Best Supporting Actor 1981

[Reza]

However...while I violently disagree with Reza that the film's a bore, it's hard to deny that audiences didnt connect with it in an easy way. The love story wasn't Zhivago-y enough to carry it with middle America, and even some higher-brow types were vaguely disappointed.

The subject just didn't interest me enough and I found major chunks of the film to drag endlessly. However, I thought the film had wonderful production design and cinematography. Of the principal actors Nicholson comes off best - possibly his best performance - and Beatty comes off the worst. He was badly miscast, I feel. Many of the reviewers incorrectly compared it to Dr Zhivago. The ''love angle'' between Beatty and Keaton is pretty tepid and doesn't have any gravitas. In fact her relationship with Nicholson's O'Neill comes across with much more force. Both actors play beautifully off each other.

[Okri]

Reds is the one I've been meaning to revisit as I found it a bore. Love Chariots of Fire, though - I've seen it easily half a dozen times and it never fails to work on me.

[Sabin]

1981 looks like one of those years where there was no real winner, but rather where the Academy honored the achievements of many. This isn't to imply that they make up their minds ahead of time on what to honor, but Chariots of Fire and Raiders of the Lost Ark took home four (excluding Raiders' honorary Special Achievement Award), On Golden Pond and Reds took home three, and Arthur took home two. Only Atlantic City was left out. Except for An American Werewolf in London's victory for Best Makeup over Heartbeeps in the first ever Makeup category, there isn't a film to win anything that wasn't one of the above five.

I can't imagine 1981 was at the time thought of as an especially great year for movies.

[Mister Tee]

To try and cover all the angles:

Chariots of Fire was a surprise success at Cannes, and became one of Roger Ebert's booster projects. When it opened in Fall, it became an instant art-house success -- partly on the good reviews, partly on this being the peak time of Masterpiece Theatre worship in the US, and partly, as Andrew Sarris pointed out in later predicting it for best picture, that it coincided with the huge American upswing in popularity for jogging. It's not my kind of movie at all, but I thought it was well-made, with a strong sense of atmosphere, and, while it was hardly profound, its coverage of sport went beyond mere root-on-the-winners -- yes, in the end, the appeal of seeing our main characters win sold the movie, but the film also dealt with the impact of losing in a fairly intelligent way. It was a perfectly solid, 3 1/2 star movie that I've never had any interest in seeing a second time.

Back then, an art house hit could stay in theatres a long time, and, as December rolled around, it was clear that Chariots was doing what Oscar voters love: wildly outperforming commercial expectation. I remember saying to an Oscar-obsessed friend as that month began that, unless Reds turned out to be a huge triumph, Chariots would win the Oscar, and maybe even the NY Critics award -- there just didn't seem to be anything else. (Reds ended up winning NY, but I'd underestimated Atlantic City being a strong runner-up, winning LA & National. Atlantic City had received quite favorable reviews back in Spring, but its poor commercial performance was common knowledge -- Johnny Carson even made a joke about it at that year's Oscars -- and had seemed like it would be held against it, the way it was against Prince of the City -- my favorite flm of 1981 (Damien, forgive me)).

Anyway...Reds, it might be forgotten, did receive exceedingly favorable reviews, some extravagantly so (there were comparisons to Olivier's Henry V, and Citizen Kane). And it started off well enough at the box office that major Oscar nominations were assured. However...while I violently disagree with Reza that the film's a bore, it's hard to deny that audiences didnt connect with it in an easy way. The love story wasn't Zhivago-y enough to carry it with middle America, and even some higher-brow types were vaguely disappointed. (One of my roommates at the time gave it the old "I respected it alot, but couldn't love it") So, as we swung into high awards season, I worried the film had that downward trajectory (i.e., declining box office) going against it that often hurt films in the stretch (see: Born on the Fourth of July/Driving Miss Daisy). Still, it won key lead-in awards (DGA, WGA), and onj Oscar night seemed like it MIGHT squeak by. But in the end the audience pleaser won out.

Yes, Reds was my choice among the nominees that year, but of the likely alternatives, I'd put Atlantic City and Chariots as roughly even for second place, with Raiders too trivial and On Golden Pond too awful for consideration.

[Reza]

I didn't like Charitos of Fire when I saw it months before the Award Season had even started, and it never occurred to me that it would be nominated beyond music. It's nomination and win both came as an unpleasant surprise to me. I particularly disliked the Vangelis score I wonder if I may have responded better to the film if different music had been used. Despite my dislike of the film it is a more deserving Best Film winner then Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind, The English Patient, amongst others.

So The English Patient is on your hit list?

I think I need to review Chariots. Wonder if it still holds up? That score really had something to do with the win just as Christopher Cross' theme song had a hand in making Arthur such a huge hit. I distinctly remember the Arthur theme and the Vangelis score were played constantly everywhere one went.

[Precious Doll]

I didn't like Charitos of Fire when I saw it months before the Award Season had even started, and it never occurred to me that it would be nominated beyond music. It's nomination and win both came as an unpleasant surprise to me. I particularly disliked the Vangelis score I wonder if I may have responded better to the film if different music had been used. Despite my dislike of the film it is a more deserving Best Film winner then Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind, The English Patient, amongst others.

[Big Magilla]

Charitos of Fire is an exceptionally fine film. Along with Peter Weir's Gallipoli, it was one of two serious epics that were critical hits before Reds and was always in the conversation as a strong Best Picture contender. The year-end success of Reds and On Goldne Pond, however, made it seem like an also-ran by the time of the awards. The infectious Vangelis score was the film's only sure bet to win. Its surprise Best Picture win somehow denigratees the film in snooty critics' circles, but it is no Braveheart or A Beautiful Mind. See the damn thing.

[Reza]

Mister Tee wrote
Chariots of Fire was reasonably highly regarded by most people I knew, until it won the Oscar. Even so, if something had to beat Reds, alot better Chariots than the grisly On Golden Pond.

I feel the same way about Shakespeare in Love.

Without having seen Chariots of Fire, I'm sure I'll agree. On Golden Pond sucks. I'm assuming you're saying "If something had to beat Reds..." b/c it was your favorite film in the running, no? Or was it because going into Oscar night it was starting to look like the Oscar juggernaut that wouldn't?

I see on IMDB that the DGA nominated all five directors of the five nominated Best Picture/Directors. On Golden Pond and Reds certainly look like Oscar nominees, and I can see how Chariots of Fire picked up enough steam to underdog. But were Atlantic City and Raiders of the Lost Ark expected? It's my understanding that Ragtime was seen as a very disappointing adaptation of a beloved book, that Prince of the City was a bomb, Arthur was too light, etc.

If I remember correctly Reds was the frontrunner going into Oscar night, not only because it was an epic in the David Lean mode but it was also a serious subject compared to the competition. However, in retrospect, and despite a number of good things about it, the film remains a ponderous bore (this is my personal view, I confess, after having recently reviewed the film again after it first came out) which is what maybe the Academy picked on while voting. Chariots was a feel good movie about an underdog scoring big (a la Rocky). That Vangelis score may have also had something to do with the win. Raiders was too lightweight, Atlantic too arty and Pond had the novelty of two huge stars co-starring for the first time with Fonda a strong candidate for a sentimental win. You are of course right about Ragtime, Prince of the City and Arthur.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Chariots of Fire was reasonably highly regarded by most people I knew, until it won the Oscar. Even so, if something had to beat Reds, alot better Chariots than the grisly On Golden Pond.

I feel the same way about Shakespeare in Love.

Without having seen Chariots of Fire, I'm sure I'll agree. On Golden Pond sucks. I'm assuming you're saying "If something had to beat Reds..." b/c it was your favorite film in the running, no? Or was it because going into Oscar night it was starting to look like the Oscar juggernaut that wouldn't?

I see on IMDB that the DGA nominated all five directors of the five nominated Best Picture/Directors. On Golden Pond and Reds certainly look like Oscar nominees, and I can see how Chariots of Fire picked up enough steam to underdog. But were Atlantic City and Raiders of the Lost Ark expected? It's my understanding that Ragtime was seen as a very disappointing adaptation of a beloved book, that Prince of the City was a bomb, Arthur was too light, etc.

[Mister Tee]

Well, yeah. And I'm sure I will see it at some point. But I'm just not on pins and needles to see Chariots of Fire at this moment. It would be nice to like Chariots of Fire. I kind of love Atlantic City, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Reds, so having another excellent film up there would be pretty cool.

Chariots of Fire was reasonably highly regarded by most people I knew, until it won the Oscar. Even so, if something had to beat Reds, alot better Chariots than the grisly On Golden Pond.

[Sabin]

Well, yeah. And I'm sure I will see it at some point. But I'm just not on pins and needles to see Chariots of Fire at this moment. It would be nice to like Chariots of Fire. I kind of love Atlantic City, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Reds, so having another excellent film up there would be pretty cool.

[Reza]

flipp525 wrote
You've never seen Chariots of Fire!? What are you, an alien?

I know. And I've heard how awesome it is too.

You should not go by what you've "heard". Who knows you may actually agree with the Academy's choice.

[Sabin]

flipp525 wrote
You've never seen Chariots of Fire!? What are you, an alien?

I know. And I've heard how awesome it is too.

[mayukh]

Nicholson blew me away in Reds, but Howard Rollins was astonishing in Ragtime – deeply felt and graceful.

[flipp525]

I haven't seen Only When I Laugh, Ragtime, or Chariots of Fire, so I'm obviously not voting.

You've never seen Chariots of Fire!? What are you, an alien?