Lincoln

Lincoln, 2012
Directed by Steven Spielburg

Lincoln tells the story of, well, Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States, and the most well known (and loved) president. The film is set during 1865, as the Civil War is winding down. Lincoln is endeavoring to abolish slavery through passing a 16th amendment to the Constitution. However, he needs to do this before peace is reached in the Civil War before the Southern States would return and any slaves that had been freed may be re-enslaved, and the amendment would never pass. Should it pass, slavery would be banned in the United States and the Southern States So Lincoln must do everything he can to get enough votes for it to pass. However, having an early peace would mean saving hundreds of lives. So Lincoln must decide what is best for his country.

I'm just going to say this outright that I'm not an American, nor am I interested in history (much less American history at that). I'm a Canadian, and my country didn't exist during the time of the Civil War (though it became a country only 2 years after the Civil War). This movie was, obviously, very political-heavy. It was a lot, a lot of talk, and then some more talking. And while I'm not into history and I'm not American, it made it somewhat difficult to be overly interested in this film. Canada as a country has never had slavery, as before we were Canada we were a British colony and slavery was abolished roughly 60 years before it was in American. Not being someone who is into history, nor is into politics, much of the movie went over my head a little bit. After doing some research into the movie for this review (and talking to my fiancee about exactly what happened and why the amendment needed to pass before the end of the war) I came to appreciate a bit more of who Lincoln was as a person and a politician, how he was pressed against time to ban something that would never have passed had the Southern States been in the vote, and how, once they rejoined them as a country when peace was made, they would be forced to free their slaves. Clever guy, really. However the film didn't get me overly interested in history, and it felt a little too "rah-rah America" at some points for me as a Canadian to get into. (Yes I realize this movie is about America's most beloved-President, and about a turning point in American history, but you know what I mean. You can only take so much of "rah-rah" any country that isn't your own.)

Other than that, I could see how incredibly well made this film was. While I genuinely loved War Horse, Spielburg almost seemed to have listened to what the complaints that people had against War Horse and made sure none of it was in this movie. The movie was not nearly as nostalgic, sentimental, and was a lot more talk and intelligent than WH was. People are saying it's Spielburg's best movie in the last 10 years, and I have to agree. The acting was incredible, the sets and cinematography were amazing, and the script was well done.

Daniel Day-Lewis, a man who already holds 2 Oscars in his hands may need to grow an extra arm so he can hold his third. He was simply incredible as Lincoln. While we have no actual footage of Lincoln (obviously), he is exactly as what I would imagine Lincoln to be like. But Spielburg also made him human. There's something about Lincoln, a man who is an icon, that seems almost non-human in a way. He's just an icon. But Spielburg gave Lincoln a sense of humor, a love of storytelling, charm, wit, and had him throw his feet up on the table while he was busy reading whatever. Things like that made him seem like a real person and not just the iconic guy you see in history textbooks. Day-Lewis captured this man so perfectly and also made him believable and human.

Sally Field, also someone who holds 2 Oscars, was fabulous as Mary Todd. She was able to balance the "putting on a face" for the public, and having her emotions all over the floor as Lincoln's wife. And another man, Tommy Lee Jones (he only has one Oscar :P), as Thaddeus Stevens, a fervent abolitionist, and a member of the United States House of Representatives. Jones was a radical and gave Stevens mystery. While you knew he was very much in favor of racial equality, you never knew what he was going to do or say next. He gave a wonderful performance, as the sharp, witty and funny man who had a dark and serious side to him.

The supporting cast (made up of actors like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, David Spader and Tim Blake Nelson) was quite fine. While JGL had a much smaller part than I thought he would, it was interesting side note to the history of Lincoln. And Spader and Nelson's part was some good humor, them almost pushing Senators to vote of the Amendment, but conspicuously handing out folders on the topic and following after them shouting for them to vote. Between these parts, and the ending vote, I enjoyed them and were something I could follow.

Overall, the film was well made. It was well-crafted and paid a lot of attention to detail. However, while I thought the voting scene was quite fun and brilliant, there were so many little stories going on (Lincoln and his son, Lincoln and his wife, Lincoln and the vote, etc) nothing seemed to have a "big" moment or wrap-up. And while these were all very important story lines, I didn't quite feel the importance of any of them. The movie seemed to simply touch on many things, but never really fully developed a lot of the smaller story lines. Even though they showed a little bit of the result of the ending of slavery, it wasn't quite enough to make a big enough impact.

Then again, I feel like if you're not into history, and not an American it would be a little difficult to quite appreciate what happened in the film. You can appreciate Lincoln as a politician and him being clever, but if you don't quite know the story, it may be hard to appreciate how the events turned out in the States, especially since many country abolished slavery (such as Britain) before the United States.

As for Oscar chances, this film has about a lock in every category, from Best Picture (many say it has a good chance at winning), director, Actor (current front-runner), Actress, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, and most things within the art and tech categories, this has the potential to sweep the Oscars. However it has big competition from films like Argo (another favourite to win picture and director) and Les Miserables which also has the potential to sweep the awards in every category (including all 4 acting categories). It's definitely a big year, and Lincoln will be a big contender.

7/10

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1979

1979

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Marsha Mason in Chapter Two

I cannot conclude that Marsha turns in some really special work in Chapter Two, her performance adds some life to the movie and prevent it from becoming a cure for chronic insomnia. Her luminous, interesting presence and impeccable delivery make you go on with the movie. Still, since she's not able to pull of the harder, more emotional scenes.

4. Jill Clayburgh in Starting Over

 Jill Clayburgh gives a really charming, likeable performance in Starting Over, that really is much better than the film it's in. She  creates a very human character that seems very easy to relate to. Although her chemistry with Burt Reynolds is not perfect, the most important thing is that Jill is able to tell you why Phil fell in love with Marilyn. Very enjoyable lightweight work. 

3. Bette Midler in The Rose

Bette Midler's performance is a real emotional roller coaster that's outstanding in every possible way and does so seeming natural all the time. She's everything that people like to see on screen, she indeed sings, dances and dies. I could mention her loud breakdowns, her amazing singing or her tender moments with Frederick Forrest, it wouldn't describe properly how fantastic she is.

 

2. Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome

Jane Fonda is nothing short of amazing in The China Syndrome. What could seem to be one of her least passionate performances is in fact one of the most mysterious and layered ones she's ever given. As usual, she commands every scene as well as develops her character beautifully, adding new layers and dimensions to her in every minute. Jane so wonderously portrays Kimberly's awakening and development as a person that you just marvel at every little detail in this performance.

 

1. Sally Field in Norma Rae

Sally Field is perfect as Norma Rae. She developed this character with great care and expertise and you just constanly feel how much compassion she has for this woman. Every single scene, every single monologue of hers is exceptionally done by her, making it especially difficult not to fall in love with her and the character. A deeply affecting, wonderful, unforgettable performance, the true highlight of a great actress' career. 

 

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Sally Field

in 

Norma Rae

You got what you wanted Sally. :)

Final thoughts: What a year! Three truly knockout performances that will be really high in my ranking. No matter how strict I tried to be, the work of these three women was just unbelievable. Sally won this for me rather easily though I'm really sad that I can't say goodbye to Jane with another win. In the end, I narrowed it down to the two of them, Bette fell behind a bit (I love her and would be my pick in many other years). Jill and especially Marsha were far behind these amazing ladies, but I found many things to be respected and loved in there respective performances. Overall, a wonderfully interesting year, which is right up there with the best (1989 is still my favorite, though, for whatever reason, 1979 is very close). 

If you think that Jane won't get a special tribute after this, something's seriously wrong with you. :) She'll get it from me.

Omissions: 

• Vera Pap in Angi, Vera *My pick* (in a tie with Sally)

About the next year: I'll get to do a year from a decade I rarely cover, let's leave it there. Let's say that this is the very first Oscar year that Jane Fonda took part in (even if it was a small one) :)). I can't part with her, sorry. 


What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Sally Field in Norma Rae

I imagine how Jane Fonda, Jill Clayburgh and Marsha Mason all must have been like "DAMN!" when Sally Field took home the Oscar over them for a role that they all passed on. Sally Field basically swept all the awards for her performance as the textile worker Norma Rae, who's fighting for a union in Martin Ritt's Best Picture nominated film, Norma Rae. I don't really think that her win came as a surprise for anyone, save for Bette Midler maybe, who still seems to be somewhat pissed by this particular loss of hers. Although Sally may not have won by a landslide, I think she pretty much had it in the Oscar in the bag.

One of the reasons for having an advantage over others was that Sally Field was starring in an important, controversial movie that received a Best Picture nomination. And I have to agree with The Academy here: Norma Rae is a profound, upsetting and uplifting piece of work, which is a beautiful story of a woman's development as well as a political movie. It deserved all the nominations and was worthy of the Oscar for Best Original Song for the moving theme of "It Goes Like It Goes". I was also wondering whether or not the other actors deserved nominations for their respective performances. On the one hand, I'm not sure since 1979 was a strong year in Best Supporting Actor.

On the other hand, Norma Rae is The Sally Field Show and therefore she overshadows every other actor in the movie, no matter how beautifully they support her (this is not criticism in any way, it's more of an observation about the movie itself). If there's an actress to whom a one-woman-show is suitable, it's Sally Field who always dominates the screen with her non-apologetical, almost shameless emotionality. She approaches her characters emotionally rather than intellectuall, which made her the perfect choice for complicated women, like M'Lynn from Steel Magnolias, Maggie Wyczenski on ER (Abby's bipolar mother) or her latest role, Mary Todd Lincoln. And that's also why I think her work in Places in the Heart didn't work on every level. Her persona is just not fit for being toned down, she's way too vivid and colorful to play ordinary, repressed women.

Of all the possible choices for Norma's part, I don't have difficulties imagining Jane Fonda or Marsha Mason as Norma since I believe that both of them would have done an excellent job portraying the soul of a revolutionary (for Jane, it wouldn't have been a real challange) and yet I'm glad that even Jane turned down the part (mind you, this rarely happens to me). Sally Field made Norma Rae her own in such a way that she herself also disappeared completely into her. There are no boundaries anymore between the character and the actress. She applies The Method in the most in the most unusual and exciting way, fabulously adjusting herself to the character and vice versa.

I've seen people being turned off by Sally's very first scene where her character is yelling to the doctor about how her mother became deaf and although it indeed feels like being kicked in the butt right away, I felt that was necessary for the introduction to the character. Norma is not a person who likes beating around the bush, she's the kind of person who's wearing her heart on her sleeve and doesn't hold back anything. However, I felt that, unlike Bette Midler, Sally tried not to completely get carried away by the part because overacting could easily work with The Rose, but it could have ruined Norma's character completely. I was delighted by the fact that Field figured out that Norma was a raw and emotional person, not a wreck. Sally exceptionally balanced subtlety with over-the-top screaming and all of that served the character.

Also, what totally amazes me about this performance is that Norma Rae is not far as baity as it sounds, it's just a damn difficult part to pull off and yet Sally succeeded brilliantly. First of all, Sally's Southern accent is just impeccable and so believable that I actually looked up where she was born after I finished the film (she's a California girl, actually). It really is an authentic portrayal of a Southern working-class woman without any pity or feeling of superiority from the actor's part. Sally portrays Norma with the maximum amount of compassion and understanding.

And this is probably the greatest achievement of Sally, which was most definitely the reason why she won the Oscar: this passion about her character is almost contagious. Not only do we sympathise with her as her audience, but we also get to see her values, we get into her head and she revolutionises our way of thinking about the issue of the movie. I suppose Martin Ritt was aware of the fact that the movie's success and effect was all due to Sally and I guess choosing the actress who gave the world The Flying Nun was risky (even though she'd given an acclaimed performance in Sybil). However, Sally, in my opinion, did more than communicating "the message", she made us all decide what we think about the importance of an issue. And this kind of a move can be so refreshing among Hollywood movies when everything is all prepared for us and we don't even have to think. Sally touches both your heart and your brain as Norma.

Also, the way she develops this character is nothing short of extraordinary: she portrays Norma's awakening so brilliantly. She points out that Norma may not be the most educated or intelligent, but her courage and passion sets the screen on fire (to say the least). As I said, her passion is contagious. Norma is actually in many ways like Kimberly Wells from The China Syndrome: she gradually becomes aware of the world surrounding her and it's in every way an uplifting journey for the viewer as well. Sally didn't choose to be as subtle as Jane, I don't think one can hold that against her since subtlety simply doesn't fit the character.

Sally is seriously so fantastic in this movie and her acting works on so many levels that I can't even choose her greatest scene. If you're looking for a subtle one, her conversation with her children is the one that stands out the most: the quiet tenderness that seems strange from that character at first becomes so effective and heartbreaking in just two seconds and Sally conveys so many emotions in the that quietness. However, if you're looking for a big scene that went down in film history, the big riot in the factory has to be the standout. She's loud, unapologetic and totally brilliant and makes you associate the word "union" with her forever.

Quite simply, Sally Field is perfect as Norma Rae. She developed this character with great care and expertise and you just constanly feel how much compassion she has for this woman. Every single scene, every single monologue of hers is exceptionally done by her, making it especially difficult not to fall in love with her and the character. A deeply affecting, wonderful, unforgettable performance, the true highlight of a great actress' career.

What do you think? :) 

LINCOLN

LINCOLN
Written by Tony Kushner
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, David Strathairn, Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Abraham Lincoln: Do you think we choose to be born or that we are fitted into the times we are born into?

As I sit here writing this review of LINCOLN, the latest film from the figurative president of Hollywood, Steven Spielberg (WAR HORSE), millions of Americans are hitting the polls to vote in the presidential election. The race is incredibly close and there is much at stake. It is this current political climate that makes LINCOLN even more poignant than it inherently is, and elevates it to an even more meaningful place. As Spielberg positions Mr. Lincoln as a family man, as a storyteller interested in rewriting history, he gives the audience a president that is just as complex as today’s candidates. He also gives us a man that loves his country and its future so much that he transcends political party allegiance.

Based on a densely worded and often surprisingly amusing screenplay by Pulitzer Prize winner, Tony Kushner, LINCOLN focuses its attention on the weeks leading up to his assassination in 1865. In these weeks, Mr. Lincoln (as embodied here by the almost always revelatory Daniel Day-Lewis) is about to be reinstated to his second term as President of the United States. The American civil war is in its 4th grueling year, with hundreds of thousands of casualties already counted and he, like a great deal of the country, is desperate for it to end. He will not allow that end to come though unless it involves the abolishment of slavery, the central issue to the war. With a divided house and a race to make change before the war is over, Mr. Lincoln sets out to add a 13th amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery once and for all. How he goes about doing this though brings into question how far morality can be stretched in the name of the greater good.

LINCOLN is far from Spielberg’s best work but, thanks mostly to Day-Lewis’s uncanny performance (seriously, someone needs to tell me how this man consistently transforms himself so brilliantly) and Kushner’s crafty script, it is still his best film since 2005’s MUNICH. Some of the more personal elements to the story, Lincoln’s complicated relationship with his melodramatic wife (Sally Field) and almost clichéd relationship with his eldest son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who wants to enlist against his father’s wishes, distract somewhat from the bigger picture. Fortunately, that bigger picture is plenty big enough to eclipse these minor missteps. We are talking about eliminating slavery after all, which was just as much a war of a different sort behind the political scenes as it was on the battlefield. And, as the 13th Amendment to the Constitution comes closer and closer to passing, LINCOLN becomes a truly liberating film experience. Great change takes great strength and even greater men of resolve and character. LINCOLN is a wonderful and welcome reminder that we are still capable of making such momentous strides to this day.

The Next Year

1979

So the nominees were:

• Jill Clayburgh in Starting Over
• Sally Field in Norma Rae
• Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome
• Marsha Mason in Chapter Two
• Bette Midler in The Rose

A fantastic-looking year. Will I go with the two favorites (Field and Midler) who have tons of fans, will I go with the less popular ladies (Clayburgh and Mason) or will I use the last opportunity to reward my favorite actress?

What do you think? Who's your pick? What's your prediction for my ranking? :)

VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO ALEX WHO HELPED ME WITH CHAPTER TWO!!! 

218. Home for the Holidays

218. (21 Sep) Home for the Holidays (1972, John Llewellyn Moxey) 60



It's more than half an hour before a pitchfork-wielding killer claims the first victim, but the set-up for Home for the Holidays is too enjoyable for that to matter. A young Sally Field, an alcoholic Jessica Walter, and creepy Julie Harris are just a few of the top-notch performers making the most of every moment. They make believable the seriousness of this moody, holiday horror film set on the stormiest Christmas ever. The finale is predictable.

162. A Cooler Climate

162. (19 Aug) A Cooler Climate (1999, Susan Seidelman) 55



Sally Field is always at her most comfortable when playing down on her luck, working class women. Often an effortful actress, it's a delight seeing her this leisurely. She has a strong dynamic opposite Judy Davis, who's playing cold and snappy for all its worth. This is nothing less than a middling telefilm with predictable arcs, but Field and Davis are giving it their all and it's their sincerity that makes this quite rewarding.

The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012
Directed by Marc Webb
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans

We all know the story of Spiderman. Nerdy high school boy Peter Parker, bitten by radioactive spider, gains superpowers and becomes Spiderman. Best known in the movie forms that starred Tobey Macguire and Kirsten Dunst, in the form of 3 films.

Well, here we are in 2012, only 5 years since Spider-Man 3 came out. It's a "whole new origins story", now starring the critically acclaimed Andrew Garfield, and the new comedienne Emma Stone. While I remember being extremely skeptical when this "reboot" was announced, I slowly warmed to the idea when I saw the first trailer, and saw Andrew as Peter.

It's not secret that I have a huge celebrity crush on Andrew Garfield and love his acting. He was particularly phenomenal in Never Let Me Go, and I personally thought he deserved an acting nomination over Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network. However, I digress.

While the trailer and commercials and posters have promised an origins story for Peter and his alter ego, I'd say that was a little more of a let down. There's wasn't too much origins, though it was more of a relationship/personal movie than an action one, which I respect.

I haven't watched any of the Spider-Man movies for a very long time, so I can't really remember how well they resemble each other. Obviously, there were various things that happened that also happened in the Raimi version, such as Uncle Ben's death, the idea of the responsibility to do the right thing should you have the power to do it and, obviously, getting bitten by a radioactive spider and developing his costume and persona.  However, these things had to happen, and they did it in a different way than the original Raimi versions did.

Peter's reaction to his gaining of superpowers was extremely well-done, I thought. It was done in a realistic way, a way that I could imagine myself reacting. Breaking everything, being very confused, and just trying to ignore they happened and move on. The sequence in the bathroom and in his bedroom after that was well done. Additionally, once Peter had finally officially suited up and was roaming the streets for his Uncle's killer, we got a smart-talking Spider-Man, which was very fun. He had some fantastic lines, and made the whole thing quite amusing without overdoing it too much.

While the sequences with Peter were very good, it takes quite a bit into the movie for the Lizard to finally appear. It's not until about halfway through (which is at least an hour in) that Dr. Curt Connors finally turns into the Lizard. And if there were any plot-holes that I could complain about (and there were a few), it'd be more with the Lizard than with Peter or Peter and Gwen. While some the fighting sequences looked amazing (possible Oscar attention for Visual Effects? I'd say it's very possible), there were too many times when the Lizard has him in his grips and doesn't really do anything to Peter. Sure, tell me that villains like to torture their victims or whatever, or the director tried to make it suspenseful, but I thought it was a bit lazy.

In fact, while I enjoyed the movie, I felt like the Lizard was kind of the last thing planned in the story, as though it was decided they were going to do a Spider-man movie, and would do Gwen Stacy and be all comic-book, and oh yeah we need a villain. The Lizard sound ok? While it was an okay villain, it felt like it was way less planned out that Peter's story was, and while I understand this movie was an 'origins' story, I would've liked the villain to make more sense.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. However, this is probably due to the fact that Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were fantastic and I feel like I probably wouldn't have liked the movie as much if they weren't in it. Andrew Garfield is a solid actor and has done some good work thus far, and, I find, to be very under-appreciated. He gave a great performance in this film. Though he's about 29 years old, I thought he was able to strike that teenager attitude well. While he didn't exactly look 17 (I'd say he looked about 21, which isn't too bad for a high school movie if you really think about it), he captured the typical walk teen guys have, and had great chemistry with Emma Stone (duh), and really pulled off the cutesyness well. I just really like Andrew Garfield here, okay guys?

Overall, I enjoyed this reboot. It was fun, it was funny, quirky, cute, with some good action sequences. I'd even hazard to say it's been my favourite Superhero movie of the year thus far (okay, there's only been two, but I didn't like the Avengers, so there you have it.) though I know that'll change in a few weeks time when Batman is released.

7/10
(no, I didn't love it, and yes my favourite superhero movie of the year so far gets a 7)

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1984

1984

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Sissy Spacek in The River

Sissy Spacek is just wasted in The River. Her character has no depth, very few juicy scenes and Sissy deserves so much more than this. It's not really her fault, it has more to do with the fact that the movie doesn't seem to care about her character and forces her into the background. While she shines in a few scenes, it's just not enough to make up for everything else (which is nothing). 

4. Sally Field in Places in the Heart

I can conclude that while Sally Field does nothing spectacular or really significant with her character, she still gives a proper and likeable performance as Edna in Places in the Heart. The screenplay and the movie is seriously working against her and she wasn't given enough opportunities to fight against it and maybe she didn't even have the strength as an actress in the first place. Still, her performance works just like Places in the Heart does: it relaxes you, entertains you. 

3. Jessica Lange in Country

It may not be her strongest work, but Jessica's able to play with my heartstrings even with a limited screenplay and cheesy lines, thanks to her emotional intelligence and enormous talent. She's able to make a scene unforgettable with only one look or a few tears. She's able to make a lasting impression without huge breakdowns and screaming and her dedication for the film is indeed admirable.

2. Vanessa Redgrave in The Bostonians

I can say that Vanessa is nothing short of fantastic  in The Bostonians. The screentime may not be on her side, she does a mighty fine job with her role, making her character a really inrtiguing and complex woman. Thanks to her beauty, radiant presence and fascinating personality, (just as Katharine Hepburn said) Vanessa is just a thrill to look at and listen to. An interesting, wonderful portrayal full of layers and mysteries.

     

1. Judy Davis in A Passage to India

Judy Davis gives a wonderful, unforgettable performance as Adela Quested. She staunchly keeps herself to her very own way and she never surrenders to the temptations of going the shorter, easier way just like the rest of the movie does. Although the movie doesn't give her much time or even credit (which is the reason why she doesn't leave you breathless like she does in Husbands and Wives), she's the one who leaves the strongest impression. 

 So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Judy Davis 

in 

A Passage to India

A very close one. :)

Final thoughts: Wow, it took ages to finish this year. I've already explained why, not going to do it once again. Anyway, this year was quite weak, but not as much as I expected. The winner was almost a coin toss,  though unfortunately it wasn't because of the embarassment of the riches. In the end, my winner was obvious #4 and #5 were easy. I don't want to waste much time on explaining why this year was that weak. I was just glad to see three movies that are quite hard to find and actually, this year was exciting as I had only seen Sally previously. :)

Omissions (I have one pick but I want to pick them all, they are so brilliant):

• Mia Farrow in Broadway Danny Rose
• Helena Ruzicková in Sun, Straw, Strawberry (undecided if she's supporting or leading)
• Maggie Smith in A Private Function
• Dorottya Udvaros - You bloody life! *MY PICK* 

The next year: 

• I"ll be going on with my two postponed years. :) One of them you remember, one of them you may not.

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Sally Field in Places in the Heart

Sally Field received her second Oscar nomination and Academy Award for playing Edna Spalding, a widowed mother who's trying to keep her farm during the Depression in the Oscar-winning movie of Robert Benton, Places in the Heart. Sally's win seems to be one of the most inexplicable Oscar wins of all time considering the fact that she wasn't due and she didn't knock this performance out of the part enough to come out victoriously for a second time. However, the fact that three of her fellow nominees were previous winners and that Judy Davis didn't get Best Actress awards because of her own co-star must have been the reason why Sally took home and was able to deliver her infamous "You like me" speech. I wonder what would have happened if Peggy Aschcroft had been campaigned in leading (I guess Geraldine Page would have won in 1984, Whoopi in 1985 and Lorraine Bracco in 1990; oh damn it).

Places in the Heart is excellent entertainment but nothing more, really. I seem to be underestimating a Best Picture nominee, which in my opinion is not the case, I just think that it has no right to be among masterpieces like Amadeus and winning Original Screenplay over Broadway Danny Rose. Still, Places in the Heart is a delightful, pleasant experience after which you have no trouble going back to your daily stuff, you just feel a little bit better. Lindsay Crouse and John Malkovich received Oscar nominations for their respective supporting performances though I think it was a deserved honor only in Malkovich's case (and just because it was a shitty field; and yes, he still stood next to me a couple of weeks ago. lol). 

Although the fact that Sally Field is a two-time-Oscar-winner pisses of a lot of people and I find it weird as well, it's still really unfair to compare her to Hilary Swank. In my humble opinion, Sally Field is a really-really talented actress (seriously, anyone who can say really-really as fast as her deserves an Oscar for that alone): she tends to go over the top and yet that leads to excellence and memorability (see Norma Rae). Television lead roles and supporting roles in feature film fit her better not because she's "inferior" by any means, it's just that she's the best when she can concentrate her energy for a shorter period of time (honestly, who can forget her as Abby's mom on ER or her being the single worthy thing of attention in Forrest Gump). 

The character of Edna Spalding would be an lead excellent for a tv series. Places in the Heart seems to be a "best moments" version of a season of a tv show with its many characters and storylines. Edna would be indeed an excellent lead there: she would be the center of all the storylines and I presume she would be able to carry a whole show on her shoulders, especially if a talented actress got to plax her (maybe even Sally Field). There would be great episodes (just like there are great scenes here) with the titles "The Death of Mr Spalding", "The New Worker" or "The Tornado". However, this episodic sturcture of the film prevents it from being really deep. 

And unfortunately, that applies to Sally Field's character as well. She suffers a lot from the many storylines: despite being the most interesting person in the whole film, she doesn't get to develop and not even Sally is able to do much with her. When we first see her, she's a hard-working, dedicated mother and wife and she remains so in the end. Maybe in this case, the character shouldn't change so much but I never saw that she really was going through anything at all. There isn't enough time for her to show her grief and it seems as if nothing happened. It wasn't drama I missed, it was reality. I feel that instead of the useless Amy Madigan/Ed Harris storyline, the director should have focused more on Edna's story.

I suppose this is the reason why many people consider Sally's performance a total disaster and a terribly unworthy winner. However, I feel that with Sally's natural charm and radiant presence, this one turns out to be a pleasant and lovely experience. Although it's true that Edna doesn't really go from point A to point be, Sally almost completely makes up for it with her warmth and kindness.

The aspect that Sally nails the most in this part is Edna's steadfast determination and willingness to fight for her family's survival. She's not a loud revolutionary like Norma Rae, she's more quiet, more careful and she tries not to get to emotional. I suppose with such a character, Sally Field could have done so much more but Edna didn't provide her with meaty monologues. Whether you like it or not, Sally has to chew the scenery to make a performance work. Without that, she becomes a bit insignificant.

Still, Sally's able to be effective in many of the scenes and she makes it impossible not to sympathise with her character. With the struggles of Edna being so emphasised, it was very difficult to screw up this aspect and thankfully, Sally was able not to do so.

Sally's best scene comes towards the end when John Malkovich's character asks her to describe how she looks like. It's probably the single greatest thing that Sally achieves in this movie. She manages to give some real depth to her character and we get to discover that she's a real woman besides her admirable heroism and motherly instinct.Watching Edna softening during a scene is just a wonderful experience and her chemistry with John Malkovich there (and Danny Glover in the rest of the movie) is just wonderful.

In the end, I can conclude that while Sally Field does nothing spectacular or really significant with her character, she still gives a proper and likeable performance as Edna in Places in the Heart. The screenplay and the movie is seriously working against her and she wasn't given enough opportunities to fight against it and maybe she didn't even have the strength as an actress in the first place. Still, her performance works just like Places in the Heart does: it relaxes you, entertains you. It's like drinking a cup of tea: it feels good but hardly makes you come.

What do you think? As you can see, I'm back. I'm not yet back on full speed (it comes after 21 June) but I'll be able to post at weekends. One or two posts/week seems realistic. I'll say when it changes. :) Hope my return was satisfactory for all of you guys and I hope you missed my craziness. :) 

The Next Year

1984

So the nominees were:

• Judy Davis in A Passage to India
• Sally Field in Places in the Heart 
• Jessica Lange in Country
• Vanessa Redgrave in The Bostonians
• Sissy Spacek in The River

Sorry for postponing 1988 (I hate doing it and I do things like this in emergency cases, which this is; it's going to be the next year and I'm saving the entry with the comments so you won't have to make new predictions) but a chance came to do 1984 and I instantly knew it's a now or never moment for me. :) Plus I'm positive that you're getting a Great Glenn and Meryl Streep overload on this blog. :)

What do you think? Who's your pick? What's your prediction for my ranking? :)  

Screen Actors Guild Awards

The SAG awards results (held on Jan 25th). They give awards only to actors (the award is called The Actor®) - and the word "actress" is prohibited. They also give awards for ensemble acting, and for both film and tv.
Can't you just hear the kids at home: "Hey, mommy won The Actor" - "Wow! Is it Tom Cruise?"

2009 SAG Winners (career totals shown)

Film
Ensemble Cast: Slumdog Millionaire
Lead