OVP: Absence of Malice (1981)

Film: Absence of Malice (1981)

Stars: Paul Newman, Sally Field, Bob Balaban, Melinda Dillon, Wilford Brimley

Director: Sydney Pollack

Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Actor-Paul Newman, Supporting Actress-Melinda Dillon, Original Screenplay)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Sally Field: click here to learn more about Ms. Field (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

During the early 1980's, Sally Field became what she'd clearly always dreamed of becoming: a serious actress.  We talked last week about Norma Rae, the movie that launched her onto this platform, and won her her first Oscar, against actresses like Jane Fonda & Jill Clayburgh who were taken more seriously than the former Flying Nun.  Field kept the pedal-to-the-medal on trying to change her image in the coming years, appearing in commercial fare (Hooper, Smokey and the Bandit II), movies that upended her cutesy image like the hard-swearing Black Roads with Tommy Lee Jones, and more dramatic roles.  She would win a second Academy Award for her work in Places in the Heart in 1984, when she'd infamously utter the lines "right now...you like me!"...lines that would come to haunt her & in many ways underline the spunky actress she was trying to shed.  During this time, one of the dramatic films that she made was Absence of Malice, a serious film starring one of the biggest names of the era, and a guy who (unlike Field) was still in the hunt for his first Oscar: Paul Newman.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie follows newspaper reporter Megan Carter (Field), who is given a tip from Rosen (Balaban), who works in the US Attorney's office that they are investigating liquor wholesaler Michael Gallagher (Newman) for the disappearance of labor leader Joey Diaz (never seen, but if you can't tell they're making him seem like a Jimmy Hoffa-type figure during this time frame, you need to study your history more).  Carter publishes this based on a file on Rosen's desk, which was clearly planted for her to publish, but it upends Gallagher's life.  They don't actually have any evidence of the connection, but with the paper now saying "he's connected," he can't get out of it.  Gallagher is the son of a former crime boss, but is generally living a clean life...until Carter forces him to act dirty.  This comes to a head when Teresa Perrone (Dillon) provides an alibi for him-that he was taking her to a doctor to have an abortion.  But Perrone is devoutly Catholic, and when Carter's bosses insist they have to publish her name & that she had an abortion, Perrone kills herself.  This sets off a chain-of-events where Gallagher shows he learned something from his father, using a romantic relationship with Carter and implicit bribery of a US Attorney to get off...and to get their careers fried in the process.

Absence of Malice sounds better than it actually is when I describe it above.  It reads like an ambitious, greedy reporter wanting to make a name for herself, who sacrifices her soul and in the process has a man who had lived an honorable life go back to his criminal roots to punish her and those around her who destroyed the life of Teresa, the only truly innocent person in the picture.  That's not what it is though.  The writers desperately want us to care about the romantic relationship between Field & Newman, but you don't...because you realize that Megan is not a good person, even if she's played as bubbly & sweet in Field's hands.  The film could've ended on Megan admitting she was involved with Gallagher but knew nothing about him, but instead ends on a conversation between the two, potentially setting up a reconciliation.  But why?  They should hate each other, particularly him hate her...what's there, given so much of what came before was fake?

This hurts the performances.  Field is badly miscast here .  Field was in that "I can do anything" part of her career in 1981, but she is not right for this-you need an actress who can play fragile-but-brittle, and she is not a brittle performer (you kind of think someone like Susan Sarandon might've been better off with this part).  Newman is better, but again-this is a great character until the writers come in the way (you see hints of what might've been decades later when Newman would play a similar character in Road to Perdition), and you feel like you only get half a performance.  Melinda Dillon got her second-and-final Oscar nomination for her work here, and she does create a shadow over the film (her confession scene, where she tries to convince Megan not to publish that she had an abortion, knowing that she'll end up killing herself if she does but not having the guts to say it, is really well-done); again, though, much of the work in the back-half of the film takes air out of her performance by cheapening it.  Wilford Brimley, honestly, is pretty good in his one extended scene, giving the film some life, but at that point, it's too late-the script has already wrecked the promising premise.

OVP: Supporting Actress (1999)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (1999)

The Nominees Were...

Toni Collette, The Sixth Sense

Angelina Jolie, Girl, Interrupted

Catherine Keener, Being John Malkovich

Samantha Morton, Sweet and Lowdown

Chloe Sevigny, Boys Don't Cry

My Thoughts: It is pretty rare (and as the Academy becomes even more insular, even rarer in the 21st Century) for the Academy Awards to do what they did in 1999-give us all five first-time nominees.  While each of these women would have very diverse careers that followed (three of them, to date, have been invited back to the Academy Awards as a nominee for a different picture), they all started as first-timers together.  It's fascinating to think about how one of them became a global superstar, one emerged as an Indie darling, and the remainder are three beloved character actresses with very different fanbases.  But we're only judging the performances in front of us, so let's start with them, shall we?

Samantha Morton is maybe the most versatile of these actors, having appeared in countless roles in the years since of varying sizes.  I think it makes sense how well she fits into the vision Woody Allen has set up for her in Sweet & Lowdown.  The mute girl with a heart-of-gold is a staple at the Oscars for a reason (just ask Jane Wyman or Holly Hunter), but I wanted a bit more of it from her.  A lot of her acting here that works is more physical, reactive rather than driving the viewer, and while that's a good fit, it doesn't give us the range I want from this piece (and as Hunter showed in The Piano, not being able to speak onscreen is no excuse for not giving us everything you'd get with a lot of dialogue).

Toni Collette, oddly enough, does that kind of projecting without speaking in her most famous scene in The Sixth Sense, going through a facial journey as she understands her son's gifts, and gets to have a reunion of sorts with her mother (she does have dialogue, but it's definitely secondary to what she's doing).  Collette is aces in this in general, though.  She nails the tough spot of being a single mother in a horror movie (very much a cliche) by giving us a sense of not just what it's like to raise a unique child, but also what it's like to put your life on the back-burner to raise said child.  This is one of those performances that Oscar could've skipped (Osment gets the showier part), and I'm so glad they didn't.

I will confess since this is the last (guaranteed) time that we discuss her that I've never been really besotted with Angelina Jolie as an actress.  I think she's better as a movie star or celebrity, but when she's forced into actually acting or transforming, she can't do it.  Part of the reason she works in Girl, Interrupted is that we're getting that star persona full-force, for the first time, and audiences were wowed by it.  In many ways it's similar to what one of her competitors that missed the field in 1999 (Jean Smart in Guinevere) is doing-it's the first time we see this talent, so we assume it's limitless and are astounded, but we quickly get used to it, and it's not something where every performance is an event like Meryl Streep or Julianne Moore.  Again, I need to judge this based on what's totally in front of me (those are the OVP rules), and what I'm seeing is intoxicating...but I don't know that it's great acting.

Catherine Keener is able to achieve both in Being John Malkovich.  She's playing a role that would be a staple in her catalog (the gorgeous, smart, impetuous bitch), and she nails it.  Keener would later be typecast in these sorts of roles, but here you understand that there's something special to what she's specifically bringing.  Look at the way she is totally comfortable stepping on John Cusack's character to get what she wants, which is something better than him.  It's basically said out loud, but you understand because she's so enthralling why Cusack is willing to put up with it.  In a film teaming with really interesting character decisions, hers is the best and I'm glad if only one person got that nomination, it was her.

We end with Chloe Sevigny, one of those stars that just has such a unique screen persona it's inevitable that she would land an Oscar nomination at some point, but likely not much more because she is not in traditional Academy fare.  Sevigny can be a good actress, but she goes all-in with all of her characterizations, and I think her work here needed some more breathing room.  She plays well off of Hilary Swank, but it's more predictable and close-to-the-vest in her approach, giving the audience less glimpses inward rather than just what we get on the surface.  This isn't a bad performance, by any means, but when you're judging on a curve (i.e. giving out an Oscar), you have to be pickier, and I think there was room for something more fully-fledged here.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Golden Globes went with Jolie as their victor, here taking out Morton, Keener, Sevigny, Natalie Portman (Anywhere But Here), & Cameron Diaz (Being John Malkovich).  SAG also picked Jolie, beating Diaz, Keener, Sevigny, & Julianne Moore (Magnolia), while BAFTA gave their statute to Maggie Smith (Tea with Mussolini) atop Diaz, Cate Blanchett (The Talented Mr. Ripley), Thora Birch (American Beauty), & Mena Suvari (American Beauty).  The clear sixth place based on precursors is Diaz, and that probably makes the most sense.  Moore was in the running, as were Blanchett & Gywneth Paltrow for Ripley (they likely split their vote), and as I mentioned above there were some who thought Jean Smart might surprise given her reviews for Guinevere, but Diaz was likely in sixth even if that feels weird given Oscar didn't care for her.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: This was in the era before Nicole Kidman was an Oscar staple, but that doesn't mean that Oscar was making the right decisions by her, as she was still doing the work.  Look at what she does in Stanley Kubrick's final film, a prickly, tough performance as a neglected wife in Eyes Wide Shut...she was Oscar-worthy well before Moulin Rouge!.

Oscar’s Choice: There was some buzz building at the time for Collette to win in an upset, but not enough to topple Jolie from her perch.

My Choice: For sure Collette.  This is on a different level from her competition, even if Catherine Keener would've made a respectable winner as well.  Behind them (in order) are Morton, Sevigny, and then Jolie.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone want to stay with Jolie, or would you like to see dead people with Toni & I?  Which of these actresses (their first glance for many cinephiles) is the strongest thespian in the years that followed?  And is sixth place as easy as just "it was Cameron Diaz" or does someone want to push for someone more traditionally in Oscar's wheelhouse?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 1999: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously, in 1999

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

OVP: Supporting Actress (2023)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Emiliy Blunt, Oppenheimer

Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple

America Ferrera, Barbie

Jodie Foster, Nyad

Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

My Thoughts: Oscar's taste and mine are, obviously, different.  There are certain things and categories we line up on (Visual Effects, in particular, there's a lot of overlap), but others (like Supporting Actor) I usually assemble an entirely different lineup for myself.  Supporting Actress is generally a category I can count on some overlap with my My Ballot, though.  In 2023, though, that's not the case.  We have done My Ballots from 2000-22 on this blog (that's where I pick the winners/nominees without Oscar's help), and in that entire time, 2023 will become the first field where I picked none of Oscar's Supporting Actress choices for my own list, starting from scratch with my five.  While I was very different from Oscar in general (only three acting nominees total will overlap with my My Ballot), this is bizarre for me, and a sign that either I was on my own or (in my opinion) Oscar was getting lazy in 2023.

Look, for example, at the nomination of Emily Blunt.  Blunt is a fine actor, and one who should've had an Oscar nomination by now (though, as I said here, she wouldn't be someone I would complain about given I only think she deserved one nomination to date).  But she's not very good in Oppenheimer.  This is a doormat role, one that has little invention beyond darted glances and spilled cocktails.  She has one great scene, late in the picture, with Jason Clarke interrogating her, but the rest of the movie she's kind of on autopilot.  She doesn't get as plumb of a role as Robert Downey, Jr. or Cillian Murphy, but let's be real-someone like Benny Safdie is stealing scenes with less to do than her.  I think this is a pretty generic nomination, and reads as a "getting her off the 'to nominate' list" moment that happens when you're in a Best Picture nominee.

Danielle Brooks is another performer that I think is giving way less than she should.  Brooks is a great singer, and gives the best performance in The Color Purple, a misguided & overlong musical that loses a lot of the soul that was part of the original movie.  But it's too surface-level.  We know the audience is going to cheer for her, because she's that kind of character, but the insane over-reaction that this role got on Film Twitter (some proclaiming her a "lock" for a win...and don't think I don't remember who you are who said it), felt hyperbole and like they were just swept up in a good singer doing a decent job.  Comparing this to Oprah Winfrey in the original...you can't, Winfrey's just in another class, and while I judge these in a vacuum, that doesn't apply to remakes-you need to justify your existence if you want to recreate a classic.  This film never does.

I kind of have a role that I don't complain too much about actors getting their first nomination unless they're outright terrible (which neither Brooks nor Blunt are), and so I won't complain too much about America Ferrera getting a nomination.  Ferrera is a trooper, one who I used to watch & love every week on Ugly Betty in my twenties.  But this is a nothing part, more so than even Blunt.  She nails the centerpiece monologue enough that it resonated with audiences, but it's not that good, and even if it was, you need more, and there is nothing near that in this film.  This is the definition of a coattails nomination, one that is the best example of the Academy actually liking Barbie and not just giving it the required citations.

An actor who is giving more than the script demands is Jodie Foster.  This was Foster's first nomination in almost thirty years, and her first in almost 50 years in supporting, and she clearly liked getting back to the Oscars.  That honestly could've been enough (sometimes legends say "me again!" and the Oscars say "sure" even if it's for nothing special-look at Robert Duvall in The Judge), but Foster actually adds something to Nyad.  She has great chemistry with Bening (you buy them as people who have loved each other for decades, including the sort of competition that can only come from friends that used to date), and adds things that aren't necessary to the story.  Look at how deftly she handles Bening's Diana, being able to maneuver around certain arguments while choosing to take others dead-on.  I love that backstory work in a character.

Background work is also on display for Da'Vine Joy Randolph.  Randolph, like Foster, knows what it's like to be on the sides of her own life.  In this film, though, she does a good job of staking what territory in her life is hers versus what she's willing to share, and how much pain that causes when she mixes those two things up in her life.  You get the understanding from Randolph's work that not only does she miss her son, she misses being herself, being happy like she was before her son died with one of the only people she allowed herself to be authentic with.  It's really measured stuff-I honestly cannot wait to see what she does next, and I hope Hollywood has some good ideas.

Other Precursor Contenders: We had another stampede similar to Supporting Actor, so Da'Vine Joy Randolph gets all of the hardware.  For the Globes she beat Blunt, Brooks, Foster, Julianne Moore (May December), and Rosamund Pike (Saltburn), while at the SAG Awards it was over Blunt, Brooks, Foster, & Penelope Cruz (Ferrari).  I thought she might lose the BAFTA to Blunt, but no dice, as she took out Blunt, Brooks, Sandra Huller (The Zone of Interest), Claire Foy (All of Us Strangers), & Rosamund Pike (Saltburn) in the UK.  I actually called this field exactly right (which few people did), and had three names in the sixth place slot: Huller, Moore, & Viola Davis (Air).  I'll be real-any of these still make sense to me, but the one that will get me yelled at the least is Huller, so I'll go with her.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I hate when Oscar gives a performer an Oscar, and then feels like "we're done" while that actor continues to put in great work.  That's particularly true of someone like Julianne Moore, who has spent her post-Oscar years trying a variety of genres (some unsuccessfully), but has never been as good since with her dynamite turn in May December.

Oscar’s Choice: Randolph won by a landslide, probably atop Blunt, who might've been an actual threat for a win if she'd managed to get a single precursor given her narrative as "overdue" (that tactic worked for Christian Bale).

My Choice: Between Randolph & Foster (the two best of this bunch), I will select Randolph, both because I think she has some of the best scenes and (let's be real) she's in the better movie.  Brooks is in third, which leaves yet another Barbenheimer matchup for last.  Part of the fact that we're 4-0 in favor of Barbie (with only one left to face off), almost makes me want to give it to Blunt, but there were moments in her film I thought she was giving a bad performance even if she lands her one big scene, something I never felt with Ferrera, so Barbie continues its shutout.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  I joined the season stampede and gave this win to Da'Vine Joy Randolph...was that the right choice?  I suspect that of the Barbenheimer matchups this is the one the most people will disagree with me on-anyone else favor Ferrera to Blunt?  And was it Davis, Huller, or Moore in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Supporting Actress (2000)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2000)

The Nominees Were...

Judi Dench, Chocolat

Marcia Gay Harden, Pollock

Kate Hudson, Almost Famous

Frances McDormand, Almost Famous

Julie Walters, Billy Elliot

My Thoughts: Surprises aren't really a thing in the Oscar acting races anymore, not like they once were.  Today, you might go in knowing you're going to win (Robert Downey Jr. this year), knowing you might win (Lily Gladstone this year), or knowing you won't win (Sterling K. Brown this year).  But there was a time where technically anyone could win, and what a thrill that was (the real ones will know what I just did).  In 2000, we had one of the bigger upsets in the acting races we've encountered in our My Ballots, when Marcia Gay Harden pulled off victory over far likelier contenders that year.

Let's start with Marcia.  For those who don't know, in 2000, you could've made a serious argument that Harden was in fifth place even among the nominees before she went on to win.  She got her victory through being just that good.  Her Lee Krasner is a fascinating composite onscreen.  We see the ways that Harden navigates being a wife, a female painter (in a time where they got ignored), and someone who understood the financial opportunity that came with marrying one of the great artistic minds of the 20th Century.  Adding in a fantastic bit of accent work, Harden becomes very hard to beat if you actually see her movie.

That said, her chief competition at the time was impressive too.  One of her biggest competitors was Kate Hudson, who roared into movie stardom (just like her mom) with Almost Famous, and like her mom, got an Oscar nomination to prove it.  I think people's attitudes toward Hudson in the years that followed (where she hit stardom, but not superstardom and never did something this good again) have clouded their tastes on this performance, which is really wonderful.  She embodies the beautiful hipster, trying to cling to those who are actually experiencing fame, knowing (but never showing) that this will only last while her youth continues.  It's a tragic, but very real performance, and the soul of the film.

The other competitor for the win was Judi Dench.  Just two years after her Oscar win, she was a serious threat for victory in 2000 for Chocolat (and easily the closest that Miramax came to getting that film a statue).  Her work here is pleasant.  It'd become the prototype for the "sweet old woman" roles that Dench would milk as a proper movie star in the next couple of decades, but it hadn't been established yet so it feels much fresher.  I do think that this isn't worthy of Oscar, even if it's good acting-it's a bit too paper thin, especially in her character's bigger moments.

Julie Walters is another renowned British character actress who made it into this field, and her work in Billy Elliot is also solid.  I will admit to a soft spot for both of these actresses (I'll watch anything they do), but I don't think that Walters is quite as good as, say, her costar Jamie Bell in this film.  She gives us a lot of what we'd expect from Walters (a surly disposition masking a kindly heart), but it doesn't give us quite enough more.  I wanted more hints at how she missed her own opportunities, how she also dreamed of getting out, to add more dimension to her character.  But, again, a fine piece of work that it's hard to get mad about Oscar citing.

Frances McDormand is arguably the best actress of these five women, but I do think she has the least to do in her nominated performance, and more importantly, the least impact on her film.  Her concerned mother has some humor which McDormand can ring, but it comes across as a bit one-note, or at the very least sharp as she imbues the "anxious mother who doesn't understand" character with little nuance.  It's possible that this nomination cost Hudson her win with vote-splitting, but I'd not entirely be convinced anyone looked at this and said "one of the year's five best" without it actually getting a nomination.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Hudson, and the same lineup as Oscar save Harden, who was pushed out for Catherine Zeta-Jones (Traffic).  SAG gave their statue to Dench, again against the Oscar lineup without Harden (here it was Kate Winslet in Quills who got the nomination).  BAFTA gave their statue to Julie Walters (see what I mean about Harden being a surprise) with McDormand, Dench, Lena Olin (Chocolat), & Zhang Ziyi (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) as the nominees.  In sixth place, I think you could make a few arguments here.  Zeta-Jones was obviously in the running, but at the time she was facing something of a "too-much-too-soon" backlash (she's always been an old school "give good quip" sort of movie star, and that has occasionally hurt her with a press that wanted a docile princess-type).  So it was likely either Winslet or Connie Nielsen (Gladiator) nearly making it, both the primary female character in an all-male, Oscar-cited cast.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I have no such prejudices against Catherine Zeta-Jones (I don't want relatable stars), and would've nominated her splendid work in Traffic, showing how deep her talent could get two years before Oscar could no longer deny her.

Oscar’s Choice: Like I said above, Marcia Gay Harden pulled off a big upset against Dench & Hudson, a win that has aged pretty well by my estimation.

My Choice: In a very close race (both of them will show up in our My Ballot article in the next week) I will select Marcia Gay Harden over Kate Hudson, as I think she has more notable character work in her choices, but either would've made a good winner.  Behind them are Walters, Dench, and then McDormand.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone agree with Marcia Gay Harden as the Oscar victor, or do people want someone else in retrospect?  When was the last time you feel we had a truly left field acting winner?  And was it Zeta-Jones, Winslet, or Nielsen in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2000: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

Film: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

Stars: Ellen Burstyn, Alfred Lutter, Kris Kristofferson, Harvey Keitel, Diane Ladd, Valerie Curtin, Jodie Foster

Director: Martin Scorsese

Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn*, Supporting Actress-Diane Ladd, Original Screenplay)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Kris Kristofferson: click here to learn more about Mr. Kristofferson (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we talked a little bit about Kris Kristofferson's very successful early career in music, but during the 1970's you'd be forgiven for thinking of him as a movie star in the same breath as thinking of him as a country music titan.  Kristofferson's career in movies is unusual because two of his biggest films of that era are movies that, while he got top-billing, he was totally overshadowed in terms of press coverage (and eventual recognition) in favor of his female costars.  That's certainly the case for today's movie, which is a pretty major crossover into the Oscar Viewing Project, as I watch my final (to date) Ellen Burstyn Oscar-nominated performance, and the only movie Burstyn ever won an Academy Award for.  The movie also happens to be the first studio movie that Martin Scorsese (who, like Burstyn, is still working) ever made, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is something of a road trip film, at least in the first half, with Alice (Burstyn) a former singer who has recently been widowed by her neglectful husband, taking her son Tommy (Lutter) across the country.  She wants to go to Monterey, her childhood home, where she dreams of picking up her singing career again, but along the way things get messy for her.  First, she meets a younger man named Ben (Keitel), who seems charming, but is actually an abusive married man whom she ends up fleeing town with after he threatens Alice.  At that point, in Tuscon, she gives up (temporarily) on her dream of becoming a singer for the more realistic life of a waitress in Mel's Diner, a local, fast-paced watering hole, where she befriends the outspoken Flo (Ladd), and starts romancing a regular named David (Kristofferson).  But her relationship with David is complicated by her increasingly unruly son, and eventually things come to a head when David physically disciplines Tommy.  The movie ends with them moving past this, and forming an unlikely family, with Alice giving up on her dream of being a singer, but finding a different kind of happiness with David instead.

I'll be totally honest-the ending of the movie doesn't work.  The movie's naturalism is its key asset, and that assists in a lot of the performances, but not in the ending.  The only logical reasons that David & Alice end up together are that it makes a cleaner ending than her pursuing a dream the audience knows won't happen, and that Kris Kristofferson circa 1974 is so hot you kind of look past the obvious, toxic masculinity flaws.  But it's not earned.  It's also hard to totally look at this from a modern lens without realizing that there is something seriously wrong with Tommy, who is a truly spoiled brat, and one who exhibits a lot of the same cruel tendencies that his father also exhibited at the beginning of the picture, which is going to be a problem for Alice in the years that follow (writing children in the 1970's was a nightmare unless you cast Tatum O'Neal or Jodie Foster, the latter of whom has a small role in this).

But the acting is good.  Burstyn brings a naturalism to her Alice, a modern woman who doesn't understand that it's not her gender, but her age, that will hold her back with the dreams she gave up to start a family.  There's an interesting commentary there about how the women's liberation movement came too late for a lot of women who now had the opening to make their dreams come true, but not the time.  Coupled with Ladd, who is superb in a side role as Alice's rival-turned-friend where she continually steals scenes, it's a great pairing and proof that Scorsese is capable of getting strong performances from women when he tries.  Kristofferson doesn't have a lot to do here but look pretty and then bounce off of Burstyn's monologues (this is very much an actress showcase film), but he does that well.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2001)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Jennifer Connelly, A Beautiful Mind

Helen Mirren, Gosford Park

Maggie Smith, Gosford Park

Marisa Tomei, In the Bedroom

Kate Winslet, Iris

My Thoughts: We talked a little bit about this in the Adapted Screenplay race, but part of the reason that A Beautiful Mind has aged poorly is not because it was a bad movie, but because it beat better movies at the Oscars.  When this is discussed, the focus is usually on the Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay races, mostly because people do not enjoy being mean about individual actors winning Oscars.  It's weird when there's a star with dozens of characters (potentially in movies you like) behind the win (this is partially why people win in the first place for performances that might not be worthy or are just career-achievement statues).  But that's definitely the case here, as it's hard to look at this list of either actors or performances and not think that the least of them won.  But let's see if that's actually the case?

Jennifer Connelly is an actress I don't get, though I'd never name check her as an actress I dislike.  She's very beautiful, and I think her best role might be The Rocketeer, where she leans in on that, or perhaps Requiem for a Dream (though there she's upstaged by Ellen Burstyn).  This work is solid-I think she understands Alicia Nash, and she delivers her monologues beautifully.  But I believe this falls too often into the trope of "what if there was a wife?", where the role is largely meant to be a reflection of her husband.  That's sometimes called for in a movie, but it's not the type of role I think of when I think of handing someone an Oscar, and that's what we're talking about given the point of this article, so Connelly falls short.

On the flip side, you have Helen Mirren doing everything she can to nail a side character that will come into further focus as the movie churns along.  This was still during Mirren's "acting god" phase, before she won an Oscar & was never quite as good again.  Every line in this is really something from her, starting off as very cross & devoted to her employer, and as we move on we understand there's more to both that relationship and the relationships of those around her than meets the eye.  By the crucial climax of the film, she's done all of the work to get to ace her big monologue, totally devastating the audience as the film closes.

Mirren's definitely going in on all cylinders here, in maybe her best film work to date, and is playing against type as a dowdy maid.  Two other actresses in this race are playing into our expectations of them, but doing so beautifully.  Mirren's costar Maggie Smith is one of them.  I think Smith's role here, which would inspire her part in Downton Abbey, is more substantive than some of her later "comic relief dowagers."  She plays her part beautifully between being someone who is mocked (she's poor, and has to rely on her richer relations for money), but also who has lived this life for so long she doesn't know how to be anything other than what she currently is.  It's a balance she pulls off with a great deal of wit, but the work she's done, like Mirren, pays off toward the end in smaller moments as she becomes relieved that her problems entering the house aren't what they were when she leaves, showing just below the veneer.

The other actress who is leaning into what we'd expect from her is Kate Winslet.  This was during that period where pretty much every Winslet performance was an event, leading up to her inevitable Oscar.  Winslet is marvelous here.  Yes, she's playing another earth mother role that is sexually liberated, but she does so with finesse.  She is given the difficult task of giving us an Iris to mourn as Judi Dench's character shows what has been lost, full of life, vitality, and genius.  Winslet does that brilliantly, frequently shocking the audience but doing so with enough specificity that this Iris doesn't get lost alongside some of her other work of this period.

The final nominee is Marisa Tomei, who at the time felt like she was giving a middle finger to the people who, for a decade, had been talking about her My Cousin Vinny win as if it was a gigantic mistake the Oscars made.  Tomei is smart in this part, playing her role as someone whose motives aren't always clear-does she love Nick Stahl's Frank, or is he just a way out of a bad life for herself?  Is she aware of the danger she's putting Frank in...and does she care if it means that she might get out?  Tomei plays this fluttering beneath her eyes, a sense of a pretty girl who generally can play that card to get out of responsibility.  It's the sort of role that easily could've been played just for sympathy or sentiment, but she makes her steelier, a bit more ruthless, and that helps make the ending (even when she's offscreen) so powerful.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Connelly, besting Mirren, Smith, Winslet, Tomei, & Cameron Diaz (Vanilla Sky).  The SAG Awards put Connelly in lead due to a balloting error, so the winner was Mirren, who beat Diaz, Cate Blanchett (Bandits), Judi Dench (The Shipping News), & Dakota Fanning (I Am Sam).  BAFTA went back to Connelly, topping Mirren, Dench, Winslet, & Smith.  I'm torn on sixth place.  Diaz did the best in the precursors, but Diaz was cited for a lot of precursors during this era (not just for Vanilla Sky, but also There's Something About Mary, Being John Malkovich and Gangs of New York) and couldn't make it for any of them, so I think she just wasn't Oscar's speed.  I'm guessing it was between Dench & Fanning, and I'm going to lean toward Fanning given Dench was already in for Iris...Penn getting in for Best Actor makes me think they liked the film, and children do well in this category.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: This is a very good lineup, the best of the four acting lineups that Oscar amassed in 2001.  But if they could've squeezed in Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, it would've been even better.

Oscar’s Choice: Connelly spent the entire season giving extraordinarily dull acceptance speeches, but Oscar didn't care and gave her the statue.

My Choice: Mirren is the best of this very good lineup-she's not just playing against type, but she's the emotional crux of her film.  Following her I'd go Smith the silver, followed by Winslet, Tomei, and Connelly.  The reputation of this race was right-she was out of her league.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you side with the Academy in giving Jennifer Connelly her only statue, or would you like to join me in the downstairs with Helen Mirren?  Doesn't it feel a bit of a crime that no Robert Altman film ever won an acting trophy given how good he was with actors?  And was it Fanning, Dench, or Diaz in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2001: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Barefoot in the Park (1967)

Film: Barefoot in the Park (1967)

Stars: Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Charles Boyer, Mildred Natwick

Director: Gene Saks

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Supporting Actress-Mildred Natwick)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Robert Redford: click here to learn more about Mr. Redford (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Robert Redford always looked like a movie star (he famously was confused when Mike Nichols said he couldn't be the lead in The Graduate because he was too good-looking, apparently being perplexed when Nichols said he wasn't believable as a guy who was turned down by a girl...the real-life Redford being truly unfamiliar with the concept).  However, it took him a while to get there.  In the 1960's, Redford became a mainstay in television guest spots, including roles on Maverick, Perry Mason, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and The Twilight Zone, even getting an Emmy nomination for The Voice of Charlie Pont, but film stardom wasn't really an option.  He started his film career in a guest spot in Tall Story (with Jane Fonda & Anthony Perkins), and became a second-or-third leading man in pictures like Inside Daisy Clover and The Chase.  It was in 1967 that Redford finally got to be a proper leading man and gain a strong foothold in Hollywood in Barefoot in the Park, a big hit (again opposite Jane Fonda) for Paramount that would lead to Redford getting A-list status for the next 50 years.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie follows newlyweds Corie (Fonda) and Paul (Redford) as they start to understand early married life together.  The beginning of the film is just them having sex for six days at the Plaza (having non-stop sex with a 30-year-old Robert Redford sounds like a good way to kill a week, so well done to Jane).  Afterward, though, they move into their fifth story walkup (without an elevator, a running gag in the movie), and the reality of domesticity starts to take over.  It turns out that Corie is not impressed with Paul's buttoned-up attitude, focusing on his job & not experiencing life, and she wants someone who is more adventurous, someone like their upstairs neighbor Victor Velasco (Boyer), whom Corie is trying to set up with her mother Ethel (Natwick), who is a bit shocked by everything involved, and likes her routine.  As the film goes, it turns out that both Corie & Paul need to give a little, but are clearly meant for one another, and the film ends with them reconciling on their rooftop after Corie saves Paul's life to a smattering of applause (and of course Victor & Ethel end up together too, because why not?).

The movie itself is a bit of a mixed bag.  The script is by Neil Simon, and (are we in a safe space here?)...I've never really gotten Neil Simon.  For much of the 1960's & 70's, his plays & films were a huge part of the cultural zeitgeist, but they feel bland and like they're commentating on things about romantic life that feel pretty prosaic and a weird mix of modern ideals & conservative values.  Maybe you had to be there to get it.  Like, it makes no sense that Corie is just learning about Paul being a "stuffed shirt" now, given they presumably dated before they got married (we learn zilch about what they're like before the wedding, which is an interesting writing choice but it doesn't really get us anything).

The stars, though, make up for it.  Fonda & Redford are sexy as hell, and honestly you kind of just want to spend the entire movie focusing on their randy interactions at the Plaza, with Fonda telling naughty jokes as Redford gets into the elevator being a plus.  The two of them, who had already starred in The Chase as co-leads before this, would go on to star in two more movies in the decades to come, and it shows-their chemistry is off-the-charts.  The supporting roles are less successful.  Boyer, at this point well into his career as a leading man and now taking smaller parts as an aging lothario, is as hammy as you'd expect, and so is Natwick.  This was the character actress's only Oscar nomination, and I have a personal policy of not being too mean about ragging on actor's only nominations, but this isn't earned.  She's two-dimensional, is basically comic relief that rarely provides comedy, and probably only got this because AMPAS wanted to award the film somewhere, and the leads were too sexy to honor just yet.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2022)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2022)

The Nominees Were...

Angela Bassett, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

Hong Chau, The Whale

Kerry Condon, The Banshees of Inisherin

Jamie Lee Curtis, Everything Everywhere All at Once

Stephanie Hsu, Everything Everywhere All at Once

My Thoughts: The internet is kind of an ugly place.  It has corners of wonder, information at your fingertips, friendships develop there (I'm literally typing this at the apartment of a friend I met on the internet), and you can make community with people oceans away.  But it's also a place of extremes, where for some reason everything, even something as simple as an Oscar race, becomes about hatred & ragging on a longtime character actress getting her moment in the sun.

This is all to say, that I, unlike every person on the internet, am in the middle on Jamie Lee Curtis's win for Everything Everywhere All at Once.  I think Curtis is the fourth best performance in the film, but that's not an insult, it's just a well-acted movie.  She's a longtime trouper who knows how to land every comic line reading here, making a character that doesn't read as memorable in the script last in your brain throughout the movie (which is critical to land some of the film's best visual humor in the back-half).  Curtis is charming, and may have won in part because everyone likes her & she was in a major Best Picture winner (she would not be the first person to get an Oscar by playing that card), but she's also someone who has deserved at least a couple of nominations by now, and who lands most of her (short) role.  I'm fine with it, particularly given what we'll discuss later this week in Best Actor.

On the same side, while I do think her costar Stephanie Hsu is better than her, it's not a crime that she didn't win an Oscar (go to certain corners of Twitter, and people will disagree on that front).  Hsu has the trickiest part in the movie, playing dual roles that need to be connected without it feeling like we're belaboring the metaphor, but she does it, stealing scenes from actors with decades more experience, and giving us an overlapping resolution with her mother, Michelle Yeoh.  Like most of the actors in the film, I think the swirling end of the movie might undercut some of the points her performance is trying to make, but this is such a promising start to her career.

Angela Bassett is getting an Honorary Oscar later this year, which, honestly, is too soon (I didn't get to talk about this on the blog because time got away from me, but I think she's too young to get a "we're never going to give you a win" statue, particularly after she nearly won in 2022).  Bassett is a brilliant performer, but this role is not good enough to give her a statue.  She gets one great soliloquy, used to maximum effect in the trailers & her Oscar clip, but it's not enough-the movie feels aimless, and needs her character to have more grounding to underline the tragic nature of this movie (particularly given the real-life death that necessitated its melancholy approach).  Good actress, forgettable performance.

Hong Chau is in a similar situation.  Unlike Bassett, Chau is hampered by a terrible movie (Black Panther 2 is fine).  She's the best part of it, and the way that she channels frustration onto the door-to-door missionary who keeps visiting Brendan Fraser's dying Charlie is good.  But it's lost in a movie that has no logic.  Her part feels so alien, this put-upon friend who clearly has not had any in-depth conversations with Charlie because she'd understand how messed-up he has become psychologically in the years that followed his partner's death, and Chau's natural ability to relate to the material can't work in a movie where the script is this bad.  Getting nominated for her scene-stealing work in The Menu would've been a better option.

Our final nominee is Kerry Condon, the "only woman in a cast of men" nomination that happens frequently with Supporting Actress, but here, she's given more to do than just reflect the male actors around her.  Condon's work is kind of spectacular.  In a film where so many around Padraic are trying to find their dreams (which unbeknownst to him, they've been giving up for his happiness), she's the one who understands that it might be worth at least trying.  Her final scenes, when she has to balance the joy of breathing for the first time in years and the heartbreaking guilt of potentially abandoning her brother to the life of loneliness she's escaping is haunting, and the culmination of a movie-long side performance.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Bassett, besting Condon, Curtis, Dolly de Leon (Triangle of Sadness), and Carey Mulligan (She Said), while BAFTA picked Condon against Bassett, Chau, Curtis, de Leon, & Mulligan.  SAG copied Oscar's lineup exactly, including the winner, which does beg the question of who was in sixth place.  I called this lineup exactly and this was less something I was proud of and more something where I was predicting the five frontrunners.  De Leon's film doing well otherwise might mean it's her, and she's the safest supporting actress, but honestly-a crazy nomination like Jean Smart for Babylon was clearly an option here (as would be some of the plethora of supporting actresses in Women Talking).  I will take theories in the comments.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Given that both Glass Onion and Women Talking had multiple performances that deserved inclusion in this lineup, it's weird women in neither of these movies got any love.

Oscar’s Choice: The EEAAO sweep and one of the most impressive awards campaigns I've ever seen got Jamie Lee Curtis the win over Angela Bassett & Kerry Condon.

My Choice: My victor is Condon-her work is the best fit for her film, and has the best-constructed arch.  Behind her (in order) are Hsu, Curtis, Bassett, & Chau.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to stay with the Final Girl getting her statue, or do you have time for the stage actress making good on the big screen?  Do we think it was Condon or Bassett who was in second place (history will write it was Bassett, but I kind of think it was Condon giving that film's strength overall)?  And who was our sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2022: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature, Sound, Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2022

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021