooked Hear My Song), Jones, Keitel, and Kingsley.
The actor, or in this case, actress, who deserved an Oscar for kidding her screen career with a bravura turn in 1991 was Maureen O'Hara who came out retirement to play John Candy's mother in Only the Lonely. According to her, the studio (Fox) wouldn't pay for an Oscar campaign, and she wasn't going to pay for one herself. Whether true or not, that shouldn't have mattered but sadly it did.
I've never seen Hear My Song. It looks sweet. Was Ned Beatty really taken seriously as a contender? Who were the predicted front-runners for Best Supporting Actor in 1991?
I agree with you on category fraud for Anthony Hopkins.
I've never seen Only the Lonely. I've heard mostly somewhat positive things about it. Is it worth my time? Was she talked about at all for the nomination? As near as I can tell, the closest competition was Jane Horracks (in an under-seen/under-liked by voters film), Judy Davis (two weird small roles in two Oscar unfriendly films), and Nicole Kidman (haven't seen Billy Bathgate but I've heard it's a flop).[/quote]
After Beatty's Golden Globe nomination, I thought he might have been a contender, but the film had a very low profile in its L.A. Oscar qualifying run. It did not open in New York until February 1992, so it did not have the possible benefit of NYFC and NBR votes to lean on.
Only the Lonely was a flop by John Candy-Chris Columbus-John Hughes standards but it was better than most of their crap. Ally Sheedy and O'Hara are superb.
Billy Bathgate is a decent film. Nicole Kidman was good, but not great, in it.
Judy Davis's best performance in 1991 was in the TV movie One Against the Wind for which she deservedly won a Golden Globe.
Greg wrote
Although, screen time itself can be misleading regarding the true size of a role. Is the actor just one of several actors equally sharing the time; or, does the actor dominate that time? For example, Ned Beatty was nominated and Beatrice Straight won for supporting roles in Network where they both had little overall screen time; but, that limited screen time was almost entirely dramatic monologues from them.
The website mlrg listed measured the % of screen-time within the overall film. All five performers nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 1991 had 10% or less screen-time within their overall films. Now you could make the case that some of their impacts are felt with wider ripples than simply moments when they're present during their scenes.
Big Magilla wrote
I didn't think he deserved any of his three Oscar nominations although he came closest for me with this one. He would have been my sixth choice behind Anthony Hopkins (he was nominated and won in the wrong category), Ned Beatty (at his best in the overlooked Hear My Song), Jones, Keitel, and Kingsley.
The actor, or in this case, actress, who deserved an Oscar for kidding her screen career with a bravura turn in 1991 was Maureen O'Hara who came out retirement to play John Candy's mother in Only the Lonely. According to her, the studio (Fox) wouldn't pay for an Oscar campaign, and she wasn't going to pay for one herself. Whether true or not, that shouldn't have mattered but sadly it did.
I've never seen Hear My Song. It looks sweet. Was Ned Beatty really taken seriously as a contender? Who were the predicted front-runners for Best Supporting Actor in 1991?
I agree with you on category fraud for Anthony Hopkins.
I've never seen Only the Lonely. I've heard mostly somewhat positive things about it. Is it worth my time? Was she talked about at all for the nomination? As near as I can tell, the closest competition was Jane Horracks (in an under-seen/under-liked by voters film), Judy Davis (two weird small roles in two Oscar unfriendly films), and Nicole Kidman (haven't seen Billy Bathgate but I've heard it's a flop).
Along Came Polly a pretty good premise for a movie. It's basically a romantic comedy that takes place after someone gets Heartbreak Kidded. That's a workable premise. Unfortunately, Jon Hamburg's script isn't really told from the heart. It's perfectly competent, but it never really presents as a film about contrasting worldviews (neurotic vs. free-spirit) and ends up not really being about anything save for its own formulaic construction. Par for the course as far as these things go, but the real crippling flaw is the casting of Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston. They're just so boringly obvious in these roles right down to the fact that Jennifer Aniston goes through a plot device that Rachel Green experienced in Friends. They barely feel committed to the roles. The combo of those two flaws (unambitious script + obvious casting) is close to fatal. What works best about it is a very strong supporting cast (Philip Seymour Hoffman is very funny) which creates an ebullient spirit that helps a bit.
It's telling that 50 First Dates sandwiched between Along Came Polly and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind because that's basically what it is. Unlike Along Came Polly, 50 First Dates is better cast, is funnier throughout, and although I wouldn't say that it goes for real insight (Sandler's womanizing past is never confronted by Barrymore, just hand-waived away... typical for Sandler fare) it has a pretty wild finale scene that won't rival Eternal Sunshine... for profundity but it's a manic testament to the power of family. Most Sandler films end up in that place but here it feels earned. I wish that the film found a better balance between its infantile vulgarity and its sweetness (the Farrelly's would've been an ideal match for the material), but it's pretty good on its own terms. I also like the choice to set the film in Hawaii, which is different from the original spec.
Jack Palance, in addition to his long list of screen credits, was an almost constant presence on TV. In the 1980s he hosted the popular Ripley's Believe It or Not from 1982-1986. He made regular appearances on The Johnny Caron Show and heavily promoted the film on both Carson and The Jay Leno Show.
I didn't think he deserved any of his three Oscar nominations although he came closest for me with this one. He would have been my sixth choice behind Anthony Hopkins (he was nominated and won in the wrong category), Ned Beatty (at his best in the overlooked Hear My Song), Jones, Keitel, and Kingsley.
The actor, or in this case, actress, who deserved an Oscar for kidding her screen career with a bravura turn in 1991 was Maureen O'Hara who came out retirement to play John Candy's mother in Only the Lonely. According to her, the studio (Fox) wouldn't pay for an Oscar campaign, and she wasn't going to pay for one herself. Whether true or not, that shouldn't have mattered but sadly it did.
Why Palance was nominated one has to ask Academy members, but it's quite clear why he won over that competition.
An old-timer (like Don Ameche before him), a two-time Academy award nominee (for Sudden Fear '52 & Shane '53) - there was no way he was going to lose. And post-win he even got to entertain the audience in a quirky way.
mlrg wrote
As per screentimecentral.com Jack Palance was on screen for a little over 12 minutes.
The category was one of the oddest ever. No particular nominee stood out, great performances were overlooked and the average screen time of the nominees is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, ever.
Wow, I thought perhaps I was being a bit generous by stretching it out to 30 minutes but I had no idea it was as little as 12 minutes. . .
EDIT: 1991 Best Supporting Actor does have the shortest % screen time of any lineup in either supporting category.
Although, screen time itself can be misleading regarding the true size of a role. Is the actor just one of several actors equally sharing the time; or, does the actor dominate that time? For example, Ned Beatty was nominated and Beatrice Straight won for supporting roles in Network where they both had little overall screen time; but, that limited screen time was almost entirely dramatic monologues from them.
The Gazebo (1959) - 8/10 - Glenn Ford stars as a neurotic writer who is being blackmailed with photos of his wife (Debbie Reynolds). He comes up with a plan to kill the blackmailer, but goes about it in a very nervous and clumsy fashion. Ford is very funny here and the movie is pretty entertaining.
Scarlet Street (1945) - 8.5/10 - Christopher Cross (Edward G. Robinson) is a cashier and amateur artist. He becomes infatuated with a beautiful woman named Kitty (Joan Bennett) who leads him on for fun and then in hopes of getting money, though she is really only interested in Johnny (Dan Duryea), a small time crook. This is a very nice noir with excellent performances all around.
mlrg wrote
As per screentimecentral.com Jack Palance was on screen for a little over 12 minutes.
The category was one of the oddest ever. No particular nominee stood out, great performances were overlooked and the average screen time of the nominees is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, ever.
Wow, I thought perhaps I was being a bit generous by stretching it out to 30 minutes but I had no idea it was as little as 12 minutes. I think the reason why Palance seems like he has more screen-time than he does is because many of his most memorable scenes feature the actor as a punchline, appearing in one or two shots at the end of a scene, allowing him to lay claim to the scene without appearing in most of it.
I suppose the kindest thing I can say about the Best Supporting Actress nominees of 1991 is that we say that we want actual supporting performances nominated. Well, there isn't a lead masquerading in support of the bunch, nor is there a movie star slumming it. Every single nominee is an ensemble player doing yeoman work. You might be right that this lineup might have the lowest average screen time of the nominees. I couldn't tell you who has the most screen time. It could be either Ben Kingsley or Harvey Keitel (I haven't seen Bugsy in some time) or perhaps Tommy Lee Jones simply on the basis of his reaction shots in the final courtroom scene.
I don't really have a preference of the nominees. I think I would probably go with Michael Lerner because I got the most enjoyment from his work, but it really feels wrong to honor him when John Goodman is right there. I'm also not convinced that he did anything that other actors couldn't have done. On the other hand, there's a weirdness to the casting of Tommy Lee Jones that I do think helps JFK quite a bit. I don't know how much of it is Oliver Stone's directing or Jones' acting, and I'm not sure if it deserved an Oscar but it's effective.
The Hollywood Foreign Press cited John Goodman and Ned Beatty for Hear My Song, which I haven't seen but it sounds like a fine showcase. The critics largely rallied around Lerner, Keitel, and Jackson while giving their runners up spots to Steven Hill for Billy Bathgate (NY, NSFC), John Goodman (NY), Robert Duvall for Rambling Rose (LA), and Elliot Gould for Bugsy (NSFC). I'm surprised Laurence Fishburne didn't factor in more, especially considering Boyz N the Hood had a relatively strong showing with its directing and writing nominations but those admittedly are different branches. I'm also a little surprised that if anyone from the JFK players got a nomination that it didn't got to the previous year's winner Joe Pesci for his flashy scene
EDIT: 1991 Best Supporting Actor does have the shortest % screen time of any lineup in either supporting category.
Last edited by Sabin on Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sabin wrote:
Also, it's a bit odd that Jack Palance won the Oscar for this. He's fun but really just in the film for 20-30 minutes and serves as a well-disguised plot device: build menace, give life lessons, die. While I do want Oscar voters to honor more comedic performances, there were many, many memorable supporting actor performances in 1991 (Fishburne, Goodman, Jackson) and the acting branch really dropped the ball.
As per screentimecentral.com Jack Palance was on screen for a little over 12 minutes.
The category was one of the oddest ever. No particular nominee standed out, great performances were overlooked and the average screen time of the nominees is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, ever.
I don't think I've seen City Slickers since I was in high school. It was a family favorite of mine. Now that I'm closer to Billy Crystal's age than his son's, I wanted to see how it holds up. It's a much different film than I remembered. I was surprised at how focused it is on the friends and their mid-life crisis boomer angst. It really is a low-stakes affair, just a lot of amusing mid-life crisis conversations, and while it gets overly dewey and rambling as it goes along, it never becomes the high-concept affair that one might suspect. Everyone involved seems to realize that there's very little stakes that come along with a cow trail and so the film takes a full thirty minutes to develop the friends and launch them into the ranch. I won't say that City Slickers is insightful but I found that approach refreshing. It's far, far too dewey and earnest in the final half hour and I understand this kind of therapy (or Billy Crystal) not being everyone's cup of tea, but I like it.
Also, it's a bit odd that Jack Palance won the Oscar for this. He's fun but really just in the film for 20-30 minutes and serves as a well-disguised plot device: build menace, give life lessons, die. While I do want Oscar voters to honor more comedic performances, there were many, many memorable supporting actor performances in 1991 (Fishburne, Goodman, Jackson) and the acting branch really dropped the ball.
I'd been meaning to check out L.A. Story some time. I've heard it most described as "Steve Martin's Annie Hall on the West Coast." I mean... that's a strong sell. The film doesn't earn it for a few reasons. Mick Jackson's direction never quite finds the right tone. Victoria Tennant (Martin's ex) is a fatally miscast romantic lead. Steve Martin has problems as a writer and a lead. His character doesn't have a strong enough arc, his jokes feel a bit too written, and there's something wonky about the plot I'm trying to put my finger on. I think Steve Martin is trying to tell this almost-romance as of a piece with this whole shallow ridiculous town. I don't think that quite works because Martin never quite unlocks the potential in the Victoria Tennant character (as written) as an interrogator/chronicler of the city, or perhaps such a character should have been discarded in place of Sarah Jessica Parker's SaNdE* who runs off with the entire film. Was there any chatter about Best Supporting Actress mention? This is the most appealing thing she's ever been in. But I think most problematic is that I don't think the film ever really quite creates an opinion about the city and in Steve Martin's relationship with it (like Woody Allen so brilliantly did in Annie Hall and Manhattan) so it never quite feels like an endorsement or condemnation. I enjoyed the potential that I saw in L.A. Story but it doesn't quite coalesce enough.
Also, Los Angelenos don't ignore earthquakes. They talk about them for days, weeks, months, years.
Kočár do Vídne / Carriage to Vienna (Karel Kachyna, 1966) 10/10
Haunting road movie is set in a Czech forest at the tail end of WWII. A woman whose husband has been killed by the Nazis is captured by two soldiers who force her to take them to the Austrian border on her horse driven carriage. The men are escaping from the Russian army - the older is badly hurt and spends most of the time lying down while the younger more naive man is animated while talking constantly. There is a language barrier between the men and the woman who is mostly silent unless she has to make a whirring sound to stop the horses. Her expressions convey her anger and hostility towards the men as she hopes to take revenge for the death of her husband. She gradually disposes, one by one, a pistol, a knife, and a gun, while hiding an axe on the carriage. When they discover what she is up to they chase her away but she silently follows them through the woods. The journey through the mist laden forest seems endless and it culminates in a surprising discovery of emotions which is then quickly followed by the brutality of war - a deadly threat which was the only constant during that period of time. Stunning and harrowing war drama was banned by the communists and remained hidden for twenty years after which this enthralling piece of cinema resurfaced. The film's realistic depiction of how people acted during desperate wartime - some good people acting viciously while the perceived bad people acting with a goodness of heart - was one of the reasons for the film's ban. The accompanying organ-heavy music score provides an omimous feeling throughout as the camera follows the horse cart and the three characters through the tall trees which almost become secondary characters watching this intimate drama unfold.
Red Mountain (William Dieterle, 1951) 6/10
A murder-mystery plot is mixed in with the historical character William Quantrill (John Ireland) who attempts to revive the glory of the South through nefarious means using Indians as his army. When a crooked town official is murdered two men come under suspicion - a gold prospector (Arthur Kennedy) and a Confederate soldier (Alan Ladd) who hopes to join up with Quantrill but who he later discovers is evil. The two men form a love triangle with the prospector's girlfriend (Lizabeth Scott) as the three find themselves trapped in a cave against Quantrill and his soldiers. Action packed western is shot in technicolor on unusual New Mexico locations amongst giant cliffs and strange red rock formations. Kennedy and Ireland give highly animated performances in contrast to both Ladd and Scott who both underplay while falling in love.
The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955) 10/10
Mesmerizing, horrific fairy tale with has striking cinematography by Stanley Cortez, haunting music, and a story that incorporates allusions to everything from the Bible to Hansel & Gretel to Huckleberry Finn. A psychopathic killer (Robert Mitchum), masquerading as an itinerant preacher during the Great Depression, has married a succession of women, taken their money, and killed them. Soon after arriving in a rural town, he marries a widow (Shelley Winters) whose husband hid $10,000 from a robbery before he was arrested and executed for murder. The only people who know where the money is hidden are the widow's young children who swore to their father never to tell the money's location. But their new stepfather is going to make them talk even if it means he has to torture them. Coming to the rescue of the children is a no-nonsense farm woman (Lillian Gish) who with her shotgun becomes the children's protector. The film's style weaves between harsh reality and lyrical realization, though it leans towards the latter. The Depression-era story is odd, but believable (it was based on real events). The film's style goes back to silent films, but the subject matter - sexual repression, religious hypocrisy, child abuse - was too hot and downbeat for the times and the film flopped during the repressed 1950s. Subsequently, the film was re-evaluated and is now considered to be a masterpiece. This was the only film actor Charles Laughton directed and is one of Mitchum's most memorable roles as he takes on Lillian Gish and her shotgun.
La Reine Margot / Queen Margot (Patrice Chéreau, 1994) 9/10
Sexually provocative and extremely violent historical film, based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas, is set in 1572 France during a period of intense strife between the Catholics and the Protestant Huguenots which culminated in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Instigated by Queen Catherine de' Medici (Virna Lisi - astounding as the witch-like political schemer), the mother of the reigning King Charles IX (Jean-Hughes Anglade), it was a targeted group of assassinations and a wave of Catholic mob violence directed against the Protestant Huguenots. In order to bring a semblance of peace to the on-going religious war, Queen Catherine arranges the wedding of her daughter, Margaret of Valois (Isabelle Adjani), to the Protestant Henry of Navarre (Daniel Auteuil), much to the dismay of the promiscuous young woman. She prowls the streets of Paris with her companion, Henriette of Cleves (Dominique Blanc), in search of sex which she finds in the arms of a french nobleman, La Môle (Vincent Perez). Meanwhile her scheming mother and tubercular brother, the King, plot to assassinate several important Hugenot leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding. The slaughter, which spread throughout Paris, is shot here on screen in all its bloody glory as viciously stabbed, shot and torn bodies are piled up to be buried or burned. Superbly acted film won much deserved César awards for Adjani, Anglade, Virna Lisi (who also won a prize at the Cannes film festival), the cinematography & costumes, while nominations were received for the film, Chéreau, Blanc, the screenplay, production design, score and editing. It is sad but sectarian religious violence is still prevalent in many parts of the world and despite past historical horrors as vivid examples to us we continue on this path of self destruction in the name of religion.
Just Cause (Arne Glimcher, 1995) 5/10
Old fashioned thriller that starts off with a lot of promise but devolves into an over-the-top hysterical mess involving kidnappings, murder and alligators in the churning Florida Everglades. Good looking young black man (Blair Underwood), with a Harvard scholarship, is on death row for raping and killing a little white girl. He sends for a Harvard law professor (Sean Connery) to come defend him claiming he was violently coersed into confessing the crime by the cop (Laurence Fishburne) on the case. One of those films where nobody comes across as who they are and the audience is taken onto a joyride of surprises. Connery holds the film together, along with Fishburne who has the impossible task of bringing some focus into the cliché he is playing. An outstanding supporting cast surrounds the two leads but have almost nothing to do - Kate Capshaw as Connery's wife who years before came in contact with the accused, Ruby Dee as the feisty grandmother of the accused, and Chris Sarandon, Kevin McCarthy and Hope Lange - all three have almost wordless cameos - tiny tot 8-year old Scarlet Johansson as Connery's daughter is absurd casting. She looks more like his granddaughter. The film's best performance is by Ed Harris as a serial killer on death row who plays him calm and a ferocious lunatic within the same breath.
Murder at 1600 (Dwiggt H. Little, 1997) 4/10
Tired action-thriller has the always cool Wesley Snipes trying to rise above this awfully dull screenplay. When a young and sexy aide is found murdered inside the White House - right after she had sex with someone - the secret service tries to cover it up. When a nosy DC homicide cop (Wesley Snipes) starts getting too close to the truth a secret service agent (Diane Lane) is assigned as his shadow. Was it the President's son who had sex with the woman? Or was it the President (Ronny Cox) himself who is already under pressure by his senior aides (Harris Yulin, Alan Alda) to go to war with North Korea as American hostages are being held there. Silly film does not bother to fill in any of the numerous potholes in the script but keeps ambling along slower than Snipes' wit. While he has good chemistry with Diane Lane she is unfortunately saddled with an underwritten part. The ending where they crash into the White House through underground tunnels in order to get to the President is reduntant as a plot move. They could have easily used CNN to get to their leader faster and without all the danger.
The Art of War (Christian Duguay, 2000) 4/10
A film borne out of fear and envy the United States holds towards China and its serious threat as a World Power ever since its "opening up and coming out". Although he's too old now but going by his series of action films Wesley Snipes would have made a great James Bond. Here he plays a covert United Nations agent - a super-secret department run by a tough woman (Anne Archer) unknown to even the UN Secretary General (Donald Sutherland). Convoluted plot involves assassinations, betrayals, more murders as the agent tries to figure out who is doing what to whom while trying to stay one step ahead of the bullet that threatens to pursue him at every corner. China and its trade is at the center of all the shenanigans. Outlandish stunts galore - people jump from high spots with nary a scratch as they chase or get chased. Snipes is grim throughout with none of the wit evident in his other action flicks. Action packed noisy nonsense that has no originality but seems to have been pieced together via similarly themed films that came before.
World on Fire (Chanya Button, Thomas Napper, Adam Smith & Andy Wilson, 2019) 8/10
WWII as seen through the eyes of ordinary folk who get swept up by the war's violence, tragedy and death. This 7-part BBC series is played out in Poland, Germany, France and Britain - between 1939 when Poland is invaded by the Nazis and until the following year when Germany occupied Paris. At its center is a love triangle between an upper-crust British translator in love with a working class girl much to the disapproval of his snooty mother (Lesley Manville). On assignment in Poland he falls in love and gets married to a Polish waitress while his British girlfriend gets pregnant by him on his return. Left behind his wife joins the polish underground movement. The sprawling screenplay takes on a number of other characters - an elderly pacifist (Sean Bean), his son a young Naval officer, an American radio journalist (Helen Hunt) in Berlin, her doctor nephew in France who is in love with a black jazz musician, and a Polish couple trying to hide their ill daughter from the Nazis when threatened by euthanasia. The war is seen in all its brutal intensity as the Nazis, hell bent on carnage, commit atrocity upon atrocity. Well acted series ends abruptly with various cliffhangers. Season 2 is on its way.
The thing that I admired the most about New Jack City is that it's going for a lot of different stories, making it feel (at least for half its running time) like a big swing. The biggest problem is that it needed a better director or a bigger budget to really land this material with more intelligence. Ignoring the ending where it completely falls apart, the film just rockets forward, never slowing down to explore the characters. At first, I thought this was a confidence on Van Peebles' part and I'm willing to chalk some of this up to the budget (it was a 1991 indie), but it never finds the time to flesh out any of its ideas or characters beyond a line of backstory. It ends up feeling like a fashion show of character designs that really falls apart as it goes along. Nostalgia lends it a bit of charm but it's noteworthy without being very good.
I rewatched The Fisher King afterwards for the first time in quite a few years (just to keep the 1991 train going) and it's a pretty exhausting marriage of sensibilities that ultimately re-won me over because it's heart is just in the right place. Those sensibilities are the spastic surrealism of Terry Gilliam and the worn romanticism of Richard LaGravanese, and the end result feels out of control in a way that I do think is pretty fitting of the story of a life out of sorts and a desperate journey for redemption. I recall Siskel & Ebert saying that the quest for the Holy Grail felt tacked on, and its less tacked-on as overly conceptual. I see what Richard LaGravanese is going for though. He's presenting a moral universe where helping yourself means helping somebody else and sometimes it's a grueling affair that doesn't make a lot of sense. I can't begrudge anyone for actively disliking it but I'm a fan.
Some assorted Oscar-y thoughts:
-I'm interested in The Fisher King's standing in the Oscar race. With five nominations, could it have been far behind the five? I suppose Thelma and Louise and Boyz n the Hood were ahead of it. So, it was eighth in the running?
-It really is incredible how many nominations Robin Williams got for performances that felt like extensions of his stand up routine. Oscar voters really tossed on their anti-comedy snobbery for this guy. Williams has some fine moments in this film and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role, but Jeff Bridges really is the standout in this film. The story of a Shock Jock on the road to redemption is such an early 1990's idea but he really embodies his self-loathing without making him intolerable company.
-Oscar really had a thing for New Yorker performances in Best Supporting Actress in the early 1990's because they gave it to Whoopi Goldberg, Mercedes Ruehl, and Marisa Tomei in a row; if you want to stretch that out, one could make the case that Anna Paquin's two runners up (Perez & Ryder) were New Yorkers were as well.
-I would have supported dual nominations for Ruehl and Amanda Plummer, the latter of whom transforms the energy of every scene she is in. She's really quite effective at portraying an unassuming wallflower that could restore the right lunatic to sanity.
-George Fenton's nomination is fine, but it remains baffling that Howard Shore missed out on a nomination for The Silence of the Lambs. The only explanation I can think of is that he wasn't in the club yet -- or that his work was so good voters attributed his score to the sheer visceral presence of the film.
