1981 Oscar Viewing Project

We are officially announcing our 30th completed Oscar Viewing Project.  As of yesterday, I have officially seen all of the narrative, feature-length nominees from the ceremony, and as we do here, we'll be ranking all of the major categories.  You'll note with this list that part of the reason that I got some of these completed was that 1981 is one of the most repetitive Oscars ever-all five of the Best Picture nominees got Best Director nominations, and they produced half of the acting nominations (in the pre-2009 era, this was a pretty high metric).  In terms of the box office, though, this is who led the field:

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. On Golden Pond

3. Superman II

4. Arthur

5. Stripes

6. The Cannonball Run

7. Chariots of Fire

8. For Your Eyes Only

9. The Four Seasons

10. Time Bandits

Of these, I have seen only five of the top box office draws of the year.  The 1980's, especially the early 1980's, were still in the era where box office and Oscar's tastes were pretty much synonymous, so this is a relatively light list for Oscar nominees (as the only five films that I've seen are the five that are listed below).  I will for sure see Superman II & The Four Seasons before I complete the year for the My Ballot (where I pick the nominees...hopefully should complete that here by early June, though we'll do the 1957 My Ballot next)...the remainder are more of a question mark (make your cases for them in the comments).  If you're new here, also, look at the bottom of the page for links to all of our past 29 OVP's.

With that said, it's time to start impressing Jodie Foster, firing up your IBM computer, & wanting your MTV.  And of course, let's remember the movies...

(Note: Raiders of the Lost Ark received a Best Sound Editing Oscar at the ceremony as a special prize.  Given its nominations in other categories, I obviously saw this film, but wanted to make sure to note it-when we get to the My Ballot in the next two months for 1981, I will have this be a competitive race)

Note from John: When I did this series during the time when I wrote individual articles, and had this blog be a daily part of my life, I made a point of highlighting each nominee in my many write-ups.  While I will be writing these every time I complete a year (we'll have at least one OVP and/or My Ballot every month going forward), I can't make that time commitment, either in terms of number of articles or in terms of giving each nominee their due with a mention.  I promise, though, that I have given each nominee their due under the confines of the specific category while making my rankings (and of course I've seen every single nominated picture), including giving higher rankings to movies I didn't like if the craft was better than ones I did like (Oscar should consider that!).  Hopefully you enjoy the trimmed-down, but still devoted to the original concept version of the OVP we'll have going forward!

Picture

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. Reds

3. On Golden Pond

4. Chariots of Fire

5. Atlantic City

The Lowdown: This is, all things considered, one of the best Best Picture lineups that Oscar assembled during the 1980's, an era of moviemaking I generally find a bit underwhelming.  None of these movies is bad, but the two truly great ones of the lineup are Raiders and Reds, both from directors at the peak of their creative powers.  I'm going to favor Spielberg's Raiders.  It's less in Oscar's wheelhouse (but these are my choices for a reason), but I think that it is a tighter film, and defines the action-adventure genre.  Reds will be showing up again though (and as you'll see in the coming categories, is a movie I loved).

Director

1. Steven Spielberg (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

2. Warren Beatty (Reds)

3. Mark Rydell (On Golden Pond)

4. Hugh Hudson (Chariots of Fire)

5. Louis Malle (Atlantic City

The Lowdown: We're also going to give Spielberg his second OVP statue for Best Director, once again for a movie he didn't actually win for (can't stress enough how the links to the years we've covered are at the bottom of this page).  It's such a perfectly shot movie, giving us Harrison Ford's iconic archaeologist and a series of flawless adventure sequences.  Beatty's breathtaking too, though, particularly that effortlessly romantic scene at the train station.

Actor

1. Warren Beatty (Reds)

2. Henry Fonda (On Golden Pond)

3. Paul Newman (Absence of Malice)

4. Burt Lancaster (Atlantic City)

5. Dudley Moore (Arthur)

The Lowdown: Don't feel too bad for Beatty, though, as he's going to get a Best Actor statue for our OVP next.  The big fight here for me is between Beatty, whose John Reed is such an impassioned, imperfect example of a revolutionary (pun intended) man, bitter about his inability to be everything he dreamed (but still accomplishing true greatness).  Fonda is excellent in On Golden Pond, wrapping up a career that surely should've gotten an Oscar by then, but as a reminder we pick these winners in a vacuum, so it's possible that we're turning down Fonda's only shot at an OVP win from me, but objectively Beatty is stronger.

Actress

1. Diane Keaton (Reds)

2. Meryl Streep (The French Lieutenant's Woman)

3. Katharine Hepburn (On Golden Pond)

4. Marsha Mason (Only When I Laugh)

5. Susan Sarandon (Atlantic City)

The Lowdown: With the exception of Sarandon (who I think doesn't get Malle's tricky material) this is an underrated "all-timer" lineup, including the best thing I've seen (to date) from Marsha Mason.  For the win, though, it's between Streep and Keaton.  Streep's French Lieutenant's Woman has its detractors (including Streep herself), but I love what she does here, defining two women in similar fashions, both controlled by the same man.  There was a time I considered giving this to Streep (whom, it should be noted, has yet to win one of our OVP's or My Ballot's), but Keaton's sensational here, and giving the best dramatic performance of her career (don't you wish she'd do this instead of yet another spin on Annie Hall just once more?).

Supporting Actor

1. Jack Nicholson (Reds)

2. John Gielgud (Arthur)

3. Howard Rollins, Jr. (Ragtime)

4. Ian Holm (Chariots of Fire)

5. James Coco (Only When I Laugh)

The Lowdown: A lot of first-time OVP rendezvous this year with actors like Hepburn, Mason, Sarandon, Lancaster, & Newman, but it's hard not to think getting to talk about Jack for the first time is the biggest highlight of the bunch.  One of my all-time favorite actors, and you see why here.  His Eugene O'Neill is ruthless, him taking on the role of the "scorned lover" so deliciously ("you're a cheap gutter whore from Portland" being one of the most quotable lines he nails here).  Gielgud is delightful in Arthur and Rollins is the best part of Ragtime, but I am going to give this to Jack (who is definitely in the running to get the most total OVP and My Ballot acting statues before this is over).

Supporting Actress

1. Maureen Stapleton (Reds)

2. Melinda Dillon (Absence of Malice)

3. Elizabeth McGovern (Ragtime)

4. Jane Fonda (On Golden Pond)

5. Joan Hackett (Only When I Laugh)

The Lowdown: Yes, you're reading that right.  For the first (and perhaps only?) time, we are giving all four of the OVP acting statues to the same film, a movie that wasn't able to win Best Picture.  Unlike the other three acting categories, though, Stapleton doesn't have a lot of nearby options that would be respectable choices to beat her.  She nails this part, giving her Emma Goldman an electricity that makes you understand her importance in every scene she's in.  Dillon, McGovern, & Fonda all have their moments, and are roughly on-par (without Stapleton this would've been a more competitive field), but Stapleton being there makes it easy.

Adapted Screenplay

1. The French Lieutenant's Woman

2. On Golden Pond

3. Prince of the City

4. Pennies from Heaven

5. Ragtime

The Lowdown: A particularly weak lineup that isn't entirely Oscar's fault (virtually all of the best films of 1981 were original ideas, unimaginable today), for me it's a contest between the first two, as I thought the screenplays on the remaining pictures were a yawn.  I'm going to give it to The French Lieutenant's Woman, though.  While On Golden Pond had far more quotable lines ("you're my knight in shining armor..." being a classic speech), I think that it doesn't tread deeply enough in the relationship between real-life father-and-daughter Hank & Jane, and I was totally sold on the gimmick of The French Lieutenant's Woman being both a story within a story, something that wasn't in the John Fowles' novel.

Original Screenplay

1. Reds

2. Atlantic City

3. Chariots of Fire

4. Arthur

5. Absence of Malice

The Lowdown: On the flip side, while this isn't that great of a lineup, it at least has one terrific script in the bunch.  Reds is phenomenal, and rises above the cost of an epic (i.e. that the screenplay is regularly the weakest part of it) by giving us a genuine, enthralling love story between two people who can't seem to live without each other (even if they might have to).  Atlantic City has a lovely gimmick, and Chariots of Fire is moving (and Arthur, specifically the parts with Gielgud, can be funny), but none of them can compete with Reds, the one triumph in this field (that should've included Raiders of the Lost Ark).

Foreign Language Film

1. Mephisto (Hungary)

2. Muddy River (Japan)

3. The Boat is Full (Switzerland)

4. Man of Iron (Poland)

5. Three Brothers (Italy)

The Lowdown: One of those years where the Foreign Language Film (now the International Feature Film) category features movies that were only cited for this prize, and nowhere else, so this is your only chance to speak about any of the contenders.  The best of this bunch are Mephisto, a spin on the Faust concept (literally...the main character is an actor best known for playing the devil), and Muddy River, a moving look at friendship across income levels through the eyes of a child.  I'm going with Mephisto, because I think it's grander and has a better central performance from Klaus Marie Brandeur (it also won the Oscar), but Muddy River is not far off and really worth your time if you've never heard of it.

Original Score

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. Chariots of Fire

3. On Golden Pond

4. Ragtime

5. Dragonslayer

The Lowdown: Honestly, in a normal year this would be a slam dunk for something like On Golden Pond, a superb score that can barely muster a bronze here.  Raiders and Chariots are two of the most iconic film scores for a reason, and it's hard to argue with either of them (fun fact: I played "Hymne" by Vangelis for a piano recital when I was in middle school and still have the sheet music for it, even though I don't even have a piano).  I'm going to go with Raiders because I have more of an emotional connection to it, and because I think it's most consistent throughout the actual movie, but this is a coin toss race.

Original Song

1. "Endless Love" (Endless Love)

2. "For Your Eyes Only" (For Your Eyes Only)

3. "Arthur's Theme" (Arthur)

4. "The First Time It Happens" (The Great Muppet Caper)

5. "One More Hour" (Ragtime)

The Lowdown: If you look just at the movie titles here, I'm definitely not picking the best films of the bunch.  Bette Midler quite famously did a send-up of how bad the movies were in this lineup when she presented it (check it out if you haven't seen it...it was the funniest moment in an otherwise pretty tepid ceremony, comically speaking), and both of the Top 2 got the worst of it.  But I don't really connect with Christopher Cross, and I think "Endless Love" is both a moving little ballad, and one that fits the saccharine movie it's housing, just a bit better than the also good "For Your Eyes Only."  Had "Hey a Movie" gotten in from The Great Muppet Caper, we'd be having a reranking here as I always love the Muppets onscreen.

Sound

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. Reds

3. Pennies from Heaven

4. Outland

5. On Golden Pond

The Lowdown: We are once again pitting Raiders vs. Reds, and once again Raiders is coming out on top.  It's just hard to argue with the play on the Saturday morning adventure serial, but now in the mold of a giant movie blockbuster.  Reds is subtler with its sound work, and would make a fine win as well...particularly the crowd scenes feel authentic, melded with the music, but still have a grand aura.  Pennies from Heaven, the token musical that always shows up for Sound...is fine.

Art Direction

1. Heaven's Gate

2. Raiders of the Lost Ark

3. Reds

4. The French Lieutenant's Woman

5. Ragtime

The Lowdown: The best lineup of the bunch, there is not a single bad nominee in this group, and any of them would work as a winner.  I loved the shifts in time being played with in French Lieutenant's Woman, the over-abundance of sets in Ragtime (you understand why this became a musical), the book-laden interiors of Reds, and the continental jumping of Raiders.  But if I have to pick a winner, it needs to be Heaven's Gate, a really grand movie that was (at the time) one of the most famous flops ever made, but it looks spectacular, and I love the shifting stages & devotion to the western on display.

Cinematography

1. Reds

2. Raiders of the Lost Ark

3. Excalibur

4. On Golden Pond

5. Ragtime

The Lowdown: For the first (and only) time in this article, you will see me ever so slightly favor Reds over Raiders.  Despite loving them both, this is the only Oscar contest that I feel Beatty's film exceeds.  I love the camerawork in Raiders (that rolling boulder...come on now, it's iconic for a reason), but I can't help but feel that the use of temperature (you can practically feel the warmth & cold emanating off of the screen in Reds), plus the famous train scene, are impossible to deny.  Kudos also to Excalibur, which has the feel of a shoe-string budget but still gives us glorious looks at Nicol Williamson & Helen Mirren in their entrancing witchiness.

Costume

1. Reds

2. The French Lieutenant's Woman

3. Ragtime

4. Pennies from Heaven

5. Chariots of Fire

The Lowdown: With Indy's fedora left off the dais, it's a contest between the period work of Reds and the period work of The French Lieutenant's Woman (don't look at me like that-I have at least one contemporary film on the list currently for the My Ballot...it's Oscar that never goes there).  Of the two, I go with Reds because I think it is more consistent overall.  There's more care put into French Lieutenant's when it comes to the period stuff than the modern scenes, and Ragtime behind it doesn't break the mold in the way that the of-the-people looks in Reds achieve.

Film Editing

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. Reds

3. The French Lieutenant's Woman

4. Chariots of Fire

5. On Golden Pond

The Lowdown: Again, another Raiders & Reds contest (our final one), with everyone else just getting the scraps.  I think the editing exhibits why these two tower above.  Raiders is fast-paced, effortlessly so in a way that makes every scene feel timeless (which, after nearly 45 years of existence, it really is), while Reds gets a slow-burn, us investing continually as the movie finds its own romance.  The timelessness wins it for Raiders, though (kudos also to French Lieuentant's for working so well with the time jumps).

Makeup

1. An American Werewolf in London

2. Heartbeeps

The Lowdown: We have a pair of two-wide races to complete this year's Oscar's, starting with Makeup (for the record, both of these categories I'll go five-wide when I pick my personal choices).  This was the first year of the Best Makeup category, and they did something that would become commonplace at the Oscars: nominating Rick Baker (the maestro behind An American in Werewolf) and giving the title of "Oscar-nominated" to a truly heinous movie.  There are few films as bad as Heartbeeps, but what's worse is the makeup in it is bizarrely lazy, particularly when you had much better options nominated in 1981 (it's just Bernadette Peters & Andy Kaufman covered in a plastic sheen).  Conversely, An American Werewolf is one of the best achievements of Rick Baker's career, so an easy call for him to take this.

Visual Effects

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. Dragonslayer

The Lowdown: A second category that is only two-wide, we have two films competing against each other in another lopsided victory where I definitely go with Oscar's choice.  At this point, anything George Lucas or Steven Spielberg were creating was foundational to the future of blockbuster cinema, and Raiders is a genius use of practical and special effects, particularly the face-melting scene when they open the Ark.  Dragonslayer, though, unlike Heartbeeps is a genuinely quality product and earned this spot (and will likely make my My Ballot as well for its great use of the imposing dragon in the picture).

Past Oscar Viewing Projects: 1931-32, 1948, 1957, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

OVP: The Electric Horseman (1979)

Film: The Electric Horseman (1979)

Stars: Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Valerie Perrine, Willie Nelson, John Saxon

Director: Sydney Pollack

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Sound)

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 is, of course, an iconic movie star and film director (we'll get into the film direction part of his career next week).  But if you think about his impact on Hollywood, there's a word that comes to mind more than any other that's part of his legacy: Sundance.  This is of course the name of his character in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but it's also the name of the film festival that Redford helped to launch.  Redford bought land in Utah with some of his salary from Butch Cassidy, and would even film a portion of Jeremiah Johnson on this land.  In 1978, though, Redford would use his connections with Utah to found the Sundance Film Festival.  The initial festival was focused on previously-made movies, but by the 1990's the festival had grown, eventually becoming the most important film festival in America.  In recent years, it has become an important launchpad for major Oscar contenders like Manchester by the Sea, Call Me By Your Name, and the Best Picture-winning CODA.

(Spoilers Ahead) Redford didn't have a specific film tied with his early days at Sundance, so I instead am going this week with a western from around the time that Redford was founding Sundance (and just before he'd become a film director), The Electric Horseman.  The film has Redford as Sonny, a washed-up former rodeo champ who spends most of his days now as a spokesmodel for a breakfast cereal.  Sonny is a drunk, a shell of his former self, and also about to get fired during a large corporate merger.  He's also being harangued by an ambitious young reporter named Hallie (Fonda), who is trying to get a story about Sonny, and she gets one when he steals the horse he is a co-sponsor of the cereal with, trying to free it since it's being mistreated by the corporation.  They set off an adventure across the country, intent on letting the horse free before the corporation can get it back, and of course along the way...they find love.

The Electric Horseman is maybe the silliest concept for a movie I've seen in a while.  If the plot above makes no sense, that's because the movie doesn't hold up to this level of scrutiny.  Why, exactly, does a cereal company care so much about one horse, and also why will this throw off a potential merger deal?  These are questions that you shouldn't ask if you want to enjoy the film, which is quite enjoyable, to be fair.  Fonda & Redford, whom we already saw had chemistry in Barefoot in the Park, are at the peak of their star charisma in this movie.  Both had spent the past decade being some of Hollywood's most reliable leading players, and there's something about seeing two iconic stars play off each other that's breathtaking.  This is what was lost when we moved to making superheroes into movie stars rather than actors-getting to view an actual superpower, cause you don't get more radiant than Redford & Fonda at their celebrity peaks.

The film received one Oscar nomination, for Best Sound.  I don't really get this-the sound recording isn't all that interesting, and you could argue there was more opportunity to lean in on the sound design a bit earlier in the film, with the clanging in the casinos and the opening rodeo sequences.  But I do wonder if it got nominated on the richness of Willie Nelson's voice.  Nelson was making his film debut as an actor after a decade of being one of the faces of the Outlaw Country era, and would go on to star in a number of films in the next couple of years (right around the same time that Dolly Parton, his occasional collaborator, was becoming a movie star).  He recorded five songs for this, including a solo version of "Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys," and if that's what the Academy was interested in...I can hardly blame them (Willie Nelson being long one of my favorite singers).

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: The Morning After (1986)

Film: The Morning After (1986)

Stars: Jane Fonda, Jeff Bridges, Raul Julia, Diane Salinger

Director: Sidney Lumet

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Jane Fonda)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

It's not often I give back-to-back 1-star reviews  (we gave out one yesterday for Bombardier if you missed it...there's a lot of articles on this blog, peruse at your leisure), but I haven't had the best luck with my random Oscar-watching in the past two weeks, and so well, here we are.  The Morning After is a movie that you might not have heard of if you didn't live through the 1980's.  Despite being a hit at the time, it hasn't really wandered into pop culture in the way we usually assume films of the 1980's that made this kind of cash have.  In fact, despite this receiving a Best Actress nomination, the phrase "the morning after" elicits pictures of a turned over boat to me rather than Jane Fonda & Jeff Bridges.  But the movie's Oscar nomination makes it mandatory viewing on this blog, so let's jump into it, shall we?

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place on Thanksgiving (if you want tertiary connections to random holidays in a movie which is all the rage on Twitter, this is a "Thanksgiving" movie), where Alex Sternbergen (Fonda), a washed-up actress, wakes up with a dead man in her bed, but she remembers nothing about him from the night before.  She calls her agent Jackie (Julia), who turns out to also be her estranged husband, and he advises her to go to the police.  She doesn't, and goes on the run, where she meets Turner (Bridges), a former police officer, and the only person who believes she's innocent.  Strange things continue to happen to Alex, though, as the body shows up again at the next place she visits, and she starts to doubt Turner's motives.  It's actually Jackie, though, who wants out so he can marry a wealthy socialite Isabel (Salinger), and they framed her for the murder.  In the end, Jackie is arrested (but not Isabel, who seems like she'll get away scot-free) and Alex & Turner seem like they will maintain their romance as the final credits fall.

The Morning After is the kind of movie you almost want to like it's so bad.  It has a few camp factors that in theory should work, after all.  Fonda (legend) scenery-chewing as an alcoholic movie star caught in a murder reads as fun.  The HBO series The Flight Attendant kind of took this plot wholesale, but with that series they were able to lead into the more delicious aspects of the story, and also made the main character (played by Kaley Cuoco) a blast by leaning into her quirks in a way that they don't seem to understand in The Morning After.

As a result, this movie is a trainwreck.  The mystery makes no sense (Alex is famous enough to make it on the front page of the paper in LA, but somehow doesn't get indicted in the clear evidence tampering she's doing throughout the movie?), and the score is weird-way too many sharp tonal changes that telegraph what's going on (and in some cases, telegraph to nothing-the score is aggressively unhinged).  All of the acting choices are bizarre as well.  Raul Julia is maybe the best, even if his character's motives are sporadic, and Jeff Bridges plays his cop like a serial killer for no apparent reason.  Worst of all is Fonda, neither convincing as an alcoholic nor as a washed-up actress.  She's too fit & too glamorous to play this role, and she doesn't understand it at all.  Not only is this the worst nominated performance she has on her Oscar scorecard, it might be the worst performance I've ever seen from her.

OVP: Agnes of God (1985)

Film: Agnes of God (1985)

Stars: Jane Fonda, Anne Bancroft, Meg Tilly

Director: Norman Jewison

Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Actress-Anne Bancroft, Supporting Actress-Meg Tilly, Score)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

We are continuing on our look at the category of Best Supporting Actress with a turn from the mid-1980's, and one that has a bit of history behind it.  Meg Tilly is not an actress we talk a lot about today, but she is part of a really good trivia question-Tilly and her older sister Jennifer are one of only three pairs of sisters to be nominated for acting Oscars, and they are the only ones to have been nominated without competing against each other (to date).  Infamously Joan Fontaine beat Olivia de Havilland at the 1941 Academy Awards, and (less infamously, since unlike Joan & Olivia they were lifelong friends), Lynn & Vanessa Redgrave both lost to Elizabeth Taylor at the 1966 Oscars.  While Jennifer would score a surprise nomination for 1994's Bullets Over Broadway, her younger sister won her nomination a decade earlier, for a more conventional role (by Oscar standards) in the filmed adaptation of the play Agnes of God.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie centers around three women.  The first, whom we meet in the opening scenes, is Sister Agnes (Tilly), a novice at a conservative nunnery who is found bleeding profusely after giving birth to a now stillborn baby.  It is unclear if Sister Agnes has killed her baby (or if she has miscarried), and so a court-appointed psychiatrist named Martha (Fonda) is assigned to investigate the case, under the watchful eye of Mother Miriam (Bancroft) who distrusts Martha & seemingly wants to protect Agnes.  This sets off a strange series of events, as the film encounters conversations about faith (Martha is a former believer, Agnes & Miriam are deeply entrenched in the church, frequently at the cost of Agnes's wellbeing, as she punishes herself through starvation & for getting her period).  We understand as the movie continues that it's likely that Agnes was raped, but after years of mental abuse by her mother didn't understand this & thought that it might be God who had had sex with her.  She is found not guilty (due to an insanity defense), and is left in the convent, the audience never knowing exactly who raped her or what Mother Miriam's true contribution to the death of the child is.

If that plot description feels a little sloppy, it's because this movie is pretty sloppy.  It feels like for the bulk of the movie that the writers don't have an answer as to why Agnes keeps exhibiting stigmata (seemingly out-of-nowhere), and who actually is the father of her baby.  It also doesn't feel like they (or Bancroft) know whether or not Mother Miriam intended to provide the tools for Agnes to kill either herself or the child, though Bancroft's guilt toward the end makes me believe that she knew there was a chance this mentally ill woman would kill her baby.

As a result, the film's Oscar nominations feel cheap.  Tilly's work is routine-she's asked to be beautiful & innocent, but she doesn't bring enough perspective to her work for my taste, and this feels like a flat creation.  The same can be said for Bancroft, who really gets a goose egg in her final Oscar-nominated role, particularly considering Bancroft had done very well with interpreting stage work to the screen before.  She always feels like she's showing her cards in this performance, as if she forgot "oh crap, this scene I'm supposed to act guilty."  Fonda, the only one of the three without an Oscar nomination, has the least showy role, but also doesn't find much to do here.  The only nomination that feels somewhat earned is Georges Delerue's chilling (but forgettable) score, giving the film an atmosphere that no one else seems able to match.

Book Club (2018)

Film: Book Club (2018)
Stars: Diane Keaton, Jane Fonda, Candice Bergen, Mary Steenburgen, Craig T. Nelson, Richard Dreyfuss, Andy Garcia, Don Johnson
Director: Bill Holderman
Oscar History: It's not that kind of movie.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

4 Oscars, 6 Emmys, and 12 Golden Globes.  If we go to the nominations, it's 13, 16, and 39, respectively.  The women of Book Club have created so many film and television memories through the years, honestly, they could have filmed their actual book club and I would have shown up to watch it.  This seems to be the attitude of most of the people I follow on Twitter, who were thrilled to be attending Book Club even if it didn't actually look any good.  The fact that it got made at all is interesting, and proof, perhaps, of Hollywood having missed the boat a bit when it comes to counter-programming.  Book Club is a genuine hit at this point, and proves that you don't have to have an English accent to storm the box office against blockbuster giants (these four women's British contemporaries like Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and Maggie Smith regularly get to lead their own summer comedies).  That said, this is a film review, and it's important for me not to just ask "is this fun?" but also "is this good?"

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers around four lifelong friends: Diane (Keaton), Vivian (Fonda), Sharon (Bergen), and Carol (Steenburgen) who get together every single month to read a book, and because Hollywood demands we have to have a hook in order for four beautiful older women to talk about sex & relationships, the book club pick is Fifty Shades of Grey.  Thankfully this isn't a huge part of the film itself (only Steenburgen seems to indulge a bit in EL James erotica, and that's less central to her subplot than the trailers would suggest), as it would feel a bit ageist to have a bunch of worldly women focus entirely on being shocked by S&M, but it is indicative of the pretty uninspired thinking that screenwriters Bill Holderman and Erin Simms bring to this movie.  For it has to be said-Book Club, for all of the promise of its legendary stars, is not very good.

The film's central problem lies in it being too predictable, and feeling a bit too much like an original movie you'd catch on cable (in many ways it reminded me of Wild Oats from a few years back, which premiered on Lifetime).  There's nothing unique or special happening here.  Candice Bergen is the only person doing something original here, and the only character whose story I wanted to learn more about as the film progressed.  Bergen breathes life into her character, a stately judge who is trying to start dating again, and finds at least some under-explored facets of aging; watching her ex-husband introduce "the love of his life" is a cruel scene, particularly when you consider that he's not meeting some harlot, but instead a genuinely nice younger woman.  There's also the frayed dynamic between her son, who is clearly more like his dad than his mother, and herself, and the way that Bergen tips her hand that she needed to be a more absent mother in order to have her successful career, and the resentment that builds from such a decision.  That's great stuff, and while heavy for a comedy, Bergen makes it work.  The rest of the cast, though, doesn't have that luxury and doesn't expand their characters beyond two dimensions.

Fonda, for example, is phoning in her role as a sexy nymph who let a man get away-she could do this in her sleep.  Keaton's performance as a mother rediscovering love is the same role she's been playing for twenty years.  It would have been genuinely interesting if they had messed around with these parts, for example, and not had them play their own public persona (imagine Fonda as the neurotic mother or Keaton as the lusty single gal), but that's not really what people are buying tickets for; like the Dench/Smith films, they want to see the star they know-and-love, and they don't want them to stretch too much.  As a result, this is a film that feels instantly disposable, which is a damned shame as these actors are too talented to discard.

The Globes' Category Fraud Mic Drop

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association yesterday threw one of the bigger wrenches in a while into the Oscar race.  The voters behind the Golden Globes, arguably the most significant film award not to feature a shiny gold man decided that Rooney Mara (Carol) and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), two of Oscar's frontrunners for a Best Supporting Actress nomination, were actually leads in their respective films and would be considered as such at the Oscars.  Considering the press that being a Golden Globe nominee elicits, and that Globe nominations happen prior to AMPAS voting, it made me wonder what effect this would have on the Supporting Actress race at the Oscars.

This is a pretty big deal, in terms of awards season, and seems to be in response to a years-in-the-making push against category fraud.  While category fraud (where lead performances are marketed as supporting performances in hopes of bettering a film/actor's chances at a nomination) has been around for decades, a backlash happened in particular in 2007 when Casey Affleck, the title character and most significant person in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, was cited in supporting despite the most screentime and the crux of the story's plot centering on his character.  Since then, we've seen a bit of a backlash when actors market clearly leading performances in the supporting category, and occasionally we've seen the Academy reject this out-of-hand (see Kate Winslet in 2008's The Reader, where she won supporting trophies at the Globes and SAG Awards before competing in lead at the Oscars).  This year there was an uproar amongst Oscar pundits when it was announced that Vikander and Mara, who are considered by most people who have seen their pictures as above-the-title characters, would still campaign as supporting and it appears that HFPA is having none of it.

The Academy isn't bound by Globes decisions, or even campaign decisions, as Kate Winslet illustrates above, and so this doesn't necessarily doom Vikander and Mara in the supporting races.  Catherine Zeta-Jones, notably, was nominated for Best Actress for Chicago at the Globes and still went on to win the Oscar in the supporting field that year.  However, this sort of category confusion occasionally has major effects on the Oscar race, most notably in 2003.  That year Scarlett Johansson was cited for leading actress for both Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl Earring at the Golden Globes, but her campaign for Lost in Translation (considering its Oscar haul, clearly the more likely candidate that year) greedily switched to supporting at the last minute despite her being a main character, and as a result almost assuredly cost her a nomination in what was a very chaotic Best Actress race.  Vikander and Mara's campaigns may look at the Globes, and wonder if being in lead at the Globes and supporting at the SAG Awards would hurt their campaigns and just end up changing at the last minute in a move similar to Ian McKellen a few years back for The Lord of the Rings (which paid off nicely-McKellen won an Oscar nomination in the process).

If Vikander and Mara either aren't in the Oscar conversation due to losing out on their nominations or they move to lead, the entire Supporting Actress race kind of turns on its head.  Both of these women are considered significant frontrunners for the trophy (particularly Vikander) at this juncture, and taking them out would give us no real obvious contender for the win.  While it's questionable whether or not either would make Lead Actress (Mara specifically could have issues there considering her costar Cate Blanchett is also a contender), Supporting Actress would be thrown into a bit of pandemonium.  Assuming that certain random names like Rachel Weisz (Youth), Phylicia Rashad (Creed), and Helen Mirren (Trumbo) don't pop up, there are essentially eight additional names that seem to be amongst the nominees for Supporting Actress in a world without Vikander/Mara; these women are Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Joan Allen (Room), Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs), Diane Ladd (Joy), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Elizabeth Banks (Love & Mercy), Julie Walters (Brooklyn), and Jane Fonda (Youth).

Looking at these women there are clearly names that will have a better shot at a nomination (Winslet, McAdams) than others (Ladd, Walters), but the race seems relatively open amongst these women as none of them are ironclad at the moment and I wouldn't say any is guaranteed.  You can take someone like McAdams (who is the only female in a likely male-driven Best Picture nomination, which is usually a solid way to get noticed), and remember that she's never been in Oscar contention before, and this theory falters occasionally (see Vera Farmiga in The Departed or Margot Robbie in The Wolf of Wall Street).  The same goes for the rest: Kate Winslet is in a movie that flopped, Julie Walters and Elizabeth Banks are in tiny films, Joan Allen and Jane Fonda have small roles that could be ignored, and Diane Ladd/Jennifer Jason Leigh are in pictures no one's seen yet, so we have no clue on their actual feasibility.  All-in-all, these eight could make for a (hopefully) madcap spread-the-wealth year if we can't have category fraud.

And of course, there's the question of the winner.  Winslet's won recently and hasn't really done anything since to deserve a second trophy, Fonda's won twice and is in a slim role, Walters/Ladd/Leigh/Allen are all actresses with long pedigreed careers but no one thinks of them as "destined for Oscar" anymore (even though admittedly no one thought that about Patricia Arquette until last year), and McAdams, probably the nominal frontrunner in a field like this, isn't getting the standout raves for Spotlight that the male players are and has never been in Oscar contention previously.  All-in-all, if the Globes (thankfully) have broken back the tide of category fraud this year, we could have a truly exciting race amongst the supporting ladies.

OVP: Youth (2015)

Film: Youth (2015)
Stars: Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano, Jane Fonda
Director: Paolo Sorrentino
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Simple Song #3")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Paolo Sorrentino and I have been a mixed bag so far.  When I first saw his film Il Divo, I hated it.  I thought the movie was dull, listless, and at times confusing (it felt like one of those SNL sketches where everyone's wearing a wig and calling it an impression).  To my great surprise, though, I ended up adoring The Great Beauty, his followup film that won the Best Foreign Language Oscar award and my OVP.  So I went into Youth with great anxiousness, particularly considering my fondness for some of the actors (Caine, Weisz, Fonda) and disdain for some of the others (well, one of the others-Paul Dano).  The film itself feels like it's being slightly cribbed from the same page as both of Sorrentino's previous films, in which an insanely rich man who lives in a sort of strangely sheltered paradise finds a crossroads, but unfortunately (despite some solid performances), it never captures the strange life force of The Great Beauty, feeling in many ways like an imitation that lacks the heart and completeness that comes with such a work.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Fred (Caine) as he lives in a luxury resort in the Swiss Alps, being looked after by his daughter/assistant Lena (Weisz).  He spends much of his days being pampered and enjoying an insane amount of luxury relaxing, medical care, and spa treatments, while at night he sees random musical and stage acts amidst the glamorous but fairly vapid seeming crowd of wealthy spa goers.  His most significant relationship, aside from that with his daughter, is with his friend Mick (Keitel), who is a longtime film director who is trying to create his "testament" picture, one that will surpass all of his other work.  He also strikes up a friendship with movie star Jimmy Tree (Dano), who is tired of being associated with a specific blockbuster performance of his as a robot and wants to be considered a "true artist."  Fred's life is thrown into chaos when an emissary of Queen Elizabeth II wants him to perform his "Simple Songs," the biggest hit of his career, for Prince Philip's birthday.  Fred hasn't conducted in years, and initially refuses even if you know as the film progresses that he will acquiesce.

The film is not short on big ideas, and there's something commendable about trying to create something breathtaking (though the shots aren't as consistently superb as The Great Beauty, Youth is still in love with its cinematography and it occasionally shows).  You see Fred, Lena, and Mick all encounter their own mortality, watching their lives and the way they have constructed them (along with their egos, as narcissism and its strengths/pitfalls is a critical component in the movie) be thrown asunder, with each handling failure in a different way.  Asking larger questions of "what drives life" and "what should we allow to define us"-these are big questions, and ones that the cinema at its best occasionally answers.  However, I felt like the movie wasn't prepared to handle these moments, or at least the script wasn't.  Though we get loads of great soliloquies from all five of the main actors, they don't really interact with each other as much as just exist onscreen together, and the constant barrage of beautiful scenery is meant to feel more pretty than to tell its own silent film of a story (which was something I admired so much in The Great Beauty).  As a result, we get fine acting mixed with a message that just can't cut it.

The acting is, of course, very good.  Keitel, Weisz, and Caine all have excellent moments each, and even Dano manages to make me like him for the first time onscreen in eight years.  Caine leaves Fred very unknowable, which is a risky choice, but we get the sense as the film moves on that he's less unknowable to the audience and more unknowable to everyone, including himself.  He's lived his life without much thought toward his actions until much time after they had passed, and in some cases too far after they had happened.  The final scene is a bit much (the "Simple Songs" feels a bit drawn out and not as iconic as it probably is meant to be), but Fred, finally giving in to the fact that time has past and in many ways moved past his era, sells it with his stern, defeated stoicism.  Only Jane Fonda, in fact, really equals what he's doing here, but man does she sink her teeth into her role as a former movie star now reduced to side roles on television.  Her monologue is the most damning, throwing not only Mick, her beloved former director, under the bus but herself and all of the entertainment industry.  The way she dismisses film, and all of the men who try to continue their moment in the spotlight when it has passed, is cruel, jarring, and viciously accurate.  Fonda's lighting has been criticized by the actress herself, but it's a great decision by the director to shine a garishness on one of the cinema's most beautiful actresses, pushing her in a way to show that continued survival is brutal and requires a nasty force.  It's very late in the film and a small part, but for those who have been wanting Fonda to get the great role her comeback has so far been lacking should look no further.

Those are my thoughts on Youth, a film with great intentions that cannot deliver them despite a fine lineup of actors.  What are yours?  Anyone finding this their favorite Sorrentino picture?  Is Rachel Weisz the most underrated actor currently working?  Can Caine make it six-decades-in-a-row?  Do you agree with Fonda's indictment on film in favor of TV?  Share your thoughts below!

This is Where I Leave You (2014)

Film: This is Where I Leave You (2014)
Stars: Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Adam Driver, Rose Byrne, Corey Stoll, Kathryn Hahn, Jane Fonda, Connie Britton
Director: Shawn Levy
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I don't care for Jason Bateman.  There, I've said, and I am not taking it back.  I watched a couple of episodes of Arrested Development in college, so I don't have that to call back on when I have so many terrible movies thrown at me.  He was awful in The Switch (or The Change-Up...whichever one had Ryan Reynolds...why do his films have such generic, interchangeable titles?), he was the least interesting character in Horrible Bosses-I'm just not that into him.

That being said, the rest of this cast reads like a dream, so I was torn about this movie.  I mean-Fey, Driver, Byrne, Stoll, Hahn, Fonda, and Britton?  Yes please!  It reads like a list of actors that I either am totally in love with or on my way, so even with the middling reviews and the middling leading man, this film had too much curiosity factor to ignore.  And I have to say, I don't quite get the hatred-while certainly not perfect, there was a lot to offer from this movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) Bateman's Judd is a man lost in horrible mid-life crisis cliches.  His wife cheated on him with his boss, so he's out both a job and a spouse, and to make matters worse, his dad just died, and he's not sure how he feels about it.  He and his three siblings: Wendy (Fey), Phillip (Driver) and Paul (Stoll) all have to sit shiva for seven days after their father's passing, meaning that a family that has long had tangential relationships with each other all need to watch their lives (and their baggage) unfold in close proximity to each other.

The really interesting thing about this movie is how much it is a throwback to films from the 1980's, where we would have large, expansive family dramas that added up to a series of different chemistry pairings between a myriad of actors.  In this era of superhero films and not knowing the difference between a straight comedy and a straight drama onscreen (though oddly that combination has been perfected on television), it's nice to see a director having mastered that onscreen.  Of course, it helps that he cast all actors who have been a regular character on a recent television series, since they all know the cadences associated with creating chemistry with everyone on the show.

Picking an MVP in the cast is easy, of course.  Anyone who has seen the trailers knows that Adam Driver was going to be something to behold onscreen, and they were right.  Driver is electric the moment that he comes onscreen, screaming shit in the middle of a psalm because he is late to his own father's funeral, pays no attention to anyone as he proclaims "mommy!" while hugging Fonda and then trying to grab the rabbi's testicles (it sounds weird, but works in the moment).  Driver has sort of upstaged Lena Dunham in the ensuing years of Girls, becoming a young Daniel Day-Lewis in its cast-fascinatingly sexy, intensely watchable, and irresistible to the camera.  If he hasn't become one already, he's on track to be a major movie star and I would be stunned if he doesn't have both an Oscar nomination and a Vanity Fair cover in the next few years.

The rest of the cast is strong too, though.  I'd like for Fonda to get something a bit meatier, but this is someone who pulled off one of the great family dramas of the 1980's, so she knows how to keep things interesting onscreen (and not be reduced by the frequent jokes about her breast augmentation).  Corey Stoll and Kathryn Hahn provide oddly strong layers to a side couple who are desperately trying to have a baby, which is slowly ruining their marriage (and while Stoll adds layers to everything he does, can someone give the very talented Hahn the chance to do the same more often?).  And Fey is heartbreaking as a woman who is lost in her own suburban dream-married to a rich and successful man who has no time for her, she pines for the days of loving a man she wanted when she was twenty but couldn't have.  To be frank, I don't know why we were centered on Judd rather than Wendy this entire movie-he was probably the least interesting and most routine of all of the characters we were encountering.  Had we made this film about Wendy or Paul, I think we could have made this a five-star film, but Bateman is for some reason a bigger star than the rest of the cast, so we simply have a very good movie (I know it's based on a book, but admit it-he's the Altman sibling you were least interested in by the end).

Overall, though, the critics were wrong on this film-it's a great family dramedy: a little bit of laughs, a little bit of heart, a little bit of the bitter-the sort of film you catch on cable and wonder why they don't make them anymore.  Except they just did.  So see it.

And if you did, share your thoughts below-am I the only person not in the Bateman camp?  Is everyone else intensely in love with Adam Driver?  Are we all wishing that Tina Fey or Jane Fonda would get another great acting showcase?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Living Oscar Nominee Trivia

Considering the traffic to Friday’s post about living members of classic films and how it’s one of our more-read posts of the week (or in a while), I figured I might as well try to apply the rule to Oscar, since I’ll be doing a lot of Oscar-watching and writing this weekend.  Below are some random interesting facts about Oscar and living lineups.  I’ve looked at the “furthest out” Oscar nominees/winners, and come up with this:

Earliest Oscars Where All Four Acting Winners Are Still Living

Jon Voight and Jane Fonda on Oscar night

1978, where Jon Voight (75), Jane Fonda (76), Christopher Walken (71), and Maggie Smith (79) all won and are still alive.  It’s worth noting that none of the actors were particularly youthful when they won (Walken had just turned 36 when he picked up the trophy and was the youngest of the bunch), and that Fonda actually outlived the youngest nominee in her lineup (Jill Clayburgh…Fonda and Burstyn are the only two living actresses of that field).  The next year after 1978 is 1980, so not too much of a gap.

Earliest Oscars Where All Five Directing Nominees Are Still Living

1980, where Robert Redford (77), David Lynch (68), Martin Scorsese (77), Richard Rush (85), and Roman Polanski (80) are all still alive.  Worth noting about this lineup is that Scorsese and Polanski would both go on to win the Oscar, and that 1986 is the next lineup to have all living directors (coincidentally, David Lynch was nominated in both years).

Earliest Oscars Where All Twenty Acting Nominees Are Still Alive

This one was tricky, but by my estimation it is 1992.  The eldest nominee of the bunch is Joan Plowright (84), followed by Gene Hackman (just a couple of months younger and also 84) and Clint Eastwood (83).  It’s worth noting that many of these nominees would go on to receive (or had already received) other Oscar nominations: only Jaye Davidson, David Paymer, Catherine Deneuve, Stephen Rea, and Plowright would make this their sole Oscar nomination (as of 2014).  You have to go another four years to 1996 to find the silver medal for this title (the eldest nominees of that year are 89-year-old Lauren Bacall and 83-year-old Armin Mueller-Stahl).

Earliest Best Actor Lineup Where All Nominees Are Still Alive

Robert Duvall winning his Oscar

1983, where Best Actor champ Robert Duvall (83) bested Michael Caine (81), Tom Conti (72), Tom Courtenay (77), and Albert Finney (78).  Duvall, Caine, and Finney would go on to be nominated again both in this category and as a supporting player multiple times in the years that followed, though by my count this is the only time they ever competed against each other.  Looking one year later, you find the next lineup of living Oscar nominees in this category, where Finney is also nominated.

Earliest Best Actress Lineup Where All Nominees Are Still Alive

1971-the Best Actress race has several advantages here, both because women statistically live longer, and because the category tends to nominate younger actresses.  The winner that year for Klute was Jane Fonda (76), who beat out Julie Christie (74…or possibly 73-she’s kept that one surprisingly hidden considering her public profile), Glenda Jackson (78), Vanessa Redgrave (77), and Janet Suzman (75).  Perhaps proving a slight point here, but all but Suzman would go on to get more Oscar nominations in the ensuing years (maybe self-esteem helps longevity).  1972 is the next year with all five living, and in fact every Best Actress nominee from 1972-1976 is still alive as of this writing.

Earliest Best Supporting Actor Lineup Where All Nominees Are Still Alive

1990, which is the most recent of any of the acting lineups for this contest.  The winner was Joe Pesci (71), who beat out Al Pacino (74), Bruce Davison (67), Andy Garcia (58), and Grahame Greene (61).  Though it’s the most recent, it is also the one with the youngest field of actors, for whatever that is worth.  1992 is the next lineup with all living members.

Earliest Best Supporting Actress Lineup Where All Nominees Are Still Alive

1975, though I have to admit I was surprised that Lee Grant (87) was still alive as well (I am being telepathic at the moment).  Grant won the Oscar that year, besting Ronee Blakley (68), Sylvia Miles (likely 81, but this is disputed), Lily Tomlin (74), and Brenda Vaccaro (74).  The next lineup after 1975 with all living members would be 1977, two years later.

Celebrity Death Match

Olivia de Havilland and Kirk Douglas

Not to get too morbid here, but there are only a couple of “last nominee standing” duels where just two of the nominees in a given year are still alive.  They are:

1949: Olivia de Havilland (97) won Best Actress for The Heiress whereas Kirk Douglas (also 97) lost Best Actor for Champion.  While there are others from the era (Bacall, Lansbury, and O’Hara spring to mind), these are probably the two most important living actors from the 1940’s.

1957: Joanne Woodard (84) won Best Actress for The Three Faces of Eve whereas Russ Tamblyn (79) lost for Peyton Place in Best Supporting Actor.

Last Nominee Standing

The below nominees are the final living acting nominees from their respective Oscars:

1936: Luise Rainer (The Great Ziegfeld)

1937: Luise Rainer (The Good Earth)

1939: Olivia de Havilland (Gone with the Wind)

1941: Olivia de Havilland (Hold Back the Dawn)

1944: Angela Lansbury (Gaslight)

1946: Olivia de Havilland (To Each His Own)

1948: Olivia de Havilland (The Snake Pit)

1950: Nancy Olson (Sunset Boulevard)

1951: Lee Grant (Detective Story)

1953: Leslie Caron (Lili)

1954: Eva Marie Saint (On the Waterfront)

1955: Marisa Pavan (The Rose Tattoo)

It’s worth noting that 1952 has three living nominees still, even though it’s been over sixty years since the ceremony: Kirk Douglas, Colette Marchand (89), and Terry Moore (85).   The same goes, stunningly enough, for 1945, where three supporting actresses are still alive, though none of them won that year: they are Angela Lansbury (88) for The Picture of Dorian Gray, Joan Lorring (88) for The Corn is Green, and Ann Blyth (85) for Mildred Pierce.

That’s a lot of Oscar trivia-did I miss anything?  Anything you’d like to add.  Share in the comments!