I've only seen Nell and The Client...
Gonna abstain.
Best Actress 1994
I'm also perplexed by the ire being heaped on this adaptation of Little Women. While I agree with Damien that Winona is merely serviceable (pleasant, but not much else is probably the best way to put it), she is nowhere near a detriment to the telling of Alcott's story. Her May Welland, yes, Uri, was perfectly executed behind that cryptic, perfectly delicate smile in Scorcese's The Age of Innocence. Welland ignites Olenska's social execution and hosts the Guilded Age bloodbath that seals Olenska's fate in the community all pulled off with aplomb by Ryder in what is probably one of her greatest screen triumphs. I imagine she was very close to winning that Oscar.
There are some wonderful glimpses of sisterhood placed throughout Armstrong's film in, what I honestly felt was, an unsentimental way. And what a collection of young actresses at their peak (can you imagine the casting of an adaptation now? We'd probably be stuck with Keira Knightley as Jo). The mise-en-scène is distinctive and, yes, that Newman score is one of the greatest of all time. Absolutely robbed of an Oscar.
I don't think there has been a definitive version of Jo March yet. Hepburn's probably comes the closest, but her mannishness and spindly features really detract from who I think that character really is (perhaps, subjectively, only in a physical sense).
I voted for Sarandon (again) who takes a barely three-dimensional character and adds a layer of humanity to her that was definitely not in Grisham's novel. These were Sarandon's golden years for sure, but she wasn't coasting. This is a great turn.
"American" has been used too broadly as an adjective lately, almost to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore or simply means what you want it to mean in that particular moment. No?
Edited By flipp525 on 1262976305
There are some wonderful glimpses of sisterhood placed throughout Armstrong's film in, what I honestly felt was, an unsentimental way. And what a collection of young actresses at their peak (can you imagine the casting of an adaptation now? We'd probably be stuck with Keira Knightley as Jo). The mise-en-scène is distinctive and, yes, that Newman score is one of the greatest of all time. Absolutely robbed of an Oscar.
I don't think there has been a definitive version of Jo March yet. Hepburn's probably comes the closest, but her mannishness and spindly features really detract from who I think that character really is (perhaps, subjectively, only in a physical sense).
I voted for Sarandon (again) who takes a barely three-dimensional character and adds a layer of humanity to her that was definitely not in Grisham's novel. These were Sarandon's golden years for sure, but she wasn't coasting. This is a great turn.
"American" has been used too broadly as an adjective lately, almost to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore or simply means what you want it to mean in that particular moment. No?
Edited By flipp525 on 1262976305
"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
-
Precious Doll
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4453
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
I voted for Jessica Lange, although I also quite like Susan Sarandon in The Client, and she had great rapport with both Tommy Lee Jones and Brad Renfro.
I adore Gillian Armstrong's version of Little Women, and Uri I am perplexed by your antipathy towards it. Such a beautiful, emotional film, with one of the greatest musical scores ever (Thomas Newman) and a wonderful performance by Christian Bale. That said, Winona Ryder is merely serviceable -- she comes across as much too contemporary for Jo.
I don't remember a thing about Tom and Viv, although given the nuttiness of his subsequent career, the idea of Willem Dafoe play T.S. Eliot now makes me chuckle.
Jodie Foster should have been in the running for Worst Actress of the Year (of the decade, actually). A cringe-inducing embarrassment.
Non-nominees I would like to have seen included are Irene Jacob in Red, Guinevere Turner in Go Fish and Mary Stuart Masterson in Radioland Murders.
I adore Gillian Armstrong's version of Little Women, and Uri I am perplexed by your antipathy towards it. Such a beautiful, emotional film, with one of the greatest musical scores ever (Thomas Newman) and a wonderful performance by Christian Bale. That said, Winona Ryder is merely serviceable -- she comes across as much too contemporary for Jo.
I don't remember a thing about Tom and Viv, although given the nuttiness of his subsequent career, the idea of Willem Dafoe play T.S. Eliot now makes me chuckle.
Jodie Foster should have been in the running for Worst Actress of the Year (of the decade, actually). A cringe-inducing embarrassment.
Non-nominees I would like to have seen included are Irene Jacob in Red, Guinevere Turner in Go Fish and Mary Stuart Masterson in Radioland Murders.
"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
I went with Ryder. I love the movie and her in it, or at least I did when I last watched it. (10+ years ago.) It feels a little bit like a default choice, but she deserves it. And Claire Danes deserved someone's spot down in Support.
Probably would've gone with Weaver for the year overall.
Edited By dws1982 on 1262930972
Probably would've gone with Weaver for the year overall.
Edited By dws1982 on 1262930972
Mister Tee wrote:I'm less hostile to Ryder than others here are. I actually had a slight crush going on her at the time, in the wake of Mermaids and Edward Scissorhands, and I thought she was perfectly decent if uninspired in Little Women. (I also thought the movie was fairly good; I'm surprised at the venom being directed at it)
This adaptation of LW is a prime example of all that is wrong in a certain, very American, politically correct approach to history. (Yes, I know – the director is Australian, the source material is fictional, so please don't call me on these, OG). It's this very simplistic, rather juvenile, tendency to mistake revisionism with rewriting the past. One can bring one's feminist or even Marxist sensibilities and offer a fresh reading of a classic the way Emma Thompson did the following year with Sense & Sensibility, without turning the characters into being anachronistically feminist and Marxist themselves. It's about the way one choose to focus on certain characters rather then others, to address certain issues and so on. In this Little Women they took all the wrong turns they could on a road paved with good intentions. The most obvious was the way Marmee as written was thrown straight to the bin in order to make room for this pamphletish new age cartoon. (Yes, I know – it was actually based on the real Mrs. March, there were strong women all through history blah, blah, blah). And all the contemporary complexities and contradictions of Jo's attitudes, morals, sexual ambiguities which were at times uncomfortably entangled with deeply rooted traditional conventions were replaced, in Ryder's performance, with bland, non offensive pleasantness. In The Age of Innocence, the seemingly sweet and delicate appearance of Ryder was smartly used as a façade for the sinister, tough as nails essence of May Welland, while here it's all that is left with Jo. And like the rest of the movie, it was all sugar coated with schmaltzy coziness, making this good intentioned, liberal wannabe piece fall flat on its conservative face.
Edited By Uri on 1262930633
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I'm afraid I can't work up the enthusiasm for the non-nominated that some have -- apart from Fiorentino, who was a hoot in Last Seduction (even though her range as an actress doesn't really go a millimeter further). I found Leigh mannered, as usual, and didn't think Weaver was particularly distinguished.
I thought this was just a ghastly year for women -- all the more reason to lament that '93 was so over-stuffed that Pfeiffer was squeezed out (to say nothing of Kidman in '95 -- but that's getting ahead of ourselves). As Michael Gebert says, when you consider that Lange's performance wouldn't have had a chance in hell of cracking the slate in the year her film was supposed to have been released (1991), you can make the case that there really was no best actress in 1994.
But, to consider the nominees:
I've been less thrilled than anyone else about Foster in her previous best actress bids, but I can only wish I had mere apathy about her Nell performance. I found her work here abyssmal/laughable/pick your own dismissive adjective. My wife and I still imitate "Tay-ay-in-the-wi-ind" when we want to epitomize bad acting. Thank god she didn't win.
I'm less hostile to Ryder than others here are. I actually had a slight crush going on her at the time, in the wake of Mermaids and Edward Scissorhands, and I thought she was perfectly decent if uninspired in Little Women. (I also thought the movie was fairly good; I'm surprised at the venom being directed at it)
Sarandon is similarly acceptable in a routine role. It's not as if Grisham gives an actor anything to work with.
I'd had wild mood-swings on earlier Richardson performances -- hated her in The Crying Game, liked her in Damage. But here I was surprised to quite like her. The film was, as others are saying, not up to its subject, but it was competently enough done, and Richardson was moving where I worried she might be irritating.
But Lange deserved her win. It turned out nicely for her: that there was a vacancy in best actress just at the time people came to realize the body of her career merited more than that consolation supporting prize she'd won for Tootsie (a bit like the way Meryl Streep may win this year). Blue Sky is minor work -- in the vein of an American play from the late 50s/early 60s. But Lange gave it her all, and had some lovely moments along with the showy ones. In another year she might not have stood a chance, but for this race, she takes the gold.
I thought this was just a ghastly year for women -- all the more reason to lament that '93 was so over-stuffed that Pfeiffer was squeezed out (to say nothing of Kidman in '95 -- but that's getting ahead of ourselves). As Michael Gebert says, when you consider that Lange's performance wouldn't have had a chance in hell of cracking the slate in the year her film was supposed to have been released (1991), you can make the case that there really was no best actress in 1994.
But, to consider the nominees:
I've been less thrilled than anyone else about Foster in her previous best actress bids, but I can only wish I had mere apathy about her Nell performance. I found her work here abyssmal/laughable/pick your own dismissive adjective. My wife and I still imitate "Tay-ay-in-the-wi-ind" when we want to epitomize bad acting. Thank god she didn't win.
I'm less hostile to Ryder than others here are. I actually had a slight crush going on her at the time, in the wake of Mermaids and Edward Scissorhands, and I thought she was perfectly decent if uninspired in Little Women. (I also thought the movie was fairly good; I'm surprised at the venom being directed at it)
Sarandon is similarly acceptable in a routine role. It's not as if Grisham gives an actor anything to work with.
I'd had wild mood-swings on earlier Richardson performances -- hated her in The Crying Game, liked her in Damage. But here I was surprised to quite like her. The film was, as others are saying, not up to its subject, but it was competently enough done, and Richardson was moving where I worried she might be irritating.
But Lange deserved her win. It turned out nicely for her: that there was a vacancy in best actress just at the time people came to realize the body of her career merited more than that consolation supporting prize she'd won for Tootsie (a bit like the way Meryl Streep may win this year). Blue Sky is minor work -- in the vein of an American play from the late 50s/early 60s. But Lange gave it her all, and had some lovely moments along with the showy ones. In another year she might not have stood a chance, but for this race, she takes the gold.
Lange deservedly won. Hers wasn't just a very good role, it was an unusually good role for an actress of her age, and she was talented (and by then expert) enough to make the most of it. She was also still very beautiful, and this resulted in her being very believable in the part. An emotional tour de force, which made one forget the (many) flaws of the movie.
Foster's was also a tour de force, but of a different kind. The role, on paper, was a potentially strong one, and before her movie came out (and with Fiorentino disqualified) there was some talk that it could lead to a third Oscar for the still young actress. Then the movie came out, and the performance turned out to be more embarassing than powerful. It wasn't only her fault, but certainly all her commitment, her investment, her "serious" approach looked kind of grotesque dealing with such a ridiculous script and absent direction.
Richardson was better, and could have been very good with a script worthy of the important true story on which her movie was based (it was more often just literary gossip). The two others were in bad movies and didn't have a chance.
Foster's was also a tour de force, but of a different kind. The role, on paper, was a potentially strong one, and before her movie came out (and with Fiorentino disqualified) there was some talk that it could lead to a third Oscar for the still young actress. Then the movie came out, and the performance turned out to be more embarassing than powerful. It wasn't only her fault, but certainly all her commitment, her investment, her "serious" approach looked kind of grotesque dealing with such a ridiculous script and absent direction.
Richardson was better, and could have been very good with a script worthy of the important true story on which her movie was based (it was more often just literary gossip). The two others were in bad movies and didn't have a chance.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Jennifer Jason Leigh gave the performance of the year in my book. Sin ce she was (as usual) passed over by the Academy, you have to turn elsewhere. Of course, three of my other favorites of the year were also passed over--Isabelle Adjani, Sigourney Weaver and Meg Ryan's heartbreaking turn in When a Man Loves a Woman. Why is that you have this year with so many interesting, strong female performances the Academy has to come up with such a boring line-up (I haven't seem Ryder, who is frighteningly divisive here). It looks like the same thing will happen this year.
Anyways, I vote for Miranda Richardson, an Oscar-bait role in a bland film but well-executed none the less.
Anyways, I vote for Miranda Richardson, an Oscar-bait role in a bland film but well-executed none the less.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
That year was all about Linda Fiorentino – and when she was disqualified for technical reasons, people flocked happily behind Lange because really, there was no one else to root for – and rightly so. While her film was kind of messy, her performance was almost epic – there was freedom and raw emotional quality to it so she was a worthy winner and not only by default.
Otherwise it was a dismal year. Richardson's role and the film she was in were traditional Oscar material but on a rather minor way, and she was good in a way one might accept from her but not necessarily at the top of her game. Sarandon made the best of what The Client offered her – it was a very sympathetic turn and she and Jones were fun together, but at the end of the day it stayed a Grisham piece. And that conclude the kind words I'm able to say about that year's nominees.
Foster's what-the-hell-was-she-thinking kind of freak show was such an awkward, self conscious uncomfortable display that all the good intentions motivating it couldn't save it. Ryder was just miserably miscast in an almost universally likewise executed adaptation of LW (Christian Bale's is the only successful turn in that fiasco). Her performance captures nothing of the spirit of Jo March. Never mind Hepburn's classic interpretation, Ryder makes June Alison's take look brilliant in comparison. While watching LW, I kept thinking – why on earth didn't Ryder and Claire Dance exchange roles – it would have made so much more sense.
While both were in a the kind of movies the Academy don't seem to embrace, Meryl Streep in The River Wild and Kathleen Turner in Serial Mom would have made for far better choices. And in retrospect, Winslet's breakthrough that year might have been the closest she'd ever been to winning in my book.
Edited By Uri on 1262906608
Otherwise it was a dismal year. Richardson's role and the film she was in were traditional Oscar material but on a rather minor way, and she was good in a way one might accept from her but not necessarily at the top of her game. Sarandon made the best of what The Client offered her – it was a very sympathetic turn and she and Jones were fun together, but at the end of the day it stayed a Grisham piece. And that conclude the kind words I'm able to say about that year's nominees.
Foster's what-the-hell-was-she-thinking kind of freak show was such an awkward, self conscious uncomfortable display that all the good intentions motivating it couldn't save it. Ryder was just miserably miscast in an almost universally likewise executed adaptation of LW (Christian Bale's is the only successful turn in that fiasco). Her performance captures nothing of the spirit of Jo March. Never mind Hepburn's classic interpretation, Ryder makes June Alison's take look brilliant in comparison. While watching LW, I kept thinking – why on earth didn't Ryder and Claire Dance exchange roles – it would have made so much more sense.
While both were in a the kind of movies the Academy don't seem to embrace, Meryl Streep in The River Wild and Kathleen Turner in Serial Mom would have made for far better choices. And in retrospect, Winslet's breakthrough that year might have been the closest she'd ever been to winning in my book.
Edited By Uri on 1262906608
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Nah. The Academy got this one right.
Lange is a hoot as the mentally unbalanced military wife in a film that sat on the shelves for three years and almost wasn't released at all due to Orion Pictures' bankruptcy.
Her only real competition was Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction, a film that was declared ineligible because it had been shown on cable TV prior to its theatrical release.
Richardson was memorable in a difficult role as yet another mentally unbalanced woman, T.S. Eliot's wife, poet Vivienne Haigh-Wood.
Sarandon was good in an otherwise routine whodunit, playing off newcomer Brad Renfro (and vice versa) excedinlgy well.
Ryder was fine as Jo in Little Women, certainly better than June Allyson was in the 1949 version, but not quite as good as Katharine Hepburn's high water mark portrayal in the definitive 1933 version. Still, she along with Sarandon and Richardson was a decent also-ran.
Foster brings skill and conviction to a difficult role but after two wins for superior performances in superior films I think she's the weakest of the lot. On the other hand, someone had to take Fiorentino's spot so it might as well have been her.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1262901706
Lange is a hoot as the mentally unbalanced military wife in a film that sat on the shelves for three years and almost wasn't released at all due to Orion Pictures' bankruptcy.
Her only real competition was Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction, a film that was declared ineligible because it had been shown on cable TV prior to its theatrical release.
Richardson was memorable in a difficult role as yet another mentally unbalanced woman, T.S. Eliot's wife, poet Vivienne Haigh-Wood.
Sarandon was good in an otherwise routine whodunit, playing off newcomer Brad Renfro (and vice versa) excedinlgy well.
Ryder was fine as Jo in Little Women, certainly better than June Allyson was in the 1949 version, but not quite as good as Katharine Hepburn's high water mark portrayal in the definitive 1933 version. Still, she along with Sarandon and Richardson was a decent also-ran.
Foster brings skill and conviction to a difficult role but after two wins for superior performances in superior films I think she's the weakest of the lot. On the other hand, someone had to take Fiorentino's spot so it might as well have been her.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1262901706
-
jowy_jillia
- Graduate
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:38 pm
A very great year for actresses, sadly it didn't reflect in the lineup.
Foster is the winner for me, but still she wouldn't even make my top 10 of the year.
Sarandon and Richardson is Decent
Lange is Average
Ryder is just awful, lucky for her she had Reality Bites that year to compenstate
My top 10
1. Julianne Moore - Vanya on 42nd Street
2. Jennifer Jason Leigh - Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle
3. Juliette Lewis - Natural Born Killers
4. Winona Ryder - Reality Bites
5. Judy Davis - The Ref
6. Brigitte Lin - Chungking Express
7. Isabelle Adjani - Queen Margot
8. Sigourney Weaver - Death and the Maiden
9. Kate Winslet - Heavenly Creatures
10. Irène Jacob - Trois Couleurs: Rouge
Foster is the winner for me, but still she wouldn't even make my top 10 of the year.
Sarandon and Richardson is Decent
Lange is Average
Ryder is just awful, lucky for her she had Reality Bites that year to compenstate
My top 10
1. Julianne Moore - Vanya on 42nd Street
2. Jennifer Jason Leigh - Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle
3. Juliette Lewis - Natural Born Killers
4. Winona Ryder - Reality Bites
5. Judy Davis - The Ref
6. Brigitte Lin - Chungking Express
7. Isabelle Adjani - Queen Margot
8. Sigourney Weaver - Death and the Maiden
9. Kate Winslet - Heavenly Creatures
10. Irène Jacob - Trois Couleurs: Rouge