Best Supporting Actress 1995
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Dolores Claiborne, commerically and critically, fell into the neither-hit-nor-bomb netherland. Being a Stephen King potboiler didn't make it obvious oscar bait, but its biggest failing, Oscar-wise, may have been that it opened in March, in a year when plenty of other female candidates appeared later. Had it come along in '94, Bates would almost certainly have been considered.
A reason why Winningham got the nod rather than those other Miramax candidates may be that Leigh won the NY Critics' best actress prize, which likely got more voters to watch Georgia than were led to Smoke or Crossing Guard.
A reason why Winningham got the nod rather than those other Miramax candidates may be that Leigh won the NY Critics' best actress prize, which likely got more voters to watch Georgia than were led to Smoke or Crossing Guard.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
What's more interesting, Kova, is that if they were so fascinated with Paul Sorvino, then his dead-on impersonation of Henry Kissinger should have been considered and given an Oscar nomination for Nixon...but wasn't. So, it's a bit baffling altogether. Maybe it was a make up for not nominating him?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Quinlan's nod is a perfect example of voter laziness. She's perfectly fine, but the only reason she made the cut was because voters were more familiar with her film than those of her main competitors.
Sorvino's win was mostly for her role--she doesn't add much more to it than Jennifer Tilly added to her nominated ditz performance the year before. There was also a bizarre fixation on the fact that she was Paul Sorvino's daughter. I can't fathom why they were so desperate to reward a second-generation star. She does what Woody asks her to in Mighty Aphrodite, but she has always struck me as a dreadfully charisma-free personality, and most of her other performances reflect that.
I saw Nixon when I was 15 and I remember being baffled by the acclaim for Allen. Perhaps she looked good in comparison to Hopkins' silly impersonation.
My two favorites here are Winningham and Winslet. Georgia is a fascinating mess, and Winningham has some remarkably touching line readings--I particularly recall a conversation she has with her sister in her kitchen during which she generates an astonishing amount of empathy. It's a beautiful performance.
But I'm going with Winslet. She was actually more spectacular in Heavenly Creatures the year before, but is the life force behind the otherwise pedestrian (for me) Sense and Sensibility. It's certainly the most vibrant characterization in this category, and it gets my vote.
Edited By Kova on 1288991747
Sorvino's win was mostly for her role--she doesn't add much more to it than Jennifer Tilly added to her nominated ditz performance the year before. There was also a bizarre fixation on the fact that she was Paul Sorvino's daughter. I can't fathom why they were so desperate to reward a second-generation star. She does what Woody asks her to in Mighty Aphrodite, but she has always struck me as a dreadfully charisma-free personality, and most of her other performances reflect that.
I saw Nixon when I was 15 and I remember being baffled by the acclaim for Allen. Perhaps she looked good in comparison to Hopkins' silly impersonation.
My two favorites here are Winningham and Winslet. Georgia is a fascinating mess, and Winningham has some remarkably touching line readings--I particularly recall a conversation she has with her sister in her kitchen during which she generates an astonishing amount of empathy. It's a beautiful performance.
But I'm going with Winslet. She was actually more spectacular in Heavenly Creatures the year before, but is the life force behind the otherwise pedestrian (for me) Sense and Sensibility. It's certainly the most vibrant characterization in this category, and it gets my vote.
Edited By Kova on 1288991747
Big Magilla wrote:I have to say I concur with Flipp's comment that "deserved" and "had a chance" are two different concepts. I also have to disagree with Italiano that "the movie (Dolores Claiborne) wasn't much liked".
Dolores Claiborne was Taylor Hckford's only good film since An Officer and a Gentleman". It also contained Katy Bates' best performance in a horror film taken from a Stephen King story - she was far more authentic and deserving of awards recognition than she was in the over-rated Misery.
It is true, however, that the film didn't generate much awards buzz though it did receive a smattering of recognition at the time, primarily for Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh, but not for the superb Judy Parfitt who is not as well known in this country as she is in her native England.
I don't know. I remember that the reviews weren't very good and the movie wasn't a box-office hit - and this, to me, means "not much liked".
Dolores Claiborne unfortunately isn't a good movie. Bates isn't bad but she was much better in Misery. I don't even remember this Judy Parfitt. None of them was even remotely mentioned in connection with Oscar nominations.
I remember now.....Lowe was dating Melissa Gilbert not Winningham.Big Magilla wrote:That's a new one on me. Mare Winningham had been married since 1981 to her first husband and would have either been pregnant with or just given birth to the second of their five children during the filming of St. Elmo's Fire.Reza wrote:Mare Winningham has always been very good on screen.
On the big screen I liked her in St Elmo's Fire (1985) - as Rob Lowe's love interest when they were actually a couple.
Sadly, her eldest son committed suicide at 23 or 24 in 2005.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I have to say I concur with Flipp's comment that "deserved" and "had a chance" are two different concepts. I also have to disagree with Italiano that "the movie (Dolores Claiborne) wasn't much liked".
Dolores Claiborne was Taylor Hckford's only good film since An Officer and a Gentleman". It also contained Katy Bates' best performance in a horror film taken from a Stephen King story - she was far more authentic and deserving of awards recognition than she was in the over-rated Misery.
It is true, however, that the film didn't generate much awards buzz though it did receive a smattering of recognition at the time, primarily for Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh, but not for the superb Judy Parfitt who is not as well known in this country as she is in her native England.
Dolores Claiborne was Taylor Hckford's only good film since An Officer and a Gentleman". It also contained Katy Bates' best performance in a horror film taken from a Stephen King story - she was far more authentic and deserving of awards recognition than she was in the over-rated Misery.
It is true, however, that the film didn't generate much awards buzz though it did receive a smattering of recognition at the time, primarily for Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh, but not for the superb Judy Parfitt who is not as well known in this country as she is in her native England.
She "deserved" a spot and she "had a chance" at one are obviously two totally different concepts.ITALIANO wrote:And nobody from Dolores Claiborne had any real chance at a nomination. The movie wasn't much liked.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Kathy Bates (Dolores Claiborne) deserved the fifth spot.mlrg wrote:(making way in the best actress field for Nicole Kidman in To Die For)
As I recall, she was the biggest competitor of Susan Sarandon for best actress
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
As everyone has noted, Kathleen Quinlan was a classic coattails nominee.
I find Georgia to be of the fairly bland, uninvolving school of indie cinema. Mare Winningham was decent enough, but rather unexciting to me. And though I don't belong to the Jennifer-was-robbed claque, I certainly found Leigh's emotional antics more engaging than Winningham's simplicity.
Mighty Aphrodite is definitely minor Woody Allen, but it has its laughs. And it's not surprising that Sorvino won Oscar attention -- the first half hour of the film is spent building up her character, then she arrives with this broad, loud comic role -- as a prostitute, no less! -- and then she even gets a sweet, dramatic change of pace scene late in the movie. The whole shebang seems to exist just to win the actress playing Linda an Oscar. What IS surprising, to me, is that the New York Film Critics went for something so goofy, given the alternatives. As for my take on Sorvino's performance, I have to admit that she was pretty amusing, and often very funny. But she was also too obviously a "character," and in no way do I take her work seriously enough to even consider voting for her.
Kate Winslet -- whom I adore -- gives one of her very best performances in Sense and Sensibility. I find her Marianne Dashwood utterly beguiling, full of passion and life, and the effortless charm that would brighten the screen in so many of Winslet's films to come. She would definitely be my runner-up, and I would have been perfectly happy had she won the Oscar.
But I voted, as most did, for Joan Allen, in the role that really kicked off her career rise from strong character actress to top-flight leading lady. And this might be her best work. I think her performance can be summed up in the scene where Pat Nixon asks her husband if he remembers their first dates, and he sidelines the conversation into a freak-out about his enemies. Pat tells her husband how much she loves him, and then, frustrated, reminds him that the public never will, no matter how many elections he wins. Allen is fantastic in this scene, portraying both Pat's deep love for her husband, but also her irritation that her own love is not enough, that Nixon goes through his whole life yearning for the affection of people who will never find him likable. This balance characterizes Allen's performance in many moments of the film, and I think she makes for a strong, commanding counterpoint to Anthony Hopkins. I think it's a shame Allen doesn't yet have an Oscar, and this would be the ideal place for me to reward her.
I find Georgia to be of the fairly bland, uninvolving school of indie cinema. Mare Winningham was decent enough, but rather unexciting to me. And though I don't belong to the Jennifer-was-robbed claque, I certainly found Leigh's emotional antics more engaging than Winningham's simplicity.
Mighty Aphrodite is definitely minor Woody Allen, but it has its laughs. And it's not surprising that Sorvino won Oscar attention -- the first half hour of the film is spent building up her character, then she arrives with this broad, loud comic role -- as a prostitute, no less! -- and then she even gets a sweet, dramatic change of pace scene late in the movie. The whole shebang seems to exist just to win the actress playing Linda an Oscar. What IS surprising, to me, is that the New York Film Critics went for something so goofy, given the alternatives. As for my take on Sorvino's performance, I have to admit that she was pretty amusing, and often very funny. But she was also too obviously a "character," and in no way do I take her work seriously enough to even consider voting for her.
Kate Winslet -- whom I adore -- gives one of her very best performances in Sense and Sensibility. I find her Marianne Dashwood utterly beguiling, full of passion and life, and the effortless charm that would brighten the screen in so many of Winslet's films to come. She would definitely be my runner-up, and I would have been perfectly happy had she won the Oscar.
But I voted, as most did, for Joan Allen, in the role that really kicked off her career rise from strong character actress to top-flight leading lady. And this might be her best work. I think her performance can be summed up in the scene where Pat Nixon asks her husband if he remembers their first dates, and he sidelines the conversation into a freak-out about his enemies. Pat tells her husband how much she loves him, and then, frustrated, reminds him that the public never will, no matter how many elections he wins. Allen is fantastic in this scene, portraying both Pat's deep love for her husband, but also her irritation that her own love is not enough, that Nixon goes through his whole life yearning for the affection of people who will never find him likable. This balance characterizes Allen's performance in many moments of the film, and I think she makes for a strong, commanding counterpoint to Anthony Hopkins. I think it's a shame Allen doesn't yet have an Oscar, and this would be the ideal place for me to reward her.
Kathleen Quinlan was nominated because of the movie she was in and maybe because of her role, too - devoted wives always do well with the Academy.
Mira Sorvino was quite funny actually, but yes, it's not like she brought to her typical "dumb blonde" role anything especially new or remarkable.
The three others were very good. Kate Winslet has been better than in Sense and Sensibility only once I think - in the now-forgotten movie Jude. This is her best nominated performance though; she brought to her role all the needed qualities - it's a brilliant portrayal of a woman in her youth, and she succeeded in making this woman both modern and true to her time. Plus, that face was, and luckily for her still is, easy for any camera to love.
Joan Allen was also brilliant in Nixon - I have no idea of how the real Mrs Nixon looked or sounded like, so I couldnt make any comparison, but she certainly did create a believable, very human character. Even in her case, her best nominated performance - by far.
But I have voted for Mare Winningham - one of the last times when the Academy was suprisingly subtle in nominating a quiet (on the surface) and deserving performance from a little-seen movie. That movie, Georgia, wasn't a masterpiece but wasn't stupid either; it was also, and clearly, a vehicle for Jennifer Jason Leigh, who was very fashionable in those years. It provided her with one of those roles actresses could kill for, very showy, very intense, too intense actually, and while she was better than usual playing it, it was still too much "acting", and too obviously so. The Academy picked Winningham though, who had the title role but still a supporting one, and who had the much more difficult task of implying rather than showing. I'm not sure that her character was the "normal" one, but she definitely did a great job at suggesting the tensions, and the unhappiness, behind what often seems or looks normal. It's beautiful, complex acting.
ps Big Magilla, another is Meg Tilly in Agnes of God.
Mira Sorvino was quite funny actually, but yes, it's not like she brought to her typical "dumb blonde" role anything especially new or remarkable.
The three others were very good. Kate Winslet has been better than in Sense and Sensibility only once I think - in the now-forgotten movie Jude. This is her best nominated performance though; she brought to her role all the needed qualities - it's a brilliant portrayal of a woman in her youth, and she succeeded in making this woman both modern and true to her time. Plus, that face was, and luckily for her still is, easy for any camera to love.
Joan Allen was also brilliant in Nixon - I have no idea of how the real Mrs Nixon looked or sounded like, so I couldnt make any comparison, but she certainly did create a believable, very human character. Even in her case, her best nominated performance - by far.
But I have voted for Mare Winningham - one of the last times when the Academy was suprisingly subtle in nominating a quiet (on the surface) and deserving performance from a little-seen movie. That movie, Georgia, wasn't a masterpiece but wasn't stupid either; it was also, and clearly, a vehicle for Jennifer Jason Leigh, who was very fashionable in those years. It provided her with one of those roles actresses could kill for, very showy, very intense, too intense actually, and while she was better than usual playing it, it was still too much "acting", and too obviously so. The Academy picked Winningham though, who had the title role but still a supporting one, and who had the much more difficult task of implying rather than showing. I'm not sure that her character was the "normal" one, but she definitely did a great job at suggesting the tensions, and the unhappiness, behind what often seems or looks normal. It's beautiful, complex acting.
ps Big Magilla, another is Meg Tilly in Agnes of God.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
None of the nominees here get me upset, but it is true that it is hard to get too excited about Quinlan or Winningham. They aren't bad, just uninspiring nominees.
Maybe it is the Woody Allen apologist in me, but I like Mighty Aphrodite and I like Mira Sorvino a lot in the film. It is sad that she hasn't had more success post-Oscar, as I thought she had a lot of potential in her. I don't begrudge her win, but...
There are only 2 great choices in this bunch, from 2 great actresses. Winslet is wonderful in Sense and Sensibility, but she runs a close second to Joan Allen's tour de force in Nixon. This is some of her best screen work, and she finds an unexpected heart in a film that doesn't always have one.
Among my also-rans are Stockard Channing and Sharon Stone (who is more supporting in Casino). Damien, love your pick of Madeline Kahn.
Maybe it is the Woody Allen apologist in me, but I like Mighty Aphrodite and I like Mira Sorvino a lot in the film. It is sad that she hasn't had more success post-Oscar, as I thought she had a lot of potential in her. I don't begrudge her win, but...
There are only 2 great choices in this bunch, from 2 great actresses. Winslet is wonderful in Sense and Sensibility, but she runs a close second to Joan Allen's tour de force in Nixon. This is some of her best screen work, and she finds an unexpected heart in a film that doesn't always have one.
Among my also-rans are Stockard Channing and Sharon Stone (who is more supporting in Casino). Damien, love your pick of Madeline Kahn.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
That's a new one on me. Mare Winningham had been married since 1981 to her first husband and would have either been pregnant with or just given birth to the second of their five children during the filming of St. Elmo's Fire.Reza wrote:Mare Winningham has always been very good on screen.
On the big screen I liked her in St Elmo's Fire (1985) - as Rob Lowe's love interest when they were actually a couple.
Sadly, her eldest son committed suicide at 23 or 24 in 2005.