Page 1 of 3
Re: Best Supporting Actress 1998
Posted: Sun May 14, 2023 12:16 am
by Moviesandpizza
I always liked the line in Little voice where Mari said “that’s me Telly” “that’s me phone” corny or whatever but I liked it! And she’s brutally verbally attacked at the end! So has a reaction to that.
I was a big fan of the Beloved cast! So much so that I would have nominated all of Kimberly Elise, Thandiwe Newton and Beah Richards!
I really enjoyed the women of Elizabeth too. Kathy Burke and Fanny Ardant.
The Opposite of Sex just didn’t do any business. And it wasn’t like it was a December prestige release. It was a indie summer release that tanked. The intensity of the good reviews for Kudrow didn’t lead to enough critics awards.
Bates is great I always enjoyed Larry Hagman more!
Griffiths is excellent
Dench steals the movie
Re: Best Supporting Actress 1998
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:28 pm
by nightwingnova
Blethyn does well with what she needs to do.
Bates is a hoot - a nice welcome grenade of very good acting.
Re: Best Supporting Actress 1998
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:55 am
by bizarre
My choices:
1. Lisa Kudrow, in "The Opposite of Sex"
2. Patricia Clarkson, in "High Art"
3. Rachel Griffiths, in "Hilary and Jackie"
4. Jane Adams, in "Happiness"
5. Marisa Tomei, in "Slums of Beverly Hills"
ALT: Laure Marsac, in "Secret Defense"
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:28 pm
by Hustler
Griffith didn´t make an impressive work in Hilary... She should have been nominated for Muriel´s Wedding.
Bates shined in Primary Colors. Perhaps the best performance from this year´s lineup.
Dench is always great. As Page used to be. But I would have prefered her win playing a more challenging role.
Blethyn was good, far from her exquisit work in Secret and Lies, and looked cartonish.
And finally Redgrave in an extremely interesting character. My vote goes to her.
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:26 am
by Greg
The Original BJ wrote:(Irrelevant fact: Rachel Griffiths once nearly ran me over on her bicycle while riding around the Disney lot.)
You did that completely wrong. When you get nearly run over on a studio lot, it is supposed to be by a studio executive in a limo while you are carrying a script you just finished.
Edited By Greg on 1290184019
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:54 am
by Uri
ITALIANO wrote:I have never forgotten her face - like a question mark about life -
What a beautiful (and correct) metaphor. I was occupied elsewhere the last few days, so I'll second your assessments as far as the five nominated performances are concerned (I'm not going to make this a habit, I'd love to disagree with you next time), but I'm voting for Bates – I like her a lot and this is the only time I can vote for her and Griffith is on my best actress list for this year (instead of Watson – see, I promised).
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:46 pm
by ITALIANO
I love Americans, but I realize that I will never understand them. 
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:27 pm
by The Original BJ
ITALIANO wrote:Should we expect now even Jennifer Hudson to triumph? I'm starting to think it could happen.
Just you wait! 
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:23 pm
by ITALIANO
Brenda Blethyn - over the top and not enjoably so.
Lynn Redgrave - absolutely unimpressive. Should we expect now even Jennifer Hudson to triumph? I'm starting to think it could happen. And Bill Condon, by the way, CAN be good with actors (Laura Linney in Kinsey for example), but honoring him through this performance is a mistake. He can do - and did - better than this. (Redgrave, of course, had been much better, too).
Judi Dench is solid as always in Shakespeare in Love, and quite entertaining, but it's really not much more than a (good) cameo.
It's between Kathy Bates and Rachel Griffiths for me. And while Bates's is probably her best nominated performance and she's excellent in a very strong supporting role - I don't remember much else about her movie but I certainly remember her - my vote goes to Griffiths. Emily Watson has the showiest part, and plays it extremely well, as I expected. What I couldnt expect, because I still didnt know her, is how powerful Griffiths is in a role which was probably even more difficult, if only because less loud. I haven't seen this actress in many other movies, and I have never seen anything she's done on tv, but I have never forgotten her face - like a question mark about life - and her beautiful, subtle acting - never, since that rainy afternoon in London, the first and only time I saw this movie, eleven years ago.
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:02 pm
by Snick's Guy
My top five in order:
1) Chloe Sevingy in The Last Days Of Disco
2) Lisa Kudrow in The Opposite Of Sex
3) Patricia Clarkson in High Art
4) Rachel Griffiths in Hilary And Jackie
5) Joan Allen in Pleasantville
Runner Up: Lynn Redgrave in Gods and Monsters
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:35 am
by Sabin
My choices:
1. Lisa Kudrow, The Opposite of Sex
2. Kimberly Elise, Beloved
3. Olivia Williams, Rushmore
4. Patricia Clarkson, High Art
5. Joan Allen, Pleasantville
I vote for the lead. Rachel Griffiths.
This was a great year for strong supporting female performances, none of whom were nominated. I think Lynn Redgrave comes the closest if only for her commitment to embracing and yet transcending caricature (much like Martin Landau in Ed Wood) but honestly I just don't think she's given a ton to do. Dench is fine but she can do this in her sleep. The same is true of Bates. Both are foregone conclusion nominees...and performances. Rachel Griffiths benefits from me for being my first exposure to this randy ugly duckling talent. She gets my vote without much hesitation outside of the fact that she's clearly a lead.
Just as Bill Murray wuz robbed, Lisa Kudrow wuz robbed. Lucia de Lury could verbally eviscerate every performance this year...Queen Elizabeth included. It's not hard to see what went wrong here: 1) Nobody saw it, and 2) Those who did were put off. Done. I'd bet money that there were five other performances that finished before Kudrow en route to a nomination. And the year's other grand supporting female performances by Joan Allen, Kimberly Elise, and Olivia Williams probably didn't look like acting either. I wouldn't be surprised if the voters who actually saw High Art thought that Patricia Clarkson was German and therefore not acting.
This was Miramax's big year. Perhaps their biggest blunder was not pushing Michael Caine for Best Supporting Actor. He absolutely could have won in this lineup.
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:04 am
by Kova
I remember finding Blethyn amusing, but incapable of creating anything resembling a human being. It was certainly ironic that she received the only nomination for a film that seemed like a vehicle for Caine and Horrocks.
Redgrave was a very good actress, and she nails the accent in G&M. But I was underwhelmed by the film at the time, and I found her character arc-less (I haven't seen it in over 10 years, so maybe I am not remembering clearly). I thought she was actually more affecting in her one scene in Condon's Kinsey.
There's a lot to admire in Dench's work, but this role is well within her skill range. She even commented that she was aware that this win was a make-up award for Mrs. Brown.
I enjoyed Primary Colors, and Bates is very memorable. I just find that "loud" Kathy Bates is pretty much the same, movie to movie.
My vote goes to Griffiths, who has several moving moments in H&J, none moreso than when she holds her shaking sister at the end of the film.
More consideration should have been given to Thandie Newton and Kimberly Elise from Beloved (a mess of a film, but not an uninteresting one) and Joan Allen for her remarkably expressive face in Pleasantville.
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:07 pm
by FilmFan720
I voted for Kathy Bates, won't complain about Lynn Redgrave leading the pack, can't complain that Judi Dench won an Oscar for this role, like Rachel Griffiths but she is a lead and find Blethyn just as appalling as everyone else. Joan Allen is the most sorely missed nominee, in what may be her greatest screen performance.
No one has yet mentioned Laura Linney in The Truman Show, one of my favorites in this category this year.
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:11 pm
by Bruce_Lavigne
As often, I find myself with little to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said. I'll echo the ideas that Joan Allen and Lisa Kudrow were a lot better than any of the nominees, Blethyn was pretty terrible, and Griffiths was lead.
Dench was very good in her limited screen time; in fact, her performance is the only thing about Shakespeare in Love of which I have a mostly positive (as opposed to neutral) impression.
Bates was a top-tier scene-stealer in a movie that's better than its source material but still not all that great.
Redgrave imbued a stock role with humor and depth in a good movie.
I could go with any one of these three; I like them all about equally. When I've got two or more performances of relatively equal merit to choose between, I generally go with the one that's in the best movie. In this case, that's Redgrave by a fairly substantial margin, so Redgrave it is.
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:59 pm
by Damien
Mister Tee wrote:flipp525 wrote:Mister Tee wrote:Another, minor TV connection: Lee Grant was starring in a short-lived TV series called Fay between the release of Shampoo and her Oscar win. What's notable about this is, the show was cancelled after only a few episodes (routine today, but pretty shocking back then), and Grant went on The Tonight Show loudly venting about the program director of (I believe) NBC. Grant might well have won that year, anyway, on career points, but some felt the sympathy she generated over this incident helped in her Oscar quest.
Why was it such a shock for a show to be cancelled after only a few episodes?
And, yes, Damien, Grant was nominated for an Emmy for "Fay" in '76.
Because life was much slower then. Shows were routinely given time to prove themselves -- a half or full season; sometimes even more (The Dick van Dyke Show, a decade earlier, had been a ratings dud most of its first season, but gradually caught on, and stuck around long enough to become a top ten show). The quick shiv has of course become standard issue today, but was newsworthily rare in 1975.
Cheers is another show that started very slowly, but because the critics loved it, NBC stayed with it. That would probably never happen today.
In the late 60s, a Laugh-In rip-off called Turn On got the boot after a single airing -- it was a total shockeroo, as such things just didn't happen. I was sad because the great New York kids-TV host Chuck McCann was on it