ksrymy wrote:I accidentally voted for McDormand, and I'm kicking myself for it now. Who I really meant to vote for was Michelle Pfeiffer. None of the other roles are extraordinary and most (i.e. Weaver) seem to fit the actress's own persona. As I'm hoping most of you know, virtuousness is one of the most difficult roles an actor can play. It's easy to play the slut or the bad guy, etc. but Pfeiffer truly embodies virtue in Dangerous Liaisons. Her early refusal of Valmont is great but it does not compare to her acting in the second half of the film. Her absolute conviction and guilt in love and seduction blew me away. The strongest candidate this year. The BAFTA got this right.
Old Ryan was such a fucking dork. Looking at who should’ve won this year, it’s clearly Sigourney Weaver (who is, after all, her).
But, in reality, the best supporting female performance of the year is Clare Higgins in Hellbound: Hellraiser II who is drama and camp and wit all in one. And also a vast improvement on her performance from the first entry.
01. Clare Higgins, Hellbound: Hellraiser II
02. Mercedes Ruehl, Married to the Mob
03. Julieta Serrano, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
04. Sandy Dennis, Another Woman
05. Sigourney Weaver, Working Girl
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
I accidentally voted for McDormand, and I'm kicking myself for it now. Who I really meant to vote for was Michelle Pfeiffer. None of the other roles are extraordinary and most (i.e. Weaver) seem to fit the actress's own persona. As I'm hoping most of you know, virtuousness is one of the most difficult roles an actor can play. It's easy to play the slut or the bad guy, etc. but Pfeiffer truly embodies virtue in Dangerous Liaisons. Her early refusal of Valmont is great but it does not compare to her acting in the second half of the film. Her absolute conviction and guilt in love and seduction blew me away. The strongest candidate this year. The BAFTA got this right.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Damien wrote:Because I can't imagine reading the book before seeing the film that you could envision the character being the beautiful (in an off beat way) Geena Davis, and not a frump.
Mary Poppins, as created by P.L. Travers, had nothing to do with her representation on screen. And have you ever seen the real Maria Von Trapp? That Andrews woman must have been dreadful for not being even slightly as unglamorous as the characters she was suppose to portray were.
Julie Andrews is an Axiom of the Cinema, and you'll score no points by comparing her to the mere people she portrayed on screen.
There is no way for me but to humbly accept these eternal words of wisdom.
Damien wrote:Because I can't imagine reading the book before seeing the film that you could envision the character being the beautiful (in an off beat way) Geena Davis, and not a frump.
Mary Poppins, as created by P.L. Travers, had nothing to do with her representation on screen. And have you ever seen the real Maria Von Trapp? That Andrews woman must have been dreadful for not being even slightly as unglamorous as the characters she was suppose to portray were.
Julie Andrews is an Axiom of the Cinema, and you'll score no points by comparing her to the mere people she portrayed on screen.
"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
flipp525 wrote:Damien, The Accidental Tourist (the novel) was published in 1985 when I was seven years old; the film came three years later. I read the novel after I had already seen the film, but I still think that Davis was inspired casting for the role of Muriel Pritchett. Honestly, I try not to get too hung up on the idea that characters in film adaptations don’t look enough like so-called regular people—it’ll just give you a headache.
In her defense, I thought that Davis perfectly captured the loneliness and yearning for human contact behind Muriel’s more obvious “quirkiness”, one of the main reasons that the performance is so successful.
Flip, I knew you were a little kid when the novel was published, but there are plent of old books I've read before seeing the film adaptation (For Whom The Bell Tolls), so I just wondered if the reading came before the viewing for you.
It's not so much a question of looks but of sensibility. The manner in which Muriel was portrayed in the film simply contrasted sharply with my perception of her, and much to the detriment of the movie. But then I think every aspect of the film is off.
"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
Damien wrote:Because I can't imagine reading the book before seeing the film that you could envision the character being the beautiful (in an off beat way) Geena Davis, and not a frump.
Mary Poppins, as created by P.L. Travers, had nothing to do with her representation on screen. And have you ever seen the real Maria Von Trapp? That Andrews woman must have been dreadful for not being even slightly as unglamorous as the characters she was suppose to portray were.
Damien wrote:Flipp, I'm just curious if you, and the other Davis fans, saw her in the film before reading the novel or vice-versa. Because I can't imagine reading the book before seeing the film that you could envision the character being the beautiful (in an off beat way) Geena Davis, and not a frump.
Damien, The Accidental Tourist (the novel) was published in 1985 when I was seven years old; the film came three years later. I read the novel after I had already seen the film, but I still think that Davis was inspired casting for the role of Muriel Pritchett. Honestly, I try not to get too hung up on the idea that characters in film adaptations don’t look enough like so-called regular people—it’ll just give you a headache.
In her defense, I thought that Davis perfectly captured the loneliness and yearning for human contact behind Muriel’s more obvious “quirkiness”, one of the main reasons that the performance is so successful.
Edited By flipp525 on 1286986114
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Uri wrote:The key to Weaver's effectiveness in WG is her built in persona, not necessarily her acting – she is physically imposing, off handily aristocratic and she's a good sport in accepting the fun poked at her. It's entertaining, but not much more.
Screen acting is, in many ways, a mysterious thing. It's unlike stage acting where it's more obvious if someone is good or bad, but what you see is what you get and its more difficult to know if it's based on skill, technique, presence, editing, or something else. All I know is Weaver is perfect in Working Girl.
Flipp, I'm just curious if you, and the other Davis fans, saw her in the film before reading the novel or vice-versa. Because I can't imagine reading the book before seeing the film that you could envision the character being the beautiful (in an off beat way) Geena Davis, and not a frump.
"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
From Tee's post I understand my help is needed. I'm voting for Davis too. I'm happy to learn there are so many people here who are not repressed enough to be able to relate to The Accidental Tourist. I am, and I was totally bewildered by Davis' Muriel. And yes, her win was a very welcome surprise (even though back then I wasn't able to see it live).
The key to Weaver's effectiveness in WG is her built in persona, not necessarily her acting – she is physically imposing, off handily aristocratic and she's a good sport in accepting the fun poked at her. It's entertaining, but not much more. And in a way, it's the same with Pfeiffer – she is so achingly beautiful, she just had to be shot teary eyed and her job is done. There is nothing wrong with her in DL, she's even quite good, but it's not her greatest achievement ever. And she had much more to do and did it brilliantly that year in Married to the Mob.
On the other hand, it was quite exciting to be introduced to two actresses I didn't really know back then. When I first saw Broadcast News I had no idea who Cusack was. My first thought was – this actress looks like the guy from Natty Gann with a wig. And then I saw her name and I did the math. And I was thrilled to find her in WG. And she was much more than a peripheral sidekick there. She's the one who make us realize what a huge leap Griffith is making. And she was lovely doing it.
I agree with most off the people her in their contempt for Mississippi Burning, but even there it was clear what a fine actress MacDormand was. It was the first time I was aware of her and I was impressed. And as was the case with Cusack, from then on she became someone I was always thrilled to see.
It's a shame Venora and Ruhl were excluded, as were other who were mentioned her. I'll add Elisabeth Perkins, who was good in Big, a movie I'm very fond of.
Well, this is a rarity: the mistake I was thrilled Oscar avoided being made here.
Let me start by saying I think this was a very strong year for the category, well beyond the nominees. My first, overwhelming choice would be Lena Olin in The Unbearable Lightness of Being -- a glorious, sexy/smart performance that blew me away. Pretty close behind would come NY winner Diane Venora in Bird -- overlooked because the film tanked, even though she was firmly in the supportive spouse mode so popular in the category.
Beyond those two, I'd also cite Martha Plimpton in Running on Empty, Jodhi May in A World Apart, Barbara Hershey in Last Temptation of Christ, and Kathy Baker in Clean and Sober. Any of these would have been eminently deserving nominees. (I'm interested, by the way, at the lack of widespead mention for Mercedes Ruehl in Married to the Mob. I disliked her work, but she was highly touted by many critics at the time)
I also don't object violently to any of the actual nominees -- but, now as then, I'm puzzled why so many gravitate toward Weaver. I think she's the least distinguished of the bunch. First off, as always, I hate the idea of big name stars slumming in support. But, beyond that, a) I think Working Girl is a flimsy, barely amusing vehicle and b) what fun it provides is generated mostly by Melanie Giriffith and, if you must choose someone in support, Cusack. I don't find Weaver's work distinguished in the least -- the part was rote, and her execution of it nothing special. I've touted Weaver in a couple of best actress runs -- Gorillas and, at least as nominee, A Map of the World -- but I found neither this nor her loudly supported (even if ultimately not nominated) performance in The Ice Storm of much interest.
Mississippi Burning was in many ways a shockingly bad movie -- a liberal variation on the Dirty Harry/Death Wish template, built on an utterly false rendition of history. But if there's any life in it, it's in the Hackman/McDormand scenes. I actually thought at the time that if anyone had a chance at toppling Weaver (a supposedly certain winner based on her double-nomination) it was McDormand. I think she does a fine job, though (properly) without the comic inspiration of much of her later work.
Pfeiffer had a great year -- Tequila Sunrise, Married to the Mob and Dangerous Liaisons. I thought she was at by far her best in Mob, but there was no way she was going to crack that competitive best actress field. Besides, Hollywood seemed to prefer the beautiful actress in the period movie...though I'd argue all her best performances have had a touch of working class in them (Baker Boys, Frankie and Johnny and Mob). She's perfectly good in Liaisons, but I'd never have voted for her.
I've never read Accidental Tourist, but I had read Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant prior to seeing Kasdan's film. I thought the film was wildly schizophrenic. Pretty much everything involving Kathleen Turner seemed off the mark: she didn't seem to have a clue how to play the scenes, and the last half hour (prior to Davis' reappearance) was like death warmed over. But...I thought everything to do with the family, and every scene involving Geena Davis, absolutely evoked the sensibility I'd picked up from Homesick Restaurant -- funny in an oddball, grin-don't-laugh way. I loved Davis' performance -- best of this bunch, easily -- but I thought a film so off-center would find very tough sledding at the Oscars. So, I place myself with flipp: her win was one of the happiest surprise moments I've ever experienced at the Oscars, and I'm delighted to make the (apparently quixotic) effort to replicate her feat here.
Surprisingly, I've seen all five nominees but almost a decade has transpired since I've revisited them, or at least long enough so that I don't realize it hasn't been a decade.
Working Girl felt like such a minor thing when I saw it that I was astonished it beat out such a stronger comedy like Bull Durham. I guess when you revisit Oscar films some years after their release, you can't take into account something like release dates. I thought Joan Cusack was a riot, and Sigourney Weaver was perfectly fine. Speaking of minor, The Accidental Tourist left little in my memory. I remember thinking that Geena Davis was fine in it. I can see how a double punch of BeetleJuice and this AND a December release can lead to winning.
Mississippi Burning is a pretty bad film, but Frances McDormand is very good in it. I don't know what this nomination immediately did for her career, considering that it would be eight years until her hubby got off his ass and wrote her the part of Marge Gundersson, but she is certainly the best part of this film.
I'll go for Michelle Pfeiffer. Dangerous Liaisons is the only good film nominated in this category and Pfeiffer plays the fullest character of the lineup. She gets my vote in a year devoid of nominations for Dead Ringers and the wonderful Genvieve Bujold.
I also voted for Geena. Flipp, that look on her face at the end of the film was beautiful (would also make a background for my desktop. I'm sure it is out there). I also loved the scene in which she chews out Hurt when he offers to pay for a private school for her son. I was surprised by that mother protecting her cub anger but it fit her character perfectly. It was also a well written and delivered speech that said a lot about her character's intelligence and common sense.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
