Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

So far, I think this has been the hardest choice for me.

I recetly rewatched Dead Poets Society, a personal favorite back in the 90's... it doesn't hold up as I would have wanted, guess I have changed. Williams is good, very good actually. The pace of the film, the story and its "Hallmark" quality seems questionables now... but to my teenagers eyes this was a captivating film. In this recent rewatch I still do like Williams but he comes 5th... or 4th...

The 4th (or 5th, depending on my mood and my memory of the film) is Cruise, who tries too hard, all the time, and the fact that it is so apparent to the camera ain't a good thing. For my taste, "Intensity" for its own sake is an emotion for the lazy actor... His is in no way a restrained performance but the main faults of the film aren't his, but Stone's. At least Cruise manage to create an articulated character with a soul through this heavy chaos...

The next three are on another level, and they are impressive to say the least.

Day-Lewis created a character for the ages. Christy Brown feels incredibly earthly, so immediate, so near beyond the great stunt to portray the dissability. That's his achievmente... His performance goes way beyond the tragic faces and body postures and he actually gives us a troubled very human character that is a masterful creation. Through most of my life, I have switched him intermitently with Freeman when considering who deserved this award.

But then this year I saw Henry V, another film I regret not seeing before. And I loved almost every single thing from that film... Branagh blew my mind off. And yes, his directorial effort is one of gigantic proportions, so tasteful, so pitch-perfect in creating the right timing, the right rythm... but his acting is at least on par with that job. His entrance in the film has to be one of the greatest entrances ever in movie history! He had the perfect "reading of lines" cause yes, that's how they felt... but they were perfect allthesame. So right now he comes... second.

Cause even though I have displaced Day-Lewis to a close third, Freeman still wins this. Driving Miss Daisy is far from my favorites films for so many reasons. But it is one I can rewatch and rewatch just to be in awe watching both Tandy and Freeman, doing that exceptional work with those characters.

Of this bunch Daniel Day-Lewis is my choice. Its a brave, unsentimental performance avoids the tiresomely obvious showboating of, say, Hoffman's Rain Man and suggests a real character under the method. Shame the equally excellent Hugh O'Conor wasn't also singled out for his performance as the young Christy - one of the more remarkable child performances of the era, merging seamlessly with the older incarnation and its hard to imagine the one working without the other. A shame the film around them is uneven and unadventurous.

My best actor choice would be Martin Landau, shamefully pushed into the wrong category (and thereby denying a nomination for a never-better Alan Alda from the same film). Possibly the richest, most complex performance ever directed by Woody Allen, Landau deserved to be in the top category.

1. Martin Landau in Crimes and Misdemeanours
2. Matt Dillon in Drugstore Cowboy
3. Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot
4. John Cusack in Say Anything…
5. Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy

This is one of those Awards that always gets my blood boiling every time I think about it.

I think Morgan Freeman gives one of the all-time greatest film performances in Driving Miss Daisy. He is so incredibly nuanced, managing to have his character stay true in temperament to the era covered by the film while still maintaining a great deal of believable dignity. Plus, it’s a performance tinged with some sweet humor around the edges. His changes in vocal projection and physical gait as the years pass is tremendously subtle. It’s a simply beautiful performance.

Daniel Day-Lewis got down his character’s handicap but not much else. He does have a few moments of rage and of tenderness but this is the kind of show-off performance that is all to frequently mistaken for great acting. And the guy can overact hideously even when he’s immobile. No way should he have won. I wish he had just gone away after My Beautiful Laundrette and then we would be left with the memory of his one glorious performance.

Of course it would have been worse if Tom Cruise had won. I’m like Born On The Fourth of July a great deal, and I suppose I’m glad Cruise took the role because the movie probably wouldn’t have ben made without him. But he’s an inept actor, and his line readings are consistently missing the mark, so he never feels like he’s actually Ron Kovic. Cruise tries awfully hard, but the requisite talent just isn’t there.

Kenneth Branagh is wonderful in Henry V. It’s a riveting charismatic, perfectly rendered job of acting (even if I don’t find Prince Hal to be one of Shakespeare’s more interesting characters) and his way with the play's language is thrilling.

Robin Williams does a good job of presenting a toned-down Robin Williams stand-up act in Dead Poets Society, but even a toned down Robin Williams is not terribly appropriate for his character (even though he is fun to watch). Besides, Dead Poets Society belongs to Ethan Hawke.

My Own Top 5:
1. Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy
2. John Hurt in Scandal
3. Paul Newman in Blaze
4. Kenneth Branagh in Henry V
5. John Ritter in Skin Deep

Well, this roster seems invalidated with the absence of James Spader, who stands pretty much heads over the rest of the lineup.

It's funny, for a roster that I think pretty highly of, and in a year where I probably would have nominated 3 of these performances myself, I just can't really get excited about any of them. None of these are the actor's finest work (except maybe Branagh, who just hasn't gotten chances like this again), but they are all very good performances.

The only person to throw out of here is Robin Williams, who can't escape his ridiculous and horrendous film and succumbs to every bad acting choice he makes so frequently.

I am surprised to hear people so negative about Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July. He is normally an actor I can't stand (I would never even consider him in any of his other nominations), so maybe that is why I was so shocked at how effective he is in this film. Lost in all the discussions about the content and style of his films, it is often forgotten how good with actors Oliver Stone can be, and the fine work that he can get out of people even when you don't expect it. His films are riddled with great performances, and here he uses/coaches Cruise to closer to a rounded, arced character than I have seen in any other film.

In the end here, I voted for Morgan Freeman. I like My Left Foot and Born on the Fourth of July more than Driving Miss Daisy (everything that is quaint about that play, which seems so tender when there are only a few chairs and great actors), and you can't question that Morgan Freeman could play this part in his sleep, but he is so good, and this will be my only chance to vote for one of our really great actors (who needs another great role soon). Day-Lewis can wait...although I might not vote for him at a later point, but I would be happier seeing him go Oscarless than Freeman.

Well, since no one else followed up BJ's original question -- find a five-for-five match for film/director among actresses -- I did.

My first instinct was 1977, the original Year of the Woman. And, yep, all five best actress nominees came from best picture contenders. Though, like '64 for men, it required one film to supply two nominees.

And that is the ONLY time it's happened in the five-films-nominated era. If you go back to the earlier 10-12 period, you can claim '34, '39 and '40.

There were a few other years -- '50, '51, '58 and '65 -- where four of the actress nominees matched the spec. But again there are far more cases of that among men: 10, including as recently as 2004.

This really comes as no surprise to long-time Oscar watchers. It's long been clear that films with strong male performances are far more likely to be best picture contenders than those dominated by women.

The 1966 best actor race does remain singular: the only time a leading acting category offered a one-to-one match for the best picture category. That was one of my earliest Oscar-following years -- only the second year I knew the nominees on nominations day, rather than just prior to the ceremony. I certainly noted the fact of the match, but I had no idea it would prove to be such a unique occurrence.

OscarGuy wrote:It's much lower, BJ. I've often marveled at how Best Actress has the higher chance of finding orphan nominees (the film's only nomination) as compared to Actor which has more frequent correlation with Best Picture. Hell, even the Supporting races have a tendency to align better with Best Picture than Best Actress does. Of course, this is observational, not supported by actual data as I haven't written things down, but I'm sure if you did the math you'd discover that I'm close to being right.

I just did the math. You guys are right. The Best Actor nominees co-relate the most to the best Picture nominees.

Best Actor nominees match Best Picture nominees during 55 years.
Best Actress nominees match Best Picture nominees only during 13 years.
During 15 years there is a tie between Best Actor and Best Actress nominees co-relating to Best Picture nominees.

It's much lower, BJ. I've often marveled at how Best Actress has the higher chance of finding orphan nominees (the film's only nomination) as compared to Actor which has more frequent correlation with Best Picture. Hell, even the Supporting races have a tendency to align better with Best Picture than Best Actress does. Of course, this is observational, not supported by actual data as I haven't written things down, but I'm sure if you did the math you'd discover that I'm close to being right.

Random bit of trivia: this is one of only five years in the modern era (from '44 on) where the Best Actor slate is comprised entirely of films that were also nominated for either Best Picture OR Best Director. The others are '53, '76, and the two Best Picture-only fields: '64 & '66.

(During the earlier years, with ten Best Picture nominees, this occurred a little more frequently, in '35, '36, '42, and '43.)

Somehow I get the feeling this number would be even LOWER in terms of Best Actress, though I haven't looked into it.

Uri wrote:* (Actually, for me each and every performance ever nominated for an Oscar was a subtitled one, including all of Hanks').

You are right.

Yes, we are definitely going too fast - and especially when a good fight is about to start, someone starts another thread!

After I saw My Left Foot, I was sure that Daniel Day Lewis would have won Best Actor - such a performance was impossible to ignore, and not only for the showy aspect that the "disabled" angle provided. A new, dazzling talent was born, and it's good that the Academy for once didn't fail to recognize it. I've voted for him. If not him, Branagh - it's probably true that he never really fulfilled his early promise, but back then he seemed to be the kind of "great actor" that England traditionally used to give the world and now doesn't anymore.

I think that Mister Tee's analysis of Tom Cruise is very right - and yes, that's why Magnolia is by far the best performance of an obviously limited actor. Let's say that Oliver Stone didn't exactly give us a "new" Tom Cruise.

Robin Williams is of course a better actor than Tom Cruise, but it's not like his approach to movies has been much less conventional. Dead Poets Society is entertaining and at times effective, but not a masterpiece, and Williams isn't more than good in it.

I have never felt very close to Driving Miss Daisy - an unexciting piece of cinema based on what was probably a not-much-more-exciting piece of theatre - but I can't deny that it's well acted and that Morgan Freeman is definitely a superb actor, who probably never had, at least in films, the kind of material he really deserved.

Big Magilla wrote:The safe money at the time was was on either Cruise or Freeman. Day-Lewis was a surprise and a pleasant one. He gets my vote.

I recall Cruise being the frontrunner that night especially after his Globe win. It was a wonderful surprise when Day-Lewis won. And what a gracious speech he gave.

OscarGuy wrote:I had thought Magilla was till posting these...hrm.

Kinda sorta, but I finally have some help which I greatly appreciate.

I had thought Magilla was till posting these...hrm.

FilmFan720 wrote:I agree these polls are going up way too fast...I can barely catch up. I'll try to find time to post my thoughts on this in the next few days, but I still haven't made my mind up on 1988 yet!

Ryan, please slow down! If you're bored you can find an old post to comment on between starting these new threads.

The reason we agreed to limit these to two per week was to give participants the time ot catch up on films they might want to see before voting in the next poll.

Thanks.

Daniel Day-Lewis - My Left Foot

On the one hand, you've got Day-Lewis in My Left Foot. On a surface level, it's an incredibly difficult role to pull off, the kind that actors love to tackle. But deeper than the surface, very few invest it with so much humor. Day-Lewis has a brilliant collaborator in Jim Sheridan who refuses to sentimentalize his coverage and always shoots Day-Lewis at level, and the very way he starts the film off by showing that Christy is competent enough to change a record announces that we needn't pity him for a moment.

Day-Lewis has the better film at his disposal, but not by much. Driving Miss Daisy is a lovely film that is painfully underrated at this point. No, it didn't deserve to win Best Picture in the year of Do the Right Thing, but better it than Born on the Fourth of July. I'm going to pick Morgan Freeman because I have a more difficult time imagining somebody else as Hoke than another actor as Christy. Without Day-Lewis' virtuoso turn in the center, My Left Foot would thrive as a showcase for Sheridan's storytelling, which is still it's greatest pleasure. Driving Miss Daisy is a sweet film about friendship that avoids pratfall largely due to the tightrope that Morgan Freeman walks. The words "Morgan Freeman" and "dignity" are thrown around just the same as "Michelle Pfeiffer" and "stunning". Every once in a while, one of those actors and blurbs risk collision as Morgan Freeman does taking on the role of a subservient black man driving around an old Jewish bird in the South, but Driving Miss Daisy is worth it. It wouldn't seem so if it weren't for Morgan Freeman. He should have won.

Martin Landau deserved citation for Crimes and Misdemeanors, and I haven't seen his name listed here yet but absolutely John Cusack for Say Anything...