And Amadeus is one of my all-time favorite Best Picture winners.Mister Tee wrote:1984/85 was the nadir of a dismal decade for movies, so my interest in any of the categories from those years isn't all that great.
Best Supporting Actor 1984
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
Well, F. Murray Abraham, whatever became of his career later, is one of my all-time favorite Best Actor winners.Big Magilla wrote:In this year's Best Actor category, for example, I thought Albert Finney in Under the Volcano and non-nominees Jack Lemmon in Mass Appeal and Victor Banerjee in A Passage to India were all were better than F. Murray Abraham and all deserving of a win, with Finney my ultimate pick.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
And left us far too soon.Mister Tee wrote
I think Candy came along just a little too early.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
A late thought about someone who wasn't considered at the time, but might have been, had the standards of a decade later prevailed: John Candy -- who many of us loved from SCTV -- had got mostly enthusiastic notices for his very funny brother role in Splash. Such comic roles, often the saving graces of their films (Richard Pryor in Silver Streak had been another, in the 70s), were historically under-rewarded by the Academy at this point. But, really, how different are they from later winners like Whoopi in Ghost, Palance in City Slickers, Tomei in My Cousin Vinny -- or even recent nominee Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids? I think Candy came along just a little too early.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
1984/85 was the nadir of a dismal decade for movies, so my interest in any of the categories from those years isn't all that great. Can't really come up with any dynamic alternatives, either -- though it struck me Danny Glover might just as well have been nominated for Places in the Heart as Malkovich. (It's kind of puzzling Glover, seemingly well-liked in Hollywood, never got much consideration, either here, or down the road in Grand Canyon)
I'll also echo Magilla's recommendation of The Flamingo Kid, a very decent and likable little film.
From what I read here (and from the referencing it got in Crazy Stupid Love), it's clear The Karate Kid was, for many who encountered it at a young age, a more impressive experience than it was for grown-ups in 1984. I didn't even bother seeing it till after the Oscars, and when I finally caught up to it, I thought it just another in the underdog-triumphs-athletically-against-the-odds series that had started taking over cinema in the Reagan years. I stll think of Pat Morita mostly as a comic who did The Tonight Show a million times. No vote for him.
Greystoke was actually fairly well reviewed when it opened, possibly because the horrific pre-release publicity (Robert Towne having his name taken off) had critics expecting a disaster, so a mere bore seemed a triumph in context. Ralph Richardson's nomination, for a fairly small part, was no doubt a sentimental gesture. It may also have been a bird-in-hand case, as the film had opened much earlier in the year than most contenders.
I'd seen Adolph Caesar -- and most of the rest of the cast -- do A Soldiers Play (as it was called) onstage. Let it be said that Caesar didn't tone his performance down one iota for the screen. Alot of people I know really loved him (as do some here), but I found him a bit much. He was fun to watch as an Oscar candidate, though: he must have done Entertainment Tonight every other day that season. He enjoyed the Oscar ride more in one week than Sean Penn has winning twice.
I'm of mixed mind about Haing S. Ngor's win. The Killing Fields was by far my favorite of the year's motley crew of contenders, and his presence was no doubt a strong element of the film. I was perfectly pleased when he won. But I get caught on what was said earlier in this thread: he was emphatically a non-actor, with Harold Russell being the most obvious analogous winner. To be honest, with his somewhat amateur approach, I couldn't understand a fair amount of his dialogue. It makes it difficult for me to cast a vote for him...though, as I said, I happily applauded his victory back then.
John Malkovich in 1984 had just flared forth in what looked for all the world like a major star career. His stage triumph in True West had played on PBS; he'd done Biff in the (Dustin) Hoffman Death of a Salesman; and was now featured in two best picture nominees. What Italiano says is true, that the role for which he was nominated was not the sort associated with an emerging cool talent (his bit in The Killing Fields was more in line with that expectation). But what he did with the role went beyond the sentimental terms in which it was constructed. I'm thinking of moments like when his hand accidentally grazes water, and he humiliatingly realizes he's been conversing with Sally Field while she's in the tub. He doesn't play it for pathos; he lets his anger and embarrassment ring out. None of this makes it a major performance (I think his next time out is far more impressive), but it's honest, touching work. And, in terms of honoring acting, as opposed to a near-Machiavellian use of one man's personal iconography (which to me is what Ngor's win signifed), I think it's the best available option. So, I have to give him the nod.
I'll also echo Magilla's recommendation of The Flamingo Kid, a very decent and likable little film.
From what I read here (and from the referencing it got in Crazy Stupid Love), it's clear The Karate Kid was, for many who encountered it at a young age, a more impressive experience than it was for grown-ups in 1984. I didn't even bother seeing it till after the Oscars, and when I finally caught up to it, I thought it just another in the underdog-triumphs-athletically-against-the-odds series that had started taking over cinema in the Reagan years. I stll think of Pat Morita mostly as a comic who did The Tonight Show a million times. No vote for him.
Greystoke was actually fairly well reviewed when it opened, possibly because the horrific pre-release publicity (Robert Towne having his name taken off) had critics expecting a disaster, so a mere bore seemed a triumph in context. Ralph Richardson's nomination, for a fairly small part, was no doubt a sentimental gesture. It may also have been a bird-in-hand case, as the film had opened much earlier in the year than most contenders.
I'd seen Adolph Caesar -- and most of the rest of the cast -- do A Soldiers Play (as it was called) onstage. Let it be said that Caesar didn't tone his performance down one iota for the screen. Alot of people I know really loved him (as do some here), but I found him a bit much. He was fun to watch as an Oscar candidate, though: he must have done Entertainment Tonight every other day that season. He enjoyed the Oscar ride more in one week than Sean Penn has winning twice.
I'm of mixed mind about Haing S. Ngor's win. The Killing Fields was by far my favorite of the year's motley crew of contenders, and his presence was no doubt a strong element of the film. I was perfectly pleased when he won. But I get caught on what was said earlier in this thread: he was emphatically a non-actor, with Harold Russell being the most obvious analogous winner. To be honest, with his somewhat amateur approach, I couldn't understand a fair amount of his dialogue. It makes it difficult for me to cast a vote for him...though, as I said, I happily applauded his victory back then.
John Malkovich in 1984 had just flared forth in what looked for all the world like a major star career. His stage triumph in True West had played on PBS; he'd done Biff in the (Dustin) Hoffman Death of a Salesman; and was now featured in two best picture nominees. What Italiano says is true, that the role for which he was nominated was not the sort associated with an emerging cool talent (his bit in The Killing Fields was more in line with that expectation). But what he did with the role went beyond the sentimental terms in which it was constructed. I'm thinking of moments like when his hand accidentally grazes water, and he humiliatingly realizes he's been conversing with Sally Field while she's in the tub. He doesn't play it for pathos; he lets his anger and embarrassment ring out. None of this makes it a major performance (I think his next time out is far more impressive), but it's honest, touching work. And, in terms of honoring acting, as opposed to a near-Machiavellian use of one man's personal iconography (which to me is what Ngor's win signifed), I think it's the best available option. So, I have to give him the nod.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
I haven't seen all the performances, so I didn't vote. But I'm glad that Haing S Ngor's performance – full of authenticity and sadness, which arose almost effortlessly from lived experience – hasn't been reduced to a charity case win here. His is really one of the most beautiful pieces of acting I've seen, regardless of whether this performance was primarily a result of his choices as an actor or Joffe's abilities as a director – the finished product is the kind of artistic achievement that deserves to be rewarded. Messy as it is, The Killing Fields is a film I have deep affection for and it's largely because of the clearly sensitive manner in which Pran's story is handled, and Ngor's face – so painfully, movingly evocative – holds more meaning than anything else in the entire film. (It's ludicrous that he's in supporting – contextually understandable, yes, but still wrong.)
The only other one I've seen is John Malkovich, who even with such a role must have been seen as an odd talent in 1984. I personally think he is a wonderful actor because he takes so many risks usually with fantastic payoff, and even here he brings emotion to his part without ever doing the "expected". It's a good performance.
The only other one I've seen is John Malkovich, who even with such a role must have been seen as an odd talent in 1984. I personally think he is a wonderful actor because he takes so many risks usually with fantastic payoff, and even here he brings emotion to his part without ever doing the "expected". It's a good performance.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
Not wanting to be anal retentive; but, I think you meant "spurred," not "spurned."The Original BJ wrote:Since my remark has spurned several comments, I'll elaborate a bit.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
The only reason why one shouldn't vote for Haing S. Ngor is category fraud, which would be a very valid reason - but by now it's obvious that we collectively have chosen to ignore such an issue. Let's face it: this is obviously a leading role, bigger and more important than the one his (white) co-star was nominated as Best Actor for. But we know why he was considered Supporting by the Academy - and, back then, by anyone else, probably. Still, we probably shouldn't complain - the truth this non-actor brought to his part made us feel like we were watching something very real happening to someone very real, and The Killing Fields had a much stronger impact because of this. (It's possible that today, almost 30 years later, the movie could feel less "true" - I will watch it again soon and will know).
So yes, I've picked Ngor. Plus, the only one of the other four who definitely deserved a nomination was Adolph Ceasar, who played with a certain energy a disturbing character - if A Soldier's Story is, while clearly not a great movie, at least an effective one (and when it came out it was - today it's completely and maybe unfairly forgotten) it's because of Ceasar's powerful and I'd say even subtle performance.
As for the others... ok, nice to see Ralph Richardson getting this tribute to his excellent career, but it's not like Greystoke provided him with a very profound character; and John Malkovich, back then still so young and potentially explosive, was nominated for the kind of sentimental role that actors usually are nominated for at the end of their career. He's still better, I guess, than "Pat" Morita, but then I belong to the generation which grew up with Happy Days (at least in Italy - I don't know when the series was originally produced in the US), so I'll stop here.
So yes, I've picked Ngor. Plus, the only one of the other four who definitely deserved a nomination was Adolph Ceasar, who played with a certain energy a disturbing character - if A Soldier's Story is, while clearly not a great movie, at least an effective one (and when it came out it was - today it's completely and maybe unfairly forgotten) it's because of Ceasar's powerful and I'd say even subtle performance.
As for the others... ok, nice to see Ralph Richardson getting this tribute to his excellent career, but it's not like Greystoke provided him with a very profound character; and John Malkovich, back then still so young and potentially explosive, was nominated for the kind of sentimental role that actors usually are nominated for at the end of their career. He's still better, I guess, than "Pat" Morita, but then I belong to the generation which grew up with Happy Days (at least in Italy - I don't know when the series was originally produced in the US), so I'll stop here.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
To me, it's the performance first and the actor second, but when thre are two or more performances of equal merit, a la Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger in Terms of Endearment, I look at the overall career for the tie-breaker.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes as in this category in 1974, I am so underwhelmed by everyone else's first choice, e.g. Robert De Nro in Godfather II and not really impressed with any of the nominees that I go for the sentimental pick which in this case was Fred Astaire in The Towerng Inferno.
In most contests, though, there is one performance that really stands out for me - sometimes it's the Oscar winner, sometimes it's a nother nominee, sometimes it's someone Oscar competely overlooked. Sometimes, however, the races are so close I have difficulty in picking just one. In this year's Best Actor category, for example, I thought Albert Finney in Under the Volcano and non-nominees Jack Lemmon in Mass Appeal and Victor Banerjee in A Passage to India were all were better than F. Murray Abraham and all deserving of a win, with Finney my ultimate pick. This year's other winners - Sally Field, Haing S. Ngor and Peggy Ashcroft were my clear favorites in those categories.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes as in this category in 1974, I am so underwhelmed by everyone else's first choice, e.g. Robert De Nro in Godfather II and not really impressed with any of the nominees that I go for the sentimental pick which in this case was Fred Astaire in The Towerng Inferno.
In most contests, though, there is one performance that really stands out for me - sometimes it's the Oscar winner, sometimes it's a nother nominee, sometimes it's someone Oscar competely overlooked. Sometimes, however, the races are so close I have difficulty in picking just one. In this year's Best Actor category, for example, I thought Albert Finney in Under the Volcano and non-nominees Jack Lemmon in Mass Appeal and Victor Banerjee in A Passage to India were all were better than F. Murray Abraham and all deserving of a win, with Finney my ultimate pick. This year's other winners - Sally Field, Haing S. Ngor and Peggy Ashcroft were my clear favorites in those categories.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
I still stand by my comment. I'm not saying that I think Oscars should be voted on in terms of an actor's overall career rather than an individual performance...but I can't deny that I like when it works out that way, when performers whose careers I think merit major accolades get their one (or, if they're lucky, more) chances to make it to the top of the podium in a given year. There are plenty of great actors who never got lucky enough to win an Oscar -- and, as much as some might hate to admit it, some of those are absolutely Oscar-level actors for which there never really was a great chance to actually vote them the best in any given year. Which is to say, even in a universe where I had complete control over the awards, I'd have trouble finding a spot to give some of these deserving candidates their due.
And so, in cosmic movie history terms, it doesn't really seem as just for Haing S. Ngor to be an Academy Award-winning actor when, say, Ralph Richardson and John Malkovich are not. Similarly, even those of us around here who don't despise Jennifer Hudson's Oscar win probably wish that the stars would have aligned for [insert your favorite character actress here] to have a Supporting Actress trophy instead.
But, of course, life isn't fair, and neither are the Oscars. But I certainly think an actor's overall career is at least worth mentioning in a discussion of these threads, even if I should reiterate that I haven't voted that way.
And so, in cosmic movie history terms, it doesn't really seem as just for Haing S. Ngor to be an Academy Award-winning actor when, say, Ralph Richardson and John Malkovich are not. Similarly, even those of us around here who don't despise Jennifer Hudson's Oscar win probably wish that the stars would have aligned for [insert your favorite character actress here] to have a Supporting Actress trophy instead.
But, of course, life isn't fair, and neither are the Oscars. But I certainly think an actor's overall career is at least worth mentioning in a discussion of these threads, even if I should reiterate that I haven't voted that way.
Last edited by The Original BJ on Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
Yes - I'm surprised at the number of reasons people use here to disqualify performances that they might otherwise like. "Lead" actor slumming in a small role, poor overall body of work, foreign, nonprofessional, no US release etc etc... shouldn't each individual performance speak for itself? You limit yourself mightily if you refuse to approach each film and performance with an open mind.Greg wrote:That is never a problem for me, as I always look on these awards as purely for the indvidual performances and ignore the body of the actor's work, regardless of what the Academy does.The Original BJ wrote:Normally I wouldn't be so enthused about giving an acting prize to a one-off role by a non-actor, but the work speaks for itself, and gets my easy vote in this lackluster year.
Probably the best performance I've seen from the 2000s was by a nonactor with 2 other credits in a micro-budget foreign film, for example.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
That is never a problem for me, as I always look on these awards as purely for the indvidual performances and ignore the body of the actor's work, regardless of what the Academy does.The Original BJ wrote:Normally I wouldn't be so enthused about giving an acting prize to a one-off role by a non-actor, but the work speaks for itself, and gets my easy vote in this lackluster year.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
NOTE: Edited in 2016 to reject category fraud.
I assume I know the answer to this question, but there just weren't that many options this year, were there? That's the only way I could imagine a movie like The Karate Kid landing a major Oscar nomination. Pat Morita starred in a tv show I liked as a kid, so I always had a fondness for him, and I guess his "wax on, wax off" bit is kind of amusing...but Oscar-level? Not even close.
I can't say I think Ralph Richardson was that much more than place-filler either. I see he won some critics awards for this, and I can only assume it was for the same reason he got the Oscar nomination: swan song recognition for a long-respected actor in a year when there just weren't that many other possibilities. I think Greystoke is a snooze when it isn't silly, and Richardson's contribution not particularly noteworthy.
Norman Jewison brought out a lot of the more ham-fisted elements of A Soldier's Story, but Adolph Caesar's tough sergeant was one element of the movie that did have some bite to it. Obviously it's important for his character to be unlikable, so that the story doesn't devolve into a simplistic "who killed the black guy in charge?" narrative. But I thought Caesar did an admirable job of showing just how the prejudice of his surroundings would have caused a man in his position of power to treat his underlings in the manner that he does. It's not an overwhelming performance, but it's a very solid one.
John Malkovich has played so many psychopaths and other borderline-crazy types in his career, it's almost nice to be able to look back and see his sensitive work as the blind war vet in Places in the Heart. I think the movie overall is a minor one, but it is not without its affecting moments, and Malkovich's subdued (at least by his standards) performance provides many of these.
Haing S. Ngor's performance is the clear best according to me. His raw, emotional, and physically grueling work gives The Killing Fields so much of its power. And that last scene ("Nothing to forgive!") is pretty much impossible to resist. But aside from the fact that I normally wouldn't be so enthused about giving an acting prize to a one-off role by a non-actor,this is totally category fraud -- I don't think he is any less a protagonist than Sam Waterston's character is, and Ngor might even have MORE screentime.
Best performance: Ngor, but John Malkovich is the best actual supporting nominee.
I assume I know the answer to this question, but there just weren't that many options this year, were there? That's the only way I could imagine a movie like The Karate Kid landing a major Oscar nomination. Pat Morita starred in a tv show I liked as a kid, so I always had a fondness for him, and I guess his "wax on, wax off" bit is kind of amusing...but Oscar-level? Not even close.
I can't say I think Ralph Richardson was that much more than place-filler either. I see he won some critics awards for this, and I can only assume it was for the same reason he got the Oscar nomination: swan song recognition for a long-respected actor in a year when there just weren't that many other possibilities. I think Greystoke is a snooze when it isn't silly, and Richardson's contribution not particularly noteworthy.
Norman Jewison brought out a lot of the more ham-fisted elements of A Soldier's Story, but Adolph Caesar's tough sergeant was one element of the movie that did have some bite to it. Obviously it's important for his character to be unlikable, so that the story doesn't devolve into a simplistic "who killed the black guy in charge?" narrative. But I thought Caesar did an admirable job of showing just how the prejudice of his surroundings would have caused a man in his position of power to treat his underlings in the manner that he does. It's not an overwhelming performance, but it's a very solid one.
John Malkovich has played so many psychopaths and other borderline-crazy types in his career, it's almost nice to be able to look back and see his sensitive work as the blind war vet in Places in the Heart. I think the movie overall is a minor one, but it is not without its affecting moments, and Malkovich's subdued (at least by his standards) performance provides many of these.
Haing S. Ngor's performance is the clear best according to me. His raw, emotional, and physically grueling work gives The Killing Fields so much of its power. And that last scene ("Nothing to forgive!") is pretty much impossible to resist. But aside from the fact that I normally wouldn't be so enthused about giving an acting prize to a one-off role by a non-actor,this is totally category fraud -- I don't think he is any less a protagonist than Sam Waterston's character is, and Ngor might even have MORE screentime.
Best performance: Ngor, but John Malkovich is the best actual supporting nominee.
Last edited by The Original BJ on Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
I'm mostly watching movies in theaters or that other people are watching. I don't own a television and I don't like watching movies on my laptop.
Also, perusing Garry Marshall's filmography? Wow! I like Frankie & Johnny okay and Pretty Woman is kinda fun, but Jesus Christ is he fucking terrible.
Huh. Everyone but Malkovich is dead.
Also, perusing Garry Marshall's filmography? Wow! I like Frankie & Johnny okay and Pretty Woman is kinda fun, but Jesus Christ is he fucking terrible.
Huh. Everyone but Malkovich is dead.
Last edited by Sabin on Thu May 10, 2012 1:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Supporting Actor 1984
Those films are all available on Netflix or whatever your source for old movies is these days. The Famingo Kid is easily Garry Marshall's best film with a wonderful performance by Crenna and good ones by Dillon, Janet Jones and others. It has a Say Anything/Rushmore vibe to it. You'd like it. You really, really would!Sabin wrote:No. You're absolutely right to say that. I don't know how that happened either. I might not have been a kid.flipp525 wroteOkay, well, now I think you truly are an alien. Ummm....WHAT???!!! (Not picking on you, just sincerely flabbergasted.)Sabin wrote
I have a backlog of films which for whatever reason I have not seen yet. I have never seen The Karate Kid. I don't know why. I don't know how it happened. I feel like I have seen it already because I'm aware of the plot structure, but I have not seen The Karate Kid.
The Golden Globes omitted Ralph Richardson and John Malkovich in favor of Richard Crenna for The Flamingo Kid (which I've also never seen, and apparently stars Matt Dillon) and Jeffrey Jones for Amadeus.