Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Yeah, that's silly. I don't know anyone here who changed their judgment of her performance from bad to positive, for fear of being out of sync with the big prizes.

One thing he is right about is a resistance to the idea of Glenn Close winning an Oscar, but for a different reason. I know I've been very vocal about the fact that I didn't think it was going to happen, but it had nothing to do with the calibre of her performance and more to do with observing how the Academy operates these days.

Well, that’s all good and nice, Sabin, but Marco specifically said that people on this Board were “rooting” for Gaga to win and I haven’t seen that anywhere here, not even from the rando drive-by type posters with no posting history. Predicting her to win at the Globes is not “rooting for her.”

I’m not really sure how your post counters anything I said.

flipp525 wrote
Oh, and also, ITALIANO, I’d love for you to cite one single person on this Board (along with their post) who has stated that Lady Gaga should win Best Actress this year. It, quite simply, hasn’t happened.

I don't want to speak for Marco, but I think we can all agree that this message board isn't the norm. Most forums at this point are a bunch of hyped up fan-boys and girls. Even the youngest among us here would seem septuagenarian anyplace else. So, if Marco is responding to the social media fandom (which is American) as a whole for Lady Gaga to win the Oscar, he wouldn't be wrong. She's not a serious actor, which in and of itself is not a disqualifier, and her performance is not that good. It would be nice if he differentiated us from the rest of the herd, but in an age where Lady Gaga loses the Golden Globe and Twitter erupts in outrage that they honored Glenn Close -- and many had never heard of her before -- I think we all have something to be ashamed of.

Oh, and also, ITALIANO, I’d love for you to cite one single person on this Board (along with their post) who has stated that Lady Gaga should win Best Actress this year. It, quite simply, never happened.

MaxWilder wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:I know, but she might have referred to [Redford] in her speech.

I think you're reading too much into this. When you're shocked to win an award, the walk to the podium is a weird experience. Were both Bridges and Douglas on a straight line from her seat to the stage? Moreover, she wasn't giving a lifetime-achievement speech. I don't think Redford should feel slighted.

By the way, how is the Oscar-less one the Katharine Hepburn in this analogy?

I'm sure no one feels slighted. Redford probably couldn't care less about such things. As I said, it was a momentary thought.

Awards aside, Davis and Hepburn had the longest careers at the top of any of their contemporaries. Streep and Close have that distinction among theirs with the possible exception of Helen Mirren who I would call the Barbara Stanwyck of her generation for comparison's sake.

Big Magilla wrote:I know, but she might have referred to [Redford] in her speech.

I think you're reading too much into this. When you're shocked to win an award, the walk to the podium is a weird experience. Were both Bridges and Douglas on a straight line from her seat to the stage? Moreover, she wasn't giving a lifetime-achievement speech. I don't think Redford should feel slighted.

By the way, how is the Oscar-less one the Katharine Hepburn in this analogy?

flipp525 wrote:What is a “big” Oscar nominated role? That doesn’t even make any sense. An Oscar nomination for whatever film is “big” by its very nature. And I would argue that that was big by virtue of the fact that it was her first nomination since 1989. It’s fine. You forgot she was nominated recently. Just admit it and move on.

I can show you my IMDb history at the time I wrote that, if you like. The "big" qualifier is proof I did know there was another nomination; otherwise I would've said "hasn't been nominated in 30 years."

Fatal Attraction was a massive hit ($156 million--in 1987 dollars). It introduced "bunny boiler" to the lexicon and will be referenced in pop culture 'til the end of time. That's "big."

Albert Nobbs made $3 million and even the human databases here forget about it. Not big.

Imagine one Oscar voter saying to another, "Can you believe she didn't win for [X]?" Which of the two will fill in that blank? Which loss will nudge that voter to picking Close this year? That's what I'm getting at.

It was a momentary thought which I did say probably had nothing to do with it.

I also thought Gaga's congratulations had a little "I forgive you for beating me" to it but I didn't want to go there. Oops, I just did, didn't I?

Big Magilla wrote:I thought it was interesting that Close chose to stop by Fatal Attraction co-star Michael Douglas's table on her way to the podium at the Globes, but not her Jagged Edge co-star Jeff Bridges' table. Nor did she mention Globe nominee Robert Redford, her co-star in The Natural for which she received what I think was her only undeserved previous nomination. It probably had nothing to do with it, but I couldn't help thinking that the gesture of kissing Douglas while ignoring Bridges and Redford was her way of noting who was important in her career and who wasn't.

Magilla, I love you, but give me a fucking break. She was in total shock. Michael Douglas happened to be sitting nearby (in the nosebleeds) and she shared a moment with him which was really wonderful. I hardly think she was calculating whose table to stop by on her way to the stage or who to mention and who not to mention in her speech. This are complete fantasy-land musings and I think you know that (or should).

I also hate seeing Melissa McCarthy seemed an “also-ran” in a race where she gives, perhaps, the strongest performance and who very well could become a dark horse winner in this category at the end of the day.

MaxWilder wrote:

Precious Doll wrote:I think Max may have omitted that nomination because the film was met with such a lukewarm critical response and tepid box office. Though I felt Close (and McTeer) deserved their nominations but they had a sense of 'filler' to them.

You got it, 100/100. I did say her 'last big Oscar-nominated role' was 30 years ago. Albert Nobbs is as minor as it gets, remembered mainly by the hardest of hard-core Oscar trivia buffs.

What is a “big” Oscar nominated role? That doesn’t even make any sense. An Oscar nomination for whatever film is “big” by its very nature. And I would argue that that was big by virtue of the fact that it was her first nomination since 1989. It’s fine. You forgot she was nominated recently. Just admit it and move on.

mlrg wrote:Magilla, Redford was not present at the ceremony.

I know, but she might have referred to him in her speech.

Magilla, Redford was not present at the ceremony.

While it's true most of Close's films have been underwhelming, she is still her generation's Katharine Hepburn to Meryl Streep's Bette Davis. Her TV work, particularly in Damages (2007-2012) and her Broadway triumphs, particularly in Sunset Boulevard (1994 and again in 2017), have kept her in the public eye hoping for another big screen triumph which we now realize will probably never come, making her good performance in a less than compelling work the probable last chance to honor her with a long-overdue Oscar.

As I've said, last year against Frances McDormand she wouldn't have stood a chance. This year against an interesting if imperfect field she has her best shot ever.

Her best work was in The World According to Garp, Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons but in those years she up against stronger narratives - the double-nominated Jessica Lange, the multi-talented, let's admit she's really a good actress Cher and the resurrected career of genius child actress Jodie Foster. This year she is the narrative for those who are not wildly enthusiastic about giving an Oscar to a pop goddess in what may turn out to be her only film. Olivia Colman, Melissa McCarthy and whoever else they choose to run against her, are clear also-rans.

I thought it was interesting that Close chose to stop by Fatal Attraction co-star Michael Douglas's table on her way to the podium at the Globes, but not her Jagged Edge co-star Jeff Bridges' table. Nor did she mention Globe nominee Robert Redford, her co-star in The Natural for which she received what I think was her only undeserved previous nomination. It probably had nothing to do with it, but I couldn't help thinking that the gesture of kissing Douglas while ignoring Bridges and Redford was her way of noting who was important in her career and who wasn't.

Precious Doll wrote:I think Max may have omitted that nomination because the film was met with such a lukewarm critical response and tepid box office. Though I felt Close (and McTeer) deserved their nominations but they had a sense of 'filler' to them.

You got it, 100/100. I did say her 'last big Oscar-nominated role' was 30 years ago. Albert Nobbs is as minor as it gets, remembered mainly by the hardest of hard-core Oscar trivia buffs.

ITALIANO wrote:

MaxWilder wrote: Her last big Oscar-nominated role was 30 years ago!

Yes, but you see - this is also a very American way of thinking. Because in Europe for those who are into movies (and of course when it comes to awards, you must only consider those who are into the field which that award deals with - would you ask people in the street what they think of potential Nobel Prize in Physics winners?) 30 years ago is like yesterday. Because history - even film history - is very important, and actually (again: at least in Euope) it increases a star's reputation rather than damaging it.

Oscar voters are mostly American, true - but they also are into movies, they work or used to work in movies. And they aren't exactly very young either. So I don't understand how that fact that Glenn Close hasn't been in a hit movie recently can damage her Oscar chances.

Whilst Glenn Close has worked steadily for nearly 40 years now an awful lot of her film roles have been largely pedestrain and box office failures. Take her Marquise de Merteuil from Dangerous Liaisons & Alex Forrest (Fatal Attraction) out of the mix and I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people saying she is overdue or successful.

She's great in Fatal Attraction, a fun pulp slasher film - actually she elevates it to something better because 1) she is cast against type 2) it a great scene sealing villain role (something still rare for women) 3) she posses the acting chops to pull it off. As much as I fear and disliked Alex and also felt a great deal of sympathy for her. She wasn't some one dimensional nut job.

I enjoyed it back in 1987 and to my great surprise I enjoyed it just as much last year, the first time I had seen the film since it cinema release. I was surprised how well the film held up and most of that was due to Glenn Close. But it doesn't change the fact the film is pretty trashy. Very entertainingly so and Close is excellent in it but its not by any means a major work - only a showcase for Close.

She has had a couple of roles that she has excelled in most notably The World According to Garp, Immediate Family, Meeting Venus, The House of the Spirits (oh but what a shitty film that one is) and Albert Knobbs.

Close had the misfortune of debuting too late, missing the golden era (1970s) for America Cinema. But regardless with seven nominations she is seen as overdue and a case for missing out on a previous win (Dangerous Liaisons most notably - Jodie Foster really doesn't warrant two Oscars) are justifiably.

I just wish she was winning for something better than The Wife. She'll join that list along with Al Pacino of - one for the wrong film!

flipp525 wrote:

Her last big Oscar-nominated role was 30 years ago!

No it wasn’t. Glenn Close was nominated for Best Actress for Albert Nobbs in 2012, losing to Meryl Streep for her horrid turn in execrable The Iron Lady.

I think Max may have omitted that nomination because the film was met with such a lukewarm critical response and tepid box office. Though I felt Close (and McTeer) deserved their nominations but they had a sense of 'filler' to them.