Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

There are some directorial debuts that just blaze onto the scene (especially of this era) and people revisit them forever, and then there are some that are more notable for their impact, for coming first, and they sort of exist in ember. Boyz N the Hood certainly feels like the latter. It's really hard to come down too hard on it seeing as how John Singleton was 23 when he made it and is no longer with us (shocking) but far too many elements of it feel preachy and after-school special. It's not enough that Ricky has to die because his girlfriend asks him to get milk, or that his SAT scores have arrived but he doesn't have time to read them (he passed by 10 points)... no, he also has to buy a lottery ticket and come up a loser. The film is full of oversold moments like that. It's also pretty small in scale, although I was impressed at how John Singleton was able to spend his entire first act (20 minutes, and 20 good ones) in the past and then reset in the future. What I found myself responding to the most about it is how much of a John Singleton movie it is. It's a film about young black men and their complicated relationships with responsibility, expectations, and carving out a life for themself. I'll go so far to say the qualities about this film that date it culturally are the most interesting and make it the most personal. It's a pretty good film. Also, Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s performance holds up the least well of the ensemble. I generally like him but he's an actor who always needs to be projecting and that's not a great fit for Trey or the rest of the ensemble. He sort of undermines the endeavor.

I've seen Bugsy a few times now. It's a good film. Occasionally, it's a very good film with its arms around a lot of subplots ideas about this character. It's pretty remarkable how much James Toback manages to weave them all together. Ultimately, I think it loses track of (or doesn't always bring to the surface) two of its strongest ideas: that Ben Siegel is a gangster who doesn't really think of himself as a gangster but rather a movie (his sociopathic tendencies feel disconnected and begin to overshadow it), and that Ben and Virginia are both low-lives who see in the Flamingo and each other a chance to redeem themselves. It rings hollow when it's revealed that Virginia has played Ben, and aside from a great death scene for Beatty the film doesn't land as the romantic tragedy it clearly wants to be. I like the film that we ended up with but the marriage between Beatty, Toback, and Levinson is probably a little too open to really achieve greatness. But whenever I revisit it, there's always something in it that feels new and for that it deserves to be remembered as more than a bloated white elephant.

I'm not sure when I first watched The Prince of Tides. It must have been high school. I remembered nothing of it re-watching it. I've never read the book but this is such an ineffective screenplay that whatever else worthwhile in the film doesn't seem to matter. I'm not just talking about the decision to focus on the romance/relationship between Nolte and Streisand. I'm not that interested in it, but considering that film is a medium largely told through present conflicts it makes a certain amount of sense. The bottom line is that the film tries to blend an Ordinary People therapist/trauma with an old-fashioned romantic melodrama, and it doesn't work at all. There are wild wild mood shifts between scenes. Scenes don't build tension. Every scene is so self-contained that they each feel like climaxed to different movies.* It's also a film about memory that has absolutely no perspective on how memory is experienced. Flashbacks never seem to come from inner-life experiencing recall. It reminded me of The Reader at times. It starts off quite poorly; this is going to sound nit-picky but we open on Tom Wingo narrating his childhood (something he shouldn't be able to do at this point in his journey), then we show his contemporary domestic life interrupted by the news that his mother has attempted another suicide attempt, we're given the briefest of introductions to the people in his life, and then he's off to New York City. It's a disorienting gateway into a disorienting character and the film is always sort of playing catch-up on who Tom Wingo is and what he needs from that decision. Also, his relationship with Lowenstein remains a confusing tug of war of who whats and needs what what from who. Again, I haven't read the book, but these don't feel like lazy mistakes. They feel like the kind of overstuffing that happens when you're trying to be respectful. I see traces of the effective melodrama that it could have been, but it's not enough and ultimately a film that can't go beneath the surface of a lot of serious subjects and that's a problem.

*A little side-note on this point: this wacky, un-serious quality almost became a charm of sorts for this film. I was never bored because I always knew something else was around the corner. This is wildly inappropriate for a film about sexual assault, but it kept me engaged.

Sabin wrote:

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).

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 that year.

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.

Reza wrote
Really, are you in your early forties? Going by your comments I always thought you were in your late twenties.

I've been on this board since 1999.

Sabin wrote:Now that I'm closer to Billy Crystal's age than his son's, I wanted to see how it holds up.

Really, are you in your early forties? Going by your comments I always thought you were in your late twenties.

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.

Sabin wrote:

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.

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.