Correcting Oscar 1989

[dws1982]

Ideally, Williams and Landau could've switched places, although even more ideally (see my post in the Best Actress 1969 thread), Williams would've just not been nominated.

Landau is definitely Lead. Not really even a co-lead, because I wouldn't consider a film with parallel narratives to be a co-lead situation. (Co-leads are people who share narrative in one story together in my opinion.) As Sabin says, it's two narratives, mostly unrelated and Landau is lead in one. If Landau had been pushed into Lead, I doubt he would've been nominated unfortunately. With Landau out of the way, maybe Alan Alda from the same film, who got some critical attention, could've gotten a nomination. It's a fearless piece of work, played by someone who absolutely is not at fear of alienating the audience. But it might just as likely have been Sean Connery in Last Crusade or someone like that.

Williams is definitely Support. Read my thoughts on this film and performance in the 1969 Best Actress thread. I think that film exists, unintentionally perhaps, in dialogue with The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. Right before I got my teaching job, I had a substitute job for a week where the assignment was "show my classes Dead Poets Society" so I halfway watched it about five times that week. Watched it last summer after reading some interesting Twitter thoughts on it as well. I think it's a bad movie and a bad performance. But I think he would've gotten a nomination in Support and might have had a shot at winning. He actually has more screen time, both in minutes and percentage, in his winning performance in Good Will Hunting. And it's a similar role. I get that there is a very clear, unquestionable protagonist in that film, and in Dead Poets Society it's more unclear who the protagonist is (it's Robert Sean Leonard, but it's also all the boys too), but he's basically just a mentor-teacher in both.

[Big Magilla]

I didn't do predictions prior to this board, but I did make assumptions as far back as 1963.

I gave up on Pacino doing Oscar caliber work after Dog Day Afternoon, hated his over-the-top performance in 1979's ...And Justice for All for which was inexplicably nominated for the last time prior to his return to serious acting with Sea of Love. I thought if he could ne nominated for garbage like ...And Justice for All, he would certainly be nominated for Sea of Love.

When Lemmon was good, he was great, but when he was bad, he was intolerable. I detested Save the Tiger for which he won an Oscar over Pacino in Serpico. I loathed 1980's Tribute for which he received his 7th of 8 career nominations. I found it odd that 1982's Missing was his last nomination when he gave three much better performances in films since, 1984's Mass Appeal, Dad, and 1992's Glengarry Glen Ross for which he should have won best actor over Pacino in Scent of a woman in an ironic twist of fate.

I did think that Pacino and Lemmon could be beaten by Matt Dillon in Drugstore Cowboy and James Spader in Sex, Lies, and Videotape, but Branagh and Williams were not on my radar.

By the way, when Lemmon was passed over for a nomination for Mass Appeal, he hosted that year's Oscars. Nowadays, actors who are snubbed won't even show up as an audience member let alone a presenter, and never a host.

My Best Picture assumptions were for the five that were nominated. At the time I had a slight preference for Born on the Fourth of July over My Left Foot and Driving Miss Daisy but I've subsequently homed in on My Left Foot as my favorite film of that year.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Sea of Love is one of my favorite Pacino films. It holds up just fine. Dad was not a particularly good film but Jack Lemmon is quite good in it as were Olympia Dukakis and Dead Poet Society's Ethan Hawke. I was surprised that both were outpolled in the Oscar voting by Kenneth Branagh and Robin Williams.

So, you thought that the Best Actor nominees in 1989 were going to be Cruise, Day-Lewis, Freeman, Jack Lemmon (Dad), and Al Pacino (Sea of Love)? Did you predict that Dead Poets Society would show up for Best Picture? I thought that both the film and Williams were foregone conclusions.

[Big Magilla]

You are referencing the 1990 BAFTA awards, not 1989 where the Best Actor winner was Daniel Day-Lewis as it was at the Oscars based on 1989 U.K. release dates. Born on the Fourth of July was a February 1990 release in the U.K., Crimes and Misdemeanors was a June 1990 release, and Cinema Paradiso was released in both the U.K. and the U.S. on February 23, 1990.

Sea of Love is one of my favorite Pacino films. It holds up just fine. Dad was not a particularly good film but Jack Lemmon is quite good in it as were Olympia Dukakis and Dead Poet Society's Ethan Hawke. I was surprised that both were outpolled in the Oscar voting by Kenneth Branagh and Robin Williams.

Williams was the big name in Dead Poets Society but unlike 1939's Goodbye, Mr. Chips in which Robert Donat totally dominated the film as he did the classroom, Williams shares the screen fairly evenly with Robert Sean Leonard's character. If the Golden Globes could nominate Bruce Willis that year in support for In Country a film that he dominated, Williams could just as easily have been nominated in support for his role in Dead Poets Society.

Martin Landau was a seasoned character actor in an ensemble work. I would have been surprised if he were nominated in lead in a year with such strong competition.

[Sabin]

I still haven’t seen Enemies, A Love Story so I couldn’t say whether or not Anjelica Huston or Lena Olin are supporting or lead. Based on their screen-times (31.42%) and (34.78%) respectively, I’d imagine they’re not, that Ron Silver is the protagonist. But I’d be happy to add them into the conversation. Sight-unseen, I wouldn’t be able to add much. I’m also not adding Danny Aiello. Both he and Lee represent the opposing points of view who arrive at the end, but I think this is a case of Mookie/Spike Lee as the notional lead but it’s a pure ensemble.

The two candidates I’ll talk about are Martin Landau for Crimes and Misdemeanors and Robin Williams for Dead Poets Society. They’re a bit inverse cases of each other.

Martin Landau is in Crimes and Misdemeanors for 42.08% of the running time. That’s a good swath of time. He plays the character who is inarguably the protagonist of his section of the film. He has his own set of supporting performances alongside him. I think the only question is whether or not somebody can be a lead in Crimes and Misdemeanors considering its bifurcated structure. I read somewhere that the remarkable thing about Crimes and Misdemeanors is that neither section directly comments on the other throughout. They just exist alongside each other until the end. That’s an interesting choice for a lot of reasons but one of the effects is that neither story feels subordinate to the other. Maybe one could make the case that the final scene centers a little bit around Allen, but that’s it. Either way, I think by design this is a film with two protagonists and Landau is one of them.

I think Martin Landau is a lead actor in the film but before I venture into whether or not he would be nominated, I’m curious as to why he didn’t pick up more support as a lead. I won’t waste a lot of time with a big year recap but Crimes and Misdemeanors went over well with BAFTA but he wasn’t in Best Actor or Supporting Actor (Alda was). Critics largely sided with Alan Alda as the standout performer (NYFCC, National Board of Review), although Chicago had him as a runner up for Best Actor and LAFCA had him as a runner up for Best Supporting Actor. I think the perception of Martin Landau was that he was a supporting actor. He was just nominated the prior year for Tucker: A Man and His Dreams and he was certainly popular among other actors so this nomination might have been something of a victory lap for him from the community. After looking up the years, it really is odd that he didn’t couldn’t break into Best Actor at either BAFTA or the Golden Globes. The nominees for Best Actor-Drama at the Globes were Cruise, Day-Lewis, Williams, and Al Pacino for Sea of Love and Jack Lemmon for Dad, neither of which have much lasting reputation (although I vaguely recall Sea of Love as a comeback vehicle for Pacino). BAFTA had a weird timeline so it was half-1989/half-1990, but they cited Philippe Noiret for Cinema Paradiso (winner), Tom Cruise, Robert DeNiro for Goodfellas, and Sean Connery for The Hunt for the Red October. That’s not insurmountable competition.

The only chance that Martin Landau might have of breaking into the Best Actor race is if a spot opens up for him which I’m going to discuss in a moment. The Best Actor five of Branagh, Crusie, Day-Lewis, Freeman, and Williams is too tight. Take one of them out, and it’s hard to see who fills it. I’ll ask the elders on this board who is in the running but could Martin Landau get in over Jack Lemmon for Dad or Al Pacino for Sea of Love? That doesn’t sound crazy. For now, I’m going to say his perception as a supporting actor works against him. He is so good in the film that he doesn’t seem to be giving a performance. I vaguely recall some detractors on this board but the story feels like such an extension of Judah’s mental state that it’s easy for him to be viewed as subordinate to Woody Allen’s writing and not the one carrying it. I think there's a reason why the only Best Actor nominee from a Woody Allen movie has been Woody Allen.

Robin Williams is the opposite. The young cast of Dead Poets Society feels so interchangeable that Williams can’t help but stand out as the de facto lead. He is on-screen only for 26.16% of the film’s screen-time making him the second shortest performance in this category (behind Hopkins) since we began. It’s been ages since I’ve seen the film but I have no doubt that if I read this script I would think that Mr. Keating is supporting but that doesn’t quite feel the case on-screen (as well as what’s the big deal). His is such a bigger presence than anyone else in the film. But I’m also working off my memory of the film from years and years prior so I’ll defer to anyone else. I think this is a case of star perception, another inverse of Martin Landau. Robin Williams was a lead actor at that time (a nominee in that category two years prior) so he was only seen in that category. Siskel and Ebert both agreed his was a supporting performance.

I wish I had a fresher memory of the film but because we almost never see Williams outside of the kids' point of view (there's one shot of him crying after learning about what happens to Neil) and doesn't exist outside the classroom, I'm going to say his was probably a supporting performance that was elevated by default, but it's still probably a supporting performance. I welcome discussion on this point.

Had Robin Williams been moved to supporting, I don't think he would have had any trouble getting in and he probably would have won or at the very least put up a tough competition for Denzel Washington. The easiest swap would just be Landau for Williams, but I don't know if it would have played out that way. I think Aeillo and Washington are probably safe. Landau is a question mark. The odd one out would have probably have been Marlon Brando for A Dry White Season or Dan Aykroyd for Driving Miss Daisy. Brando's film was a sole nominee and was barely seen. On the other hand, Aykroyd doesn't seem like he was a widely expected nominee. I don't really remember him having many standout scenes in Driving Miss Daisy, but he was in a Best Picture winner so that has to carry some sway. At this moment, I'll say Aykroyd misses out because it seems like Brando showed up everywhere for his performance, at BAFTA, at the Globes, runner up at the critics. I don't really see Ayrkoyd anywhere.

As for Best Actor... I'm not really sure who would take Williams' spot. Dad and Sea of Love don't feel like strong contenders in this category. Maybe James Spader for sex, lies, and videotape. I'm wondering if Jack Nicholson might have a chance for Batman. It was the most seen film of the year, a very popular performance, and there really is something to playing the Joker apparently.