Recommendations for nominated films 1970-1990

[Reza]

I remember seeing Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams and A Touch of Class about the same time 20 years ago. I actively loathed Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams and actually enjoyed A Touch of Class. If I had to choose between only those two Lead Actresses, I'd simply have to go with Jackson.

Give me a High 5!!

[The Original BJ]

I submit 1976 as possibly their worst-ever lineup. Network, Logan's Run, A Star is Born, King Kong

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! My eyes!

[Penelope]

I remember seeing Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams and A Touch of Class about the same time 20 years ago. I actively loathed Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams and actually enjoyed A Touch of Class. If I had to choose between only those two Lead Actresses, I'd simply have to go with Jackson.

[dws1982]

The branches back then were extremely crony-istic, on a level you can't imagine today -- every year some piece of crud was nominated because the DP was "in the club".

Absolutely. Looking back on it, the 1970s were awkwardly horrible when it came to best cinematography nominees. (How many did Owen Roizman rack up again? Three? Four?)

I submit 1976 as possibly their worst-ever lineup. Network, Logan's Run, A Star is Born, King Kong and the deserving winner, the only decent nominee, Bound For Glory.

I don't begrudge either of his two 1971 nominations--he definitely should've won, probably for The Last Picture Show--but Robert Surtees sure stunk up the joint through too much of the seventies, while his son was usually off doing much more impressive work.

[Mister Tee]

Was there ever any great movement for Tatum O'Neal to compete in the lead category or did her juvenile status naturally qualify her for the supporting trophy? It seems Jackie Cooper might've set a precedent for a lead campaign.

It seemed to me most critics referred to it as a lead performance throughout the year. And many, in their year-end reviews, said what an indictment it was of Hollywood's misuse of actresses that the most praised lead performance of the year had been given by a child. She was nominated in lead/comedy at the Golden Globes (in a grisly preview of things to come, she lost to Glenda Jackson). The first time I knew of the supporting campaign was when I saw the Hollywood trade ads.

[Eric]

The branches back then were extremely crony-istic, on a level you can't imagine today -- every year some piece of crud was nominated because the DP was "in the club".

Absolutely. Looking back on it, the 1970s were awkwardly horrible when it came to best cinematography nominees. (How many did Owen Roizman rack up again? Three? Four?)

[flipp525]

I love bringing everyone out of the woodwork in disgust! I only saw it once and didn't find it that objectionable, just sort of boring. Maybe a rewatch is in order.

Mister Tee, were there any bright spots for you that night? Tatum? Or were you rooting for Sylvia Sydney?

I actually thought the best supporting actress of the year was Madeline Kahn in Paper Moon, and all year long I'd thought she'd win...until Tatum was carpet-bagged into the category, and became the obvious favorite (and a respectable choice).

Was there ever any great movement for Tatum O'Neal to compete in the lead category or did her juvenile status naturally qualify her for the supporting trophy? It seems Jackie Cooper might've set a precedent for a lead campaign.

Madeline Kahn is wonderful alongside her, very true. My second place behind O'Neal would've been Sylvia Sydney.

Joanne Woodward gave the best performance out of that lot of lead actresses and should've won her second gong.



Edited By flipp525 on 1236313308

[Mister Tee]

I love bringing everyone out of the woodwork in disgust! I only saw it once and didn't find it that objectionable, just sort of boring. Maybe a rewatch is in order.

Mister Tee, were there any bright spots for you that night? Tatum? Or were you rooting for Sylvia Sydney?

I actually thought the best supporting actress of the year was Madeline Kahn in Paper Moon, and all year long I'd thought she'd win...until Tatum was carpet-bagged into the category, and became the obvious favorite (and a respectable choice).

With Tatum missing, the best actress field was pitiful. Like Magilla, I thought Woodward was best (by default). And like most everyone, I thought Jackson (who'd been so deserving just three years earlier) was by far least apt to win.

I was an American Graffiti guy for best picture. Didn't care for either the bland Sting or the shoddily-made though effective Exorcist.

John Houseman was my favorite acting winner. But the only award that made me truly cheer was Sven Nykvist's hardly-certain win for cinematography.

[Reza]

But, oh, that performance in that godawful film! It still makes me nauseous just thinking about it.

The Academy probably thought it was now or never to award Lemmon in the lead category.....especially since a comic had suddenly turned very dramatic. Little did they know that there was MUCH more to come in his career, in terms of dramatic roles...The China Syndrome, Missing etc.

[Big Magilla]

I share Tee's disdain for the 1973 Oscars. It was undoubtedly the worst Oscar night I've ever had.

I thought Jackson deserved a nomination only because the competition was lousy, but Joanne Woodward should have won for Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams and Sylvia Sidney should have won in support for that, but I was just as happy to see Tatum O'Neal win.

The most pleasing award of the evening was the supporting actor award to John Houseman for The Paper Chase.

I liked The Sting as an also-ran, but The Exorcist was for me far and away the best picture of the year.

There were several reasons for Lemmon's win that had nothing to do with his performance.

1. He personally "sold" the film, taking it from college campus to college campus before its release, stirring up interest duly noted by the gossip columnists of the day. His fellow actors admired his determination.

2. He appeared obviously drunk at the Golden Globes, temporarily tarnishing his image but made a heartfelt and contrite public apology that was noted in those same gossip columns.

3. He was a long time Hollywood insider whose only Oscar to date was a supporting one (for Mister Roberts) and it was clear he would make a dignified acceptance speech unlike the elbow in the eye one given by Marlon Brando's representative the year before.

But, oh, that performance in that godawful film! It still makes me nauseous just thinking about it.

[Reza]

-- especially just after Glenda Jackson had won for another piece of tripe.

Hey....Bite your tongue!! Don't say anything about THIS performance.

LOL.

I still lament Jackson's retirement.



Edited By Reza on 1236311810

[flipp525]

I love bringing everyone out of the woodwork in disgust! I only saw it once and didn't find it that objectionable, just sort of boring. Maybe a rewatch is in order.

Mister Tee, were there any bright spots for you that night? Tatum? Or were you rooting for Sylvia Sydney?

[Mister Tee]

Make it three thumbs down for Save the Tiger. It was only of its time in the sense that something homophobic would be today -- it was a whiny screed against the counter-culture, a pure expression of Nixon-era middle-class white entitlement. It single-handedly turned me off to Jack Lemmon for the better part of a decade; only his China Syndrome and Missing performances won me halfway back. And to win over Brando, Nicholson and Pacino! -- especially just after Glenda Jackson had won for another piece of tripe. Gad...you've awakened memories of the most painful Oscar night I ever witnessed.

dws has it right about the omission of Willis and Deschanel. Black Stallion had won the LA and National Society cinematography awards (NY wasn't yet giving one), but the cinematography branch omitted both it and Manhattan from the initial compiled list of ten, which they used to release to the trade papers. Somehow, the long-forgotten The Runner Stumbles was included instead. The branches back then were extremely crony-istic, on a level you can't imagine today -- every year some piece of crud was nominated because the DP was "in the club".

Deschanel was at least nominated, deservingly, for The Right Stuff, the same year Willis finally got mentioned, for Zelig.

I'm as enthusiastic as Damien about Nicholson's Last Detail performance. I'd been a bit iffy about Jack up till then, but his Buddusky was pure joy. (Just the other day I was remembering his line reading on "I am giving this broad such a line of shit and she's BUYING it...")

I'll cast a lone vote for The Wings of the Dove, a movie I love for its expansion of Henry James into near James Cain territory. Another director (Iain Softley) who never lived up to his initial promise.

I'd pretty much avoid Equus, too. As I'm sure Damien would agree on pedigree alone.

[Damien]

Which ones should I see first?

The Last Detail and The Rose. Their stars were both robbed of Oscars. (I think Detail is still Nicholson's greatest performance.)

Save The Tiger -- jeez, self-pitying male menopause sludge at its worst.

[Big Magilla]

Anything but Save the Tiger.

Save the Tiger itself is no great shakes, but the acting is terrific. Jack Lemmon's performance as a desperate businessman rivals his similar work years later in Glengary Glen Ross alongside fellow nominee that year, Al Pacino (Serpico). Jack Gilford is heartbreaking as his partner, reluctant to participate in the destruction of their business. The standout scene is Lemmon's meeting with the arsonist. The film is definitely a product of its time and, in that sense, seems rather dated, but I don't begrudge Lemmon's Oscar win at all.

It was not a product of its time. It was a reactionary piece of crap. Lemmon's whiny performance is closer to his heart-on-the-sleeve one he gave in Tribute, not the brilliant one he gave in Glengarry Glen Ross. He and Pacino's Oscars should have been given in reverse. Pacino should have won for Serpico in 1973 and Lemmon should have won for Glengarry in 1992.