Smackdown '98: Kathy, Brenda, Dame Judi, Rachel, and Lynn
Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:09PM Welcome back to the Supporting Actress Smackdown. Each month we pick an Oscar vintage to explore through the lens of actressing at the edges. This episode takes us back to 1998.
THE NOMINEES A politically savvy lesbian, a bawdy working-class mother, a theater-loving Queen, a failed musician / devoted sister, and a homophobic immigrant housekeeper in Hollywood walk into the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion...
For the 1998 film year, the Academy invited one new actress (Rachel Griffiths) to their Supporting club while offering a second nomination to four respected women of a certain age (Dame Judi Dench, Brenda Blethyn, Lynn Redgraves) only one of whom (Kathy Bates) had already won.
THE PANELISTS Here to talk about these performances and films are (in alpha order) DJ Rob Champion, Writer/Director Leslye Headland, Journalist and playwright Jenelle Riley, Actor/writer Mitch Silpa, Illustrator Dashiell Silva and, as ever, your host Nathaniel R. Let's begin...
SUPPORTING ACTRESS SMACKDOWN + PODCAST
The companion podcast can be downloaded at the bottom of this article or by visiting the iTunes page...
KATHY BATES as "Libby Holden" in Primary Colors
Synopsis: An idealistic lesbian activist goes back to work for a presidential campaign but ends up disillusioned and betrayed again by political realities.
Stats: 50 yrs old, 30th film, tenth billed with an "and". Second nomination (of an eventual four). 24 minutes of screen time (or 17% of the running time)
DJ Rob Champion: My favorite movie of the bunch. Years ago I thought the film was too cartoony for the world of politics, but over the last five years... come on. Bates is good, but it's a typical "Mouthy Broad" role that she and several others contemporaries can sleep walk through. ♥♥♥♥
Leslye Headland: Fun but arrives a little too late; tasked with giving an 11th hour emotional thruline to this political-satire-historical-fiction oddity. ♥♥♥♥
Jenelle Riley: Love Kathy Bates and she is the MVP of Primary Colors but at the end of the day, it's still Primary Colors and not a lot of room for nuance. Which leads to a bit of a conundrum: she's so good that when she's not in the scene, you really notice her absence and the film drags. ♥♥♥
Mitch Silpa: Kathy Bates does a good job despite some really on-the-nose dialogue and lesbian jokes that don't work. Though it's not really her fault, given the film's lack of focus, the moral dilemma she has to show feels forced. ♥♥♥
Dashiell Silva: There was, at the time, a wave of optimistic Clinton-era films and tv shows about the US Presidency (The American President, The West Wing, Dave). Primary Colors isn’t one of the better ones, its overall tone and message is confused. When Kathy suddenly turns up dressed like The Man With No Name, it’s like I’ve started watching a different, much better film and I want to keep watching that one instead. Bates manages to add energy to the early scenes she’s in and fully carries all the emotional weight in the latter scenes which are all about the compromises that have to be made when idealism is confronted with realism. ♥♥♥♥
Nathaniel R: Many an Oscar nod has been given to performers who kind of "wake up" a dull film with their arrival --that isn't exactly the case here. Primary Colors has plenty of energy but it's of the chaotic and unfocused variety. Bates charges into her first couple of scenes with a funny improbable fusion of 'let's go' impatience and 'am I really doing this again?' reluctance. I don't know how she sold such broad lines as "I am a gay lesbian woman" but she did. Sometimes when you want a role to be larger it's merely because you like what the actor is doing. In this case, the movie absolutely needed more of her for what it was trying to accomplish. Why use her so sparingly when you're asking her to deliver the overall thematic arc of the film? ♥♥♥♥
Reader Write-Ins: "Gloriously embodies her film’s biting humor, mad energy, barely-concealed sadness, and earnest consideration of morality and character. Best of her four genre-spanning Oscar nominations." - Nick (Reader average: ♥♥♥¾)
Actress earns 25¾ ❤s
BRENDA BLETHYN as "Marie Hoff" in Little Voice
Synopsis: A blowsy middle-aged mother romantically pursues the talent agent who wants to sign her mousy daughter whom she doesn't remotely understand.
Stats: 53 yrs old, 9th film, 1st billed. Second (and final) nomination. 39 minutes of screentime (or 40% of the running time)
DJ Rob Champion: This movie wasn't my jam. I know Brenda's point was to be annoying and overbearing. But if you're not invested in the overall film, it's not a good time. I like some of her vulnerable work towards the end, just not enough to make me care at that point. ♥♥
Leslye Headland: A broader comedic take on her stellar earth-shattering 1996 Secrets & Lies performance but it’s wasted in a movie that hates her character. ♥♥
Jenelle Riley: Ouch. Blethyn is a wildly talented actor but this entire film is a misfire. I can't blame her for not doing more with such a one-dimensional role but the entire performance goes to an 11 in a movie that's at a constant 10. ♥
Mitch Silpa: I thought I loved Brenda Blethyn but after Little Voice, I DON'T KNOW IF I DO. The director isn't helping her but... the mugging! I don't mind that the character is unlikeable but Blethyn finds no layers. Why is Marie Hoff this way? She never comes across as an actual person ♥
Dashiell Silva: Definitely the weakest performance of the lineup. It’s not Brenda’s fault really, it’s that the film and its screenplay are kind of a mess. The problem with this performance is that it’s really three distinct performances in one and I’m unsure which one it’s supposed to be. Is she a vain and bawdy Scarborough single mum? Is she a villainous and exploitative Mama Rose? Is she a sad and lonely middle-aged widow being taken for a ride by Michael Caine? I’d be happy with any one of these on its own but in a single film, I was getting whiplash from these jarring tonal changes. ♥♥
Nathaniel R: I was baffled by this nomination in 1998 and time has not been kind to it. You might generously call it "risky" but it's closer to disastrously miscalculated. Blethyn goes so big in her very first scene (which is of little narrative importance, so conserve, Brenda..., conserve) that there's nowhere to go thereafter when the movie actually needs her to bring fireworks. Without any modulation and with a lot of screentime the character becomes ever more grating and desperate. A fatal mistake since the movie is already mean-spirited in how it asks you to laugh at her. Blethyn's gestures are so broad and her line readings so shouty that one imagines she's imagining she's in an experimental stage production wherein the entire audience is curiously seated in the back row of the balcony. ♥
Reader Write-Ins: "Director: give me full Coronation Street! Blethyn: With pleasure!" - Greg H. (Reader average: ♥♥)
Actress earns 11 ❤s
JUDI DENCH as "Queen Elizabeth" in Shakespeare in Love
Synopsis: A bored queen and theater fan becomes curious about the triangle of a pompous Lord, his "plucked" bride to be, and the playwright William Shakespeare.
Stats: 64 yrs old, 18th film, sixth billed with an "and". Second nomination (of an eventual seven). 6 minutes of screen time (or 5% of the running time).
DJ Rob Champion: I like the movie overall. The film gets a bad rap for being a "Feminine" that beat the "Masculine" champ Saving Private Ryan. But, it's the best of the "Miramax For Your Aunt" movies. I'd normally not like a role so short being nominated and winning but she completely adds to the enjoyment level of the film. ♥♥♥♥
Leslye Headland: A stunt cameo that delivers a megavolt shock of gravitas to what is essentially a rom-com for theater nerds ♥♥♥♥♥
Jenelle Riley: Whaddya know, the right person won! Some may say the role is too small (almost like it's a "supporting" role!) or this was a make-good for losing for Mrs. Brown, but that's just crazy talk. In her limited screen time, Dench is a powerhouse and does more to bring life to Queen Elizabeth than some actresses have done in leading roles. ♥♥♥♥
Mitch Silpa: I was cynical about rewatching this but she's so honest and funny. The connection she gives to lines like "I know something of a woman in a man's profession" is great, too. When she appears you forget (in the best way) that there are any other characters. ♥♥♥♥♥
Dashiell Silva: It’s a tough performance to gauge because it’s so very short. (Second shortest winning performance in the category!). Queen Elizabeth I is a real challenge to perform with a lot of humanity (especially this late in her reign, when the facade is so strong and the cult of personality around her so fervent). Judi does manage to get a surprisingly large amount out of her very limited screen time, demonstrating Elizabeth’s wit and insight into people wonderfully. ♥♥♥♥
Nathaniel R: I hadn't seen Shakespeare in Love in a very long time but it hasn't aged a day. It's still fresh, vibrant and funny. One of its not-so secret weapons, deployed in exactly the right dose, is Dame Judi's Queen Elizabeth. While much has been made of her limited screen-time, the whole movie stops to focus on her whenever she arrives, which combined with a great performance, makes the role feel huge. Dench's most impressive feat is the juggling of so many emotional beats during constant genuflection from all scene-partners: self-regard, annoyance, impatience, wit, gamesmanship, curiousity. She does all of these character acrobatics while completely immobile from the neck up given the collars, costumes and her royal demenour; every room is her throne room... Oscar votes had no choice but to become her subjects. ♥♥♥♥♥
Reader Write-Ins: "Dench can do regal in her sleep but she changes up her approach. She plays a woman who, thanks to her power and privilege (and age) no longer has any f***s to give. She has crafted a fully formed comedic queen" - Tom (Reader average: ♥♥♥½)
Actress earns 30½ ❤s
RACHEL GRIFFITHS as "Hilary Du Pré" in Hilary & Jackie
Synopsis: A once promising flautist chooses an ordinary domestic life while her famous troubled cellist sister keeps crashing into her peaceful existence.
Stats: 30 yrs old, 12th film, second billed. First (and only) nomination. 44 minutes of screentime (or 36% of the running time.)
DJ Rob Champion: This movie is just a mutated Oscar clip. I didn't hate it. But, does play into the "Raquel, Raquelness" of 90s Award Winners. The Hilary character doesn't live up to setups paved for her. I was disappointed. ♥♥♥
Leslye Headland: More of a co-lead than a supporting turn but the less flashy role sends her Oscar campaign to this category. While she does shine here, Griffiths will go on to bigger and better things. ♥♥♥
Jenelle Riley: Griffiths is completely capable in the suffering sister role. I can see why the movie was an indie hit at the time - suffering prodigies were very en vogue - but it now appears as a bit of a curiosity in how completely unremarkable it is. ♥♥
Mitch Silpa: The points of view story structure works. Rachel Griffiths is so connected that, without mugging, every feeling and thought registers. The scene where Rachel is blowing into the flute and unable to get enough breath? The scene and her terror has stayed with me since I first saw the movie in 1998. I've had auditions like that! ♥♥♥♥
Dashiell Silva: First off, this is category fraud. Hilary du Pré definitely plays a supporting role in the story of her sister Jackie’s life but she’s one of the two titular roles in the film and she’s fully the protagonist of the first half of it. I think this is the problem with the role. Rachel is always great but the role isn’t large enough to be a lead in the way Emily Watson’s Jackie is. (Emily gets to do so much: mental instability, cloying emotional neediness, cello performances with supporting orchestra, shrieking naked in the woods, bewildering accent work, screwing his sister’s husband, debilitating MS attacks. While Rachel… works on a farm in the Home Counties). Rachel’s role also isn’t colourful enough to be a fun, weird supporting role in the way that Judi Dench or Kathy Bates roles are in this lineup. ♥♥♥
Nathaniel R: A leading role so it doesn't belong here. But, that frequent caveat aside, it's always nice to see the Academy spring for more reactive performances since they generally prefer extroverted acting. But quiet performances can be just as crucial to a film as the louder ones (in this case, Emily Watson's Jackie). Griffiths handles the tongue-biting repression of the domestic sister quite well and she's working smartly to show us Hilary's self-erasing devotion to Jackie, but I was left wanting a lot more from both the character and her. It remains odd that this was the awards role given that her best work (Six Feet Under, Muriel's Wedding) came in the, yes, showier and more extroverted roles where she left lasting impressions. ♥♥♥
Reader Write-Ins: "Her best work is silent, all in the eyes and the way she carries herself. Lacks a bit of a point of view in the final scenes, but she really broke my heart." - George (Reader average: ♥♥♥¼)
Actress earns 21 ❤s
LYNN REDGRAVE as "Hanna" in Gods and Monsters
Synopsis: The longtime housekeeper of a famous film director worries about him obsessively after a stroke, especially when it comes to handsome men visiting him.
Stats: 55 yrs old, 19th film, third billed. Second and final nomination. 14 minutes of screentime (or 13% of the running time.)
DJ Rob Champion: Easily the best film in the pact. But I was so astonished by Ian, that I forgot the other actors were there. Lynn is quite good at what she's given but she's not given that much to stick out. So not Oscar-worthy for me. ♥♥♥
Leslye Headland: There aren’t many actors who could navigate the bizarre chemistry of Brendan Fraser and Ian McKellen. A serviceable and well-executed performance. ♥♥♥
Jenelle Riley: Were it not for Dench, Redgrave probably would have walked away with the Oscar for Gods and Monsters, a film that not only holds up but has only gotten better with age. While her loyal housekeeper is the heart of the film, she is is also strident, strict, and uncompromising. Redgrave is utterly flawless in every scene. ♥♥♥♥
Mitch Silpa: For me she was a revelation. She becomes a different soul. She manages to play the homophobia and judgemental qualities as naivete and you end up loving her innocence and loyalty. She found the exact right tone for this movie, and is especially strong in her scenes with Brendan Fraser. I wanted her to win. ♥♥♥♥♥
Dashiell Silva: Of the lineup here, this is the performance that is most conventionally fully realised. Lynn is introduced first as a lightly comedic, uptight German housekeeper. She’s ever present in the movie but manages to keep slowly accumulating emotional weight in her small scenes even though it’s not her film at all. It really pays off for her. Her final scene is emotionally devastating. It’s a tough call for me between her and Judi but they’re my top two. (I guess I think Lynn should have won but I’m not mad at Judi given the unstoppable momentum that Shakespeare in Love had that year.) ♥♥♥♥♥
Nathaniel R: I remember thinking this turn was not much more accomplished than a one note SNL character at the time. Years later I realize I was being quite ungenerous though I still think the nomination errs in the other direction. I never bought the accent but she fully commits to her choices and that's admirable. She's funny and especially effective in the embarrassed homophobic dancing she does around her employer and his would-be conquests. ♥♥♥
Reader Write-Ins: "Redgrave's turn as James Whale's cantankerous German housekeeper could have been a real caricature. But Redgrave really digs into this woman's being and I believed her every minute" - Rob (Reader average: ♥♥♥)
Actress earns 26 ❤s
RESULT: Dame Judi Dench won the Oscar which many considered a make-up Oscar for her loss the year before for Her Majesty Mrs. Brown. At the Smackdown, with no such guilt or do-over feeling, she still handily triumphs. The true competition turns out to be for the runner-up position. Lynn Redgrave's tetchy housekeeper ekes out the win by just a 1/4th of a heart though Kathy Bates actually takes first place in the reader write-in votes by the same margin over Dench! Exciting race this time.
THE FULL PODCAST CONVERSATION
Download at the bottom of this post 👇 or listen on Spotify to hear the in-depth discussion with our marvelous guests. [All Previous Smackdowns]
UP NEXT: 1986 is coming in late August so queue up Children of a Lesser God, The Color of Money, Crimes of the Heart, Hannah and Her Sisters, and A Room With a View
Reader Comments (68)
“Blethyn's gestures are so broad and her line readings so shouty that one imagines she's imagining she's in an experimental stage production wherein the entire audience is curiously seated in the back row of the balcony.”
Poor Brenda
Other than Blethyn (sorry Brenda, but I'll adore you forever for Secrets and Lies), this was a robust line-up of nominees. Can't wait to listen to the podcast.
Thank you for the beautiful smack down, eloquent write ups (no weak writer in the bunch) and sheer joy this brings to my day!
What an interesting line up - it would have been great if Blanchett had wine BA then we would have had both winners playing the same character 😂
Thank you most of all Nat (and panel) for giving Dench the kudos she deserves, I know her later nominations are a bit generous (I would have given her a nom for This, Iris, Notes on a Scandal and Philomena with the win for Notes and this one) but she really is a masterclass and knows how to do the whole thing so bloody well and it’s nice to see her praises for a change. And I don’t buy the screen time argument - it’s not how much you get, it’s what you do with it and man she does a lot - from the neck up!
Also was it 8 minutes or 6 minutes? Her speech referenced 8 minutes…
Thanks again.
For me:
1.Dame Judi Dench (she only needs a couple scenes to show her talent)
2.Kathy Bates (she's very funny and tragic at the same time)
3.Brenda Blethyn (I really liked her over the top performance)
4.Rachel Griffiths (she's co-lead, but she expresses so much wtih her eyes)
5.Lynn Redgrave (she's fine but the role is too small and not well-developed)
I'm such a sucker for Redgrave's work, she'd have my vote. I love Bates as well.
I'm not against the Dench win, but I've always found it a little dull. Maybe I have some natural Canadian anti-royal bias.
And poor Brenda Blethyn 😂😂😂 who did she offend?
With all due respect to the panelists, I can't believe Judi Dench ran away with this! She was fine I guess, but as we continually judge performers on category fraud the other way, I can't justify a very fine cameo outweighing more substantial work from Bates, Griffith, and Redgrave. /end polite rant
For the record, my 5 would be:
Kathy Bates, "Primary Colors"
Patricia Clarkson, "High Art"
Rachel Griffiths, "Hillary & Jackie"
Lisa Kudrow, "The Opposite of Sex"
Bridget Fonda, "A Simple Plan"
Honorary mention: Joan Allen, "Pleasantville"
Bates>Dench>>>Redgrave>Blethyn>Griffiths
I'm so happy. Shakespeare in Love in one of my fav best picture wins.
Lord Wessex: How is this to end?
Queen Elizabeth: As stories must when love's denied: with tears and a journey.
Great writeups! I’m not surprised Dame Dench won. Though she wouldn’t have been my choice she is terrific in the film.
Kathy Bates-Primary Colors-Fearsome and vivid she’s a tigress in messy clothes with deeply ingrained moral principles and despite her gruff manner rock solid ideals. When they are betrayed, it destroys her. She calibrates that journey beautifully. 4 ¾ hearts.
Brenda Blethyn-Little Voice-A talented performer saddled with an unbearably obnoxious character that defeats her. I didn’t love the film overall but found it unendurable whenever she was on screen. 1 ½ stars.
Judi Dench-Shakespeare in Love-She’s charming if barely in the film. Imperious and bemused she adds a great deal when she does show up, but this was an acknowledgement award. I’m delighted Dame Judi has an Oscar I just wish she had won for a worthier performance. 3 hearts.
Rachel Griffiths-Hilary and Jackie-A deep complex piece of work intertwined with Emily Watson’s equally strong Jackie…. but she’s a co-lead and doesn’t belong here. Points off for category fraud but still an excellent performance. 3 ½ hearts.
Lynn Redgrave-Gods and Monsters-Although her ethnicity is changed from the actual woman on whom the role is based (not her fault) Lynn creates a richly textured three dimensional very relatable character that could have easily slide into caricature in lesser hands. Hanna loves James Whale deeply while disapproving of his sexuality and is ferocious in protecting him. I’d love to give this to her, but I thought Kathy Bates work was ever so slightly deeper. 4 ½ hearts.
However, if it were up to me the lineup would have run this way and in this order:
Joan Allen-Pleasantville
Kathy Bates-Primary Colors
Lynn Redgrave-Gods & Monsters
Laura Linney-The Truman Show
Lisa Kudrow-The Opposite of Sex
Joan would have been my easy winner; still can’t believe she wasn’t nominated. She should have been in Brenda’s slot.
Was Emma Thompson campaigning for lead for Primary Colors? No offense to Kathy Bates, but I just can't imagine any other reason why Oscar tapped Kathy for inclusion instead of Emma.
Morhan -- i think it depends on how strict you are about counting the time. Her scenes are long but, like Screentime Central, I think docks you for reaction shots and the like (if you're not the one on camera at the moment). I'm not sure. So it's somewhere between 5 1/2 and 8 minutes depending on how you count.
Paranoid -- but it's not a cameo. She has at least three scenes and they're all quite crucial to the narrative.
My five would be
CLARKSON -- High Art
COLLETTE - Velvet Goldmine
DENCH - Shakespeare in Love
KUDROW - Opposite of Sex
and i'm leaving one spot open in case i forgot someone but if I didn't BATES can have it ;)
James -- i believe she was campaigned as lead, yes. It's really an ensemble picture. I'd be surprised if Thompson and Travolta had that much more screentime than anyone else but since the story revolves around them I guess lead makes sense.
To me this should have been Clarkson's year, but out of the nominees I'm definitely either Team Griffiths (but category fraud) or Team Bates (the best thing about the film by a considerable margin, although Thompson is good). Dench is fine but I don't think Shakespeare in Love has aged that well (although I still prefer it to Saving Private Ryan - but then I'd have been a Thin Red Line voter) and she's, well, fine. I'm kind of stuck re: Redgrave because on the one hand I think what Mr. Silpa is spot on, but she has so little to do despite a fair bit of screen time. As to Blethyn .... yeah, better in other things.
I'll look forward to listening to the whole conversation tomorrow. As always, thanks for putting these together!
Excellent Smackdown! Ashamed I still haven't seen GODS AND MONSTERS, even though I'm a fan of both Sir Ian and Brendan Fraser.
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE on the other hand I've seen multiple times, and though it's been a while since the last go-around I'm quite sure I'd still love it just as much as I ever did. It is pure joy, and I maintain Shakespeare himself would have enjoyed it. And Dench may only be on screen for 6 minutes (really?!) but it's 6 minutes of perfection.
The other three films I saw when they came out - good lord, more than 20 years ago - but haven't seen since. Rather liked H&J at the time, didn't care so much for the other two. Hated Blethyn's character in LV but didn't hold it against the actress. Thought Griffiths was very good and Bates a breath of fresh air as always. Wish I'd had time to revisit.
Surprised that Blethyn has a higher percentage of screen time in her movie than Griffiths does in hers - especially since like others, I saw the latter as very much a co-lead (hell, it's in the movie title, as Dashiell points out) but not the former.
Oh wow.
I like this line-up; all the actresses brought something to their films. My preference:
Dench - short screen time yes, but does so much with so little, she is the queen and you can't take your eyes off of her
Bates - so heartbreaking, I wanted her to win so badly at the time, on re-watch I didn't totally by her early scenes
Redgrave - this could easily have been too much schtick but LR does not allow it and creates a fully formed character you understand
Griffiths - does so much with her eyes, the script loses its way with her POV to the performance's detriment, she knocked me out when she learned of her sister's fate
Blethyn - I liked her better than most (apparently), she is over the top but isn't that the movie she is in (??), brings the humanity home in small doses which I found interesting
The rhetoric over the years did not prepare me for Judi Dench's performance being five stars, four at worst! Guess I'll have to watch the film. Although with these now lofty standards I might be let down. Here's hoping she's Beatrice Straight in Network level of very short but great!
(If the performance is this loved than I'm glad Hunt deservedly beat Deschamps the previous year)
UP NEXT : 1986
Congratulations Dianne Wiest.
When the victor is super obvious you just must get an interesting panel. If you're tempted to pick somebody who's sole paragraph would be "No" then please reconsider!
I agree with MorhanB. Great writeups! I knew DJ Rob Champion would bring it, but the other panellists were all decent and at moments quite good! Bravo and keep it up.
@Nathaniel R
Glad the Primary Colors re-watch dispelled your misconception that Bates hasn't been nod worthy since Misery. Merely coasting on afterglow fumes every so often to show up in supporting.
Great write-ups everyone, and can’t wait to listen to the podcast. Very much agree with the majority of the analysis of Bates, Griffiths, and Blethyn. I’m sooo bad at predicting these smackdown outcomes though, didn’t really think Dench was in the running… oops! The panel thoughts on Dench definitely influenced my assessment in hindsight, and am with Nathaniel that I think Shakespeare in Love has aged well (similarly, I hadn’t seen it in a long, long time).
Kathy Bates - 4 hearts. I work in politics and have seen up close the struggle between loyalty to charismatic individuals vs. ideals/principles. I bought her performance.
Judy Dench -- 4 hearts. She expertly balanced the authority of the queen with the playful tone of the movie.
Vanessa Redgrave -- 4 hearts. My choice for the win. Understated, great accent, and felt both her love for Whale, and the struggle she had loving him in spite of what she perceived as sin.
Brenda Blethyn -- 4 hearts. Scenery chewing to the max, but there had to be a reason Little Voice felt stifled, and her true motivation laid bare on her face as she was finally being told off by her daughter at the end.
Rachel Griffiths -- 3 hearts. A solid performance, but I never actually bought that these two were sisters, so deduction on that front.
Solid line-up.
As for 1998 in film, my top ten is
1. Life Is Beautiful
2. Run Lola Run
3. The Opposite of Sex
4. The Big Lebowski
5. Playing By Heart
6. Pleasantville
7. Central Station
8. The Red Violin
9. Ringu
10. Out of Sight
A mix of titles that I haven't seen since 98 and films I watched for the first time last month.
I'm so happy to see the Judi Dench love, i was expecting the exact opposite tbh (and poor Blethyn lol)
It's a very short performance, but she does not waste the time she's given and makes the best with every second. She's funny, commanding, and owns the screen every time she's in.
And it's time for a Shakespeare in love revindication, because it's rather sad to see a how movie this beautiful and witty seems destined to be attached to the tarnished legacy of W*instein forever, probably if it hadn't won the BP Oscar it'd be better appreciated and even liked by most of people.
Add me to the Bates bandwagon. It could have been her 2nd Oscar, easily, if Dench would have been deemed as a cameo (which actually was).
Primary Colors is a sooo underrated film. Travolta should have been nominated that year, actually double nominated if the campaign had been smart enough to place him in Supporting for Primary Colors and Leading for A Civil Action. It's stil baffling - chronical rant of mine - that he only has 2 nominations and no wins, and I absolutely blame it on the scientology thing, rather than in any other consideration... the list of Oscar-worthy (or nomination worthy) performances (many of them, iconic) is quite long.
- Saturday Night Fever - nom
- Blow Out
- Grease
- Pulp Fiction - nom
- Get Shorty - Globe winner
- She's so lovely
- A Civil Action
- Swordfish (that monologue...)
- Primary Colors
- Hairspray - Globe Nominee
.. and I would add, that few over the top performances actually save a bad movie from oblivion, as his "From Paris with Love", where he chews the competition. A pity how his career has drifted so much in the last 2 decades, with just a couple of exceptions.
Sidenote: Brendan Fraser probably was snubbed of a Supporting Actor nom... and I wonder if his lack of noms for Gods and Monsters and later for Crash (which won Best Picture), may factor his chances to finally score some Oscar love this year, for "The Whale", which looks potentially as a role that could lead him to the Oscar nom or even win.
(still, the frontrunner for Oscar, beforehand, I would say is Dinklage for Cyrano...)
Jesus -- the rumor is that THE WHALE is waiting for 2022 but I agree that if he's strong in it we might see some awards attention paid. The type of actor at a typical point in career that would have ready-made narratives for people to enjoy.
Eduardo -- totally agreed on Shakespeare in Love. The Oscars do such weird things to people's opinions about movies. It's so hard not to get caught up in it. If people didn't have biases against it for reasons that have nothing to do with itself, they would find a terrific adorable very smart movie.
Lynn - yeah, it's a bit of a surprise until you realize that Brenda is topbilled in her movie and whether the scene involves Jane Horrocks (protagonist) or Michael Caine (chief plot mover), she's their scene partner even though she's not really a lead though she's sort of the antagonist.
Three Artful, I’ve only hear anybody doubt or be particularly down on Bate’s last nomination, and the majority were just happy to see her score another nod that it was seen as acceptable. Bates is pretty universally beloved, especially among non film buffs I’ve found. (Her The Waterboy performance is truly seen as iconic among the masses)
If you vibe with and get Little Voice than Brenda is very good, at minimum as good as anybody would be. A solid 3 stars stylized performance, and as with all stylized performances, will be viewed divisively.
Somewhat shocked by the winner, I was quite sure Redgrave would take it. I don't really like her performance, I think she is the weakest part of the otherwise fantastic picture.
Joan Allen should have been the obvious winner of the category, I find it weird that they nominated her for something as basic as The Crucible (though she is great in it) but not from Pleasantville...
I don't think Brendan Fraser was taken seriously at the time (or ever since?) with stuff like With Honors under his belt...
To the reader who implied Blethyn's performnace was on a par with Coronation Street, that's a gross insult to Coronation Street. Back in its heyday, the Corrie ladies gave some top flight dramatic performances. Blethyn, on the other hand is a glorified ham - I've never seen her been subtle (even in Secrets & Lies).
Very surprised at the love for Judi. Not that she's not delightful but it is basically an extended cameo. She nails it, but it's hardly complicated acting. Bates wins hands down for me, with Griffiths and Dench jockeying for second place. I agree with Nathaniel, I had remembered Redgrave being bad and she had improved considerably on rewatch. Blethyn is UNBEARABLE.
This turned out to be a much stronger roster than I had recalled. And what's crazy is that NONE of these women would have been on my ballot that year.
I still remember Entertainment Weekly's (I think) review of LV, accusing Blethyn of "chewing scenery as if she had fangs." I'm still glad she had that second nomination though.
I still quote "Too late, too late" and "... It takes a woman to know it" all these years later.
Thank you so much for doing the Smackdowns. It's nice to see that movies like Chicago and Shakespeare in Love hold up, especially since they were so overshadowed by Harvey and his Oscar drama at the time of their releases.
Shakespeare in Love in particular doesn't get enough credit for being a great movie.
For me in this lineup: Redgrave>Griffiths>Dench>Bates>Blethyn. But I would easily find spots for Golden Globe nominee Sharon Stone ( wonderfully understated in The Mighty), Joan Allen ( heartbreaking in Pleasentville) or the always brilliant Patricia Clarkson in High Art.
My lineup would’ve been:
Redgrave
Griffiths
Stone
Allen
Clarkson
For me, Bates is among the 10, maybe even five all-time greatest Supporting Actress nominees - a turn equal parts devastating and devastatingly funny. I also love Blethyn, who gets such a bad rap for her exquisitely vicious performance, and Griffiths. Redgrave is fine but McKellen owns that film. And Dench indeed steals her scenes with ease but I loathe SIL, so she's ultimately dead last for me.
Kathy Bates' character makes no sense at all. Never feels like a real person.
Absolutely delighted that the Smackdown jury decided in favour of Judi Dench and expressed so much pleasure with "Shakespeare in Love".
Oscar isn't always wrong.
When it comes to Judi Dench in this role all I can say is, sometimes something just plays straight to your heart and stays with you. (that's why we love movies)
Kudos to the panel for well written write-ups and a podcast I was sorry came to an end.
Thanks to Nathaniel for bringing this to us.
I actuall think it's a poor line up there were far better choices,I concur with the everyone on Blethyn,when a perf is bad it's just bad,I also don't get the love for Redgrave the accents off and she has vitually no back story,she's just a funny housekeeper,Dench is indeed superb if you consider her a cameo,Griffiths is fine but Watson is miles above her.
Stone,Allen,Fonda,Clarkson,Elise,Johansson and Kudrow would have been far better.
I also work in politics, and Bates' character definitely rung true to me (especially in the pre-Obama era). Grizzled old campaign vets who are valuable, but maybe a step behind the times, easy to disillusion.
(Post-Obama, a bunch of 20-year-olds with little pre-2008 campaign experience started moving up the ranks quicker and quicker.)
Lady Edith -- i'm glad to hear there are others out there that love Dench's work. I keep hearing "cameo" so i'm just going to assume people have forgotten that real supporting performances aren't leads.She has three scenes
Andrew -- you "loathe" Shakespeare in Love? SURPRISING. What is it that turns you off so much?
Mark -- i also dont get the Redgrave love. She's fine and I liked the performance much more this time but it is absolutely not a "nomination worthy" performance given a vast field of excellent work that year that was ignored.
Would have preffered any of these women for Redgrave, Blethyn, and Griffiths spots. (I'm not sure Bates makes my lineup but she and Dench are both worthy competitors):
CLARKSON - high art
COLETTE - velvet goldmine
ALLEN - pleasantville
BURKE - elizabeth
MOORE - big lebowski
STEEN - the celebration
HOLMES - edge of seventeen
KUDROW - opposite of sex
HECHE - psycho
LINNEY - truman show
HUSTON - ever after
LATIFAH - living out loud
* i haven't seen BELOVED, MIGHTY, or A SIMPLE PLAN but maybe those women, too.
Dench is superb in this. I don't understand the criticisms of her winning for a small role. It's Best Supporting Actress! Well, I do understand it - we've become conditioned to leading roles hogging the supporting category. Queen Elizabeth is integral to the story of Shakespeare in Love - in a supporting way - and Dench nails every one of her scenes. I feel that she has the authority of the Queen of England when I watch her in this film. "With tears, and a journey" - she says that - and all her lines - with such wisdom.
Whenever anyone tries to downplay a role as to being too small for the supporting category I tend to dismiss their take because clear in this current moment the constant attack of category fraud has transformed some peoples minds into forgetting a supporting performance can actually be small.
I was thankful Dench prevailed and that the panel both on the pod and smackdown expressed very positive feelings for SIL. I for one love the film and think it was deserving of all the prizes it won.
While I would replace each of the women of this lineup I must admit that besides Blethyn this was a good list of performances.
My 5 would be Allen, Clarkson, Collette, Kudrow (Winner) & Linney.
I look forward to 86 and if anyone shares the thoughts with me that Wiest along with all her titular sisters should've competed in lead.
I have never met a good Andrew.
Marisa Tomei deserved a nom for Slums of Beverly Hills, if you ask me!
After listening - that was such a good line up! Really a great conversation. Thanks so much.
If folks are posting their 5, I'd go: Clarkson (winner), Olivia Williams for Rushmore, Kate Beckinsale for The Last Days of Disco (if that's a supporting performance), I think I'd keep Bates, and I have such a soft spot for the entertaining camp of Rebecca Gayheart in Urban Legend. :) But if we're talking regularly Oscar-y work, drop Gayheart for Kudrow.
Hannah (lead) and Her Sisters (supporting).
Also, on the Dench "cameo" talk. I think we can find a middle ground between Rooney Mara in "Carol" (in more than half the movie) and cameo-esque Dench (6 mins in a 2+ hour movie). Lisa Kudrow and Joan Allen are good examples of meaty supporting roles -- they don't drive the main narrative, but have enough screentime for distinct character arcs. Nathaniel -- did you (or would you) list Dench in the FB awards for Best Cameo or Best Supporting Actress?
I'm in the "Dench was fine, but the role was just too small" camp, especially compared to major performances from Bates and Griffiths. (Don't understand some of the antipathy or shrugs toward the latter.)
I went into Gods and Monsters hoping to love Redgrave -- Georgy Girl had been a formative movie experience for me -- but I found her cartoonish.
Though not a patch on Blethyn in Little Voice. I'd found her hammy but defensible in Secrets and Lies, but this was close to a Razzie-level performance. What's amazing about Blethyn is how much better/more subtle she is in Vera than she was in either of her Oscar nominations. A lot of actors get broader as they age; Blethyn is the rare one who discovered restraint in her later years.
Paranoid -- the Film Bitch Awards weren't around back then but i'd list her as supporting as my rule is two scenes or less. I'm not sure why everyone thinks its a cameo. She has three distinct scenes (at least) and all three are important to the narrative. You literally can't remove her and still have the movie work so it's totally a supporting role.
I've seen all five of these movies, but Shakespeare in Love and Primary Colors are the only two I can recall in any detail. Both Bates and Dench were very deserving.