Did Cher deserve her Oscar for Moonstruck?

Pound for pure performance pound, it probably belonged to Sally Kirkland.

I would have voted for Sally Kirkland in Anna. She was superb in that film.

Should have WENT??

It sure is easy to spot the Millennials here.

Slap out of it !

R3 give him a grammar bitch slap!

It was without question Nicholas Cage's best performance. Loved the scene when he's cajoling her to come up to his apartment after the opera. Cher was good. Loved the movie...

Team Glenn. Chet's performance was overrated. And her New Yawk accent was atrocious. The entire movie had a cheesy Hallmark quality to it. The supporting cast was too quaint and twee-so, so Italian and New Yawkish. Glenn Close gave a larger than life performance, far more iconic and permanent that that tripe Cher was in. Trying to make Bensonhurst quaint and lovable. NOT.

Glenn Close - I deserve the Oscar for Fatal Attraction.

Go 5:14 into video below

For me, [italic]Moonstruck[/italic] is comfort food in movie form.

She should have been recognized for "Mask."

No, she deserved it for Mask or maybe Silkwood.

As is so often the case, they get it after having been screwed in a previous balloting to make up for it.

Hey, she was being honest. She didn't put anyone down to build herself up. She wanted to win. No false humility there. Go Glenn-you're the winner in my book. And she has the balls to age gracefully unlike Cher.

Cher was great and I was happy when she won, mainly because it recognized the greatness of Moonstruck.

The ensemble cast (excluding Nic Cage) was about the best I've ever seen. And the script was so right on. I grew up with my Italian relatives all around, and I couldn't believe how true to Italian-American culture that movie was -- the mannerisms, sayings, moaning, yelling, worrying, the obsession with food. I was amazed. Loved everything about that movie.

That being said, Glenn Close deserved Oscar that year.

Her makeup artist deserved her Oscar.

Snap, R4.

I prefer Cher's performance to Glenn's. Glenn was robbed for Dangerous Liaisons, in my view.

In Fatal Attraction, Glenn's role was showier and her performance reached a level of pure insanity that's mesmerizing, but it's less than credible and is borderline one-note. Could anyone have told her to dial it back in the first half? Strangely enough, I think, mentioning Sally Kirkland, she could've played it straight when Alex is first seducing Dan, without the over-the-top, humorless, "if looks could kill" scenes from their very first encounter at the party. She would have likely unwound more slowly, with the same psychotic vibe just right when she snaps, which would've been much scarier for the film's ambitions (or the ambitions it could've had). The "changed ending" also fails Glenn because it is so tacked on. It's the last thing you remember from the film, and yet she had to come back and shoot it at long after she had worked on the first performance and a sustained breakdown. It feels completely flat and fake - hacking her leg with the knife with a tired, childish expression on her face - because she wasn't in the same emotional place when it was filmed and it comes across as mannered and not at all convincing. Ultimately, I blame Adrian Lyne for the whole mess. Even if you came into the film as a viewer knowing nothing about it (hard given the title), you'd be screaming, "don't do it" from the word go. If Dan and Alex had real attraction so that masculine Alex as a believable alternative to femme "Beth", it would've felt much more dire. It's hammy on second viewing.

Cher had less, in theory, to do, in Moonstruck but her portrayal of Loretta as a woman who had given up was spot on. Her sexual reawakening and transformation with Ronny is entirely believable and her affection for the family seems genuine. Glenn's performance screamed "performance", Cher was part of a company. That performance and holds up so well on multiple viewings it validates the performance. It's as good to me today, thirty years later, as it was in 1987. Glenn's not so much once the shock value has worn off. If you asked me which performance stayed with me more and I'd want to see again, I'd say Cher's. I notice little things when I see her again in it now; I saw Fatal Attraction recently and it just seemed tired.

Sally Kirkland also did a fantastic job in Anna though. It was neck and neck for me with Sally and Cher. Holly Hunter's performance is brilliant in its own way but undercut again by the script at several turns, not her fault. Meryl was great but it was supporting.

Should be noted that Holly Hunter swept ALL FOUR critics awards that year for Broadcast News

NY & LA Film Critics Awards, Board of Review & National Society of Film Critics Awards for Best Actress that year

Chet's accent came in and out throughout the movie. No way that deserved an Oscar.

The academy was making amends for Her previous movies

Cher was good but I was rooting for Holly Hunter.

I really wanted Holly Hunter to win, too. Her outburst at William Hurt after the White House dinner: "I'm great if I'm helping your career, but let me become a woman for a second, and I immediately get F"$"Ked around by you!' Awesome.

To paraphrase Sondheim, Close started as someone's mother in "Garp", then went straight to camp by "Fatal Attraction."

That's not quite how the lyric goes, R20. *First* you start out as a sloe-eyed vamp, THEN someone's mother, then you're camp. But I love the reference.

Glenn Close's performance really holds up from that year. But I have to say that all the nominees had merit, including a very effervescent Cher. Meryl's "Me Pal" number in Ironweed is unforgettable. And Sally Kirkland is heartbreaking in Anna. I remember a very raw, painful audition scene in particular as part of her performance. She easily could've won that year too.

R3, everyone knows it's should be have done gone and went...

Meryl Streep played a character who goes from being a torch singer to prostitute.

Her He's Me Pal number from the movie

Bensonhurst???

Jeezus Christ.

Isabelle Adjani was reportedly Adrian Lyne's first choice for Glenn's role in Fatal Attraction; he originally envisioned the character as a "gorgeous temptress." I can't help but wonder what the film would have been like with her in it. No one plays obsession quite like Adjani.

I'm a stereotypical Cher-worshipping eldergay but I've never seen Moonstruck. Not sure why but it's never appealed to me.

r25, Lyne even offered the part to the great Miranda Richardson, who probably would have made the part a bit more of a temptress too. Miranda turned down the part because she thought the material was misogynistic (like many actresses who read the part did) Funnily enough, Miranda went on to play a Fatal Attraction type character in The Crying Game (who was an IRA terrorist), so it seems Miranda's ideas about these parts evolved and maybe Glenn's performance had something to do with that...

My choice was Holly Hunter for both Broadcast News and Raising Arizona. Sally Kirkland was my runner-up. Glenn Close was also in there. But I threw out both Cher and Meryl Streep in favor of Rachel Levin in Gaby: A True Story (want to know how good she was? Keep in mind she went on to play Fran's best friend Val on The Nanny and try and reconcile those two performances), and bringing up the rear was Diane Keaton in Baby Boom, a very underrated comedic performance. Love Cher, but fuck Moonstruck.

r27, Judy Davis said that when she read the script for Fatal Attraction, she threw it across the room in rage. She had exactly the same reaction as Miranda! Judy would have been absolutely terrifying in the role, with her own formidable perm.

Both Moonstruck and Cher were superb - a feel good movie and performance. Yes, she deserved the Oscar that she won.

I thought Faye Dunaway deserved a nomination for Barfly. Perhaps Supporting would have been her best bet but she was worthy of a nomination.

You know what? The Oscars aren't that important. Anyone nominated deserves to win as much as the other nominees. The criteria are fluid.

R32 = A philistine with less than zero taste. Go bother another thread with your completely insubstantial thoughts.

I guess I'm on Team Glenn on this one. Her "Fatal Attraction" performance really stands the test of time as a cultural touchstone. "Moonstruck" is a charming movie, and Cher is good in it, but in the end it's really an ensemble piece -- in my opinion it's not a leading actress role.

Agree that almost half the Oscars awarded are make-up Oscars. Faye Dunaway deserved the Oscar for Chinatown, but she won it for Network. Julia Roberts was nothing special in Erin Brockovich - she was winning based on previous roles that impressed voters years before. It happens all the time. Cher was charming in Moonstruck but both Glenn and Holly were much more deserving - they acted circles around her. The academy always remembers snubs from previous years and often times awards entire bodies of work verses the just role that they are supposed to be voting for.

R35 proves my (R32) point, sugartits at R33.

No, R36. R35 proves R11's point which is that the winner is often a "make-up" for a previous snub or injustice from another year. Your "point" (if you can even call it that) was that all the nominees in a given year deserve to win.

You don't even know what you typed in your own post.

So a "make up" deserves it as much as a unique and stellar performance. And an oddball or leftfield deserves it, as well. It's no difference if it's Cher or Glenn. It's not science. Its a mix of art and commerce voted by people.

Okay, just stop. Your posts are very meatless. DLers love dissecting these races (there's a great thread about Best Supporting Actress, 1982 going on right now). "People just vote and there's, like, ya know, a winner" is really not going to cut it here.

You've changed your tune. I haven't, since I got masters at Paris Sorbonne and Frankfurt, decades ago in critical studies. My meatlessness has background. Cher can be defended equally to all the other nominees. She won it. Bully for her.

Cher won fair and square. In a smart and unselfconscious romance on love and honesty, MOONSTRUCK managed a very rare trick, and Cher was absolutely perfect in it. Funny, moving, silly, stupid, and fucking luminescent. Kirkland just looked like she was working very hard. Cher seemed natural, in on the joke and never broke character.

I don't think much of her in other roles. But in this one she deserved the Oscar. Rather like Whoopi Goldberg has been cringeworthy in everything but COLOR PURPLE. She was wonderful in it, and deserved an Oscar, but for weaknesses in the script/story and in Spielberg's too-careful direction. MOONSTRUCK had no such drawbacks and Cher was glorious in it.

Cher deserved it. Argue otherwise? Is Krug vintage better than Dom Perignon?

[QUOTE] I got masters

Um, yeah, right.

I liked both Cher and Holly. It was the first year I'd really liked a movie since 1978, let alone two.

DC cab drivers hated Broadcast News, I heard.

I thought Cher was Fabulous ! I also loved her in Mermaids. She's gotta natural comedic talent. And she can hold her own as a dramatic actress (Silkwood.)

Fatal Attraction was just another remake of the same old story.

Ive seen Fatal Attraction one time,good movie,but exhausting to watch. Ive seen Moonstruck dozens of times,and will watch it again in the future.I also adored Holly Hunter in Raising Arizona,another movie Ive watched repeatedly.

Of course she deserved it. She has a relationship with the camera in that film that Glenn Close could only hope to have.

Close should've won for Dangerous Liasons. That was her year. But both Cher and Foster had better award season narratives which, aside from being worthy, is what it's really about.

I liked Christine Lahti best in '88 for Running on Empty but, of the nominees, would have rather seen it go to Close for Dangerous Liaisons than Foster for her regrettable working class accent in The Accused. DL was close's masterpiece moment on film and she should have won.

Close was about the ONLY one I could stand in DL,and her performance was riveting!

I've seen Dangerous Liaisons on stage several times and no one has come close to playing the Marquise like Glenn, not Lindsey Duncan, not Laura Linney, and so on.

If Close ever lands another Oscar-nominated film, I could see her taking it home finally. Although she will likely only get supporting actress nominations at this stage. Who knows, she has been snubbed enough by now that she will get rewarded if she ever lands the right role.

Jodie has to be one of the most wooden actresses in Hollywood. Glenn should have won over her too!

If Glenn ever wins an Oscar, it will be a sympathy award. Nothing else. She peaked as an acting talent in the late 80s.

Uh, no she didn't, she was even better as Nora this time around than she was the first time. You must have missed it, R53.

Yes, the movie was a timeless delight and Cher was perfection. Holly Hunter was a strong runner-up for me that year.

I would rather have seen Glenn win for Dangerous Liaisons than for Fatal Attraction, but I'm also happy that Jodie Foster won for The Accused.

Sally's best moment is when she finally gets onstage in that lousy play she is understudying and has a nervous breakdown -- then weeps as she is slapped in the rain. But this is good stuff too.

Should be noted that Glenn didn't even win the Golden Globe that year, it went to Sally Kirkland for Anna

Glenn will get a Governor's Board award within the next five years. That will be her only shot at an Oscar. Shit, if they can give it to Spike Lee, they can certainly give it to someone who actually deserved an Oscar.

Glenn DID NOT WIN a single acting award for her performance in Fatal Attraction. Not one.

I thought Fatal Attraction was pulp. B movie. She was good though.

Not only did Sally Kirkland win the Golden Globe (over Glenn Close) she TIED with Holly Hunter (Broadcast News) for the Los Angeles Film Critics Best Actress Award

Did she deserve an Oscar for "Moonstruck?" No. The movie was a piece of fluff and so was Cher's performance. Holly Hunter and Glenn Close gave much stronger performances. I didn't see Meryl Streep or Sally Kirkland's performances that year; they probably deserved to win more than Cher, too. I think the Academy thought it would be a cute idea to have Cher win an Oscar. Anyway, she definitely did NOT deserve to win that year. Yet another Oscar travesty.

[quote] Glenn Close gave much stronger performances

So they why didn't Glenn win any awards for her performance? She won ZERO, nothing, nada.

I thought Holly Hunter was going to win. I saw Cher's casting as a PR stunt, but she was really good in that film; surprisingly warm and nuanced.

1987 was the same year that Maggie Smith gave a knock-out performance in "The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne". This brilliant performance didn't even get a Academy Award nomination. Appalling that Hollywood people missed this.

At least the Brits were wise enough to recognize her genius performance, so she won the BAFTA for it.

[quote] So they why didn't Glenn win any awards for her performance? She won ZERO, nothing, nada.

Because Cher was a once in a lifetime occurrence. Not that she could never give a good performance again, but that she would likely never be in the position to get an Oscar, and this was their only chance to make it up to her for Silkwood and Mask.

Close back then was basically nominated every time she did a movie and Hunter was just starting out in her career. It was widely assumed both would have many more chances to win. Streep didn't need a third just yet and Kirkland was never, ever, ever going to win an Oscar. Her nomination was a miracle, and she was seen in some circles as having run a very pushy, desperate campaign. (I disagree. I thought she was wonderful and deserved the nomination.)

Much like others listed above, Holly Hunter would win her award later for the Piano when she actually deserved it for Broadcast News (and Raising Arizona nominated or not). If you are lucky, the academy eventually rewards you - you just have to wait your turn. I don't care for Cher as an actress - she really isn't very deep or profound. Moonstruck was heartwarming however and she did a good job. That said, I would rank her the lowest of that group of women in those particular roles.

R66 then why didn't Glenn Close win the Golden Globe? (losing to Sally Kirkland) or why didn't Glenn get nominated for the BAFTA? And why wasn't Glenn win any of the critics awards (which Holly Hunter swept all four)

Y is the question I keep asking.

Holly Hunter should have won that year. Cher was just a flashier performer than her and more well known (but not for her acting; she was prime tabloid fodder), which is why she won. But Hunter was definitely the superior actress

[quote] then why didn't Glenn Close win the Golden Globe? (losing to Sally Kirkland) or why didn't Glenn get nominated for the BAFTA? And why wasn't Glenn win any of the critics awards (which Holly Hunter swept all four)

Who gives a fuck? We're talking about the Oscars. The Oscars have their own set of rules and pecking orders. The original person said Close gave much stronger performances (meaning FA and DL), yet was beaten by arguably much weaker performances for the Oscar. You then argued- so why did she win nothing, zero, nada, but you shortened the former poster's word to fit your agenda.

Anjelica Huston would have been much better in the role than Cher. But Cher had the glamour.

R71 Glenn wasn't even nominated for any awards outside the Globes & Oscars

While the other women (NOT Cher) won critics and foreign awards.

So what?? You're arguing about this with yourself. One doesn't get nominated for critics awards, anyway. You either win or you don't.

And Cher did win the Golden Globe that year.

It's Obama's Nobel that really boggles the mind. Why? Why why why.

Agreed

[quote] One doesn't get nominated for critics awards, anyway.

Then why did Holly Hunter SWEEP all four and Glenn Close won ZERO?

The better question is this

Why did Holly Hunter (Broadcast News) sweep all four critics awards Best Actress Award, and Glenn Close came up zero? (LA & NY Film Critics and Board of Review & National Film Critics Best Actress Award)

And why did Sally Kirkland BEAT Glenn Close for the Golden Globe.

Adam Levine, Sexiest Man Alive 2013. I've never gotten over the injustice. Why! Why???????? Timberlake was nominated.

If I hadn't voted for myself, I would have voted for C.

Never G.

Ok, bye troll.

Glenn's could be coming for "Sunset Blvd." If it's even halfway decent and shows her off well, it's the perfect vehicle for a win.

[quote] Glenn's could be coming for "Sunset Blvd." If it's even halfway decent and shows her off well, it's the perfect vehicle for a win.

This movie will never happen. I don't care what you read in the trades. You also read in the trades that barbra was doing Gypsy.

Yes! Cher deserved the Oscar. Hers is of the best performances in one of the best films of all time. Glenn's performance in Fatal Attraction is way over the top. She should have won for Dangerous Liaisons.

At 70, I don't think Glen could stand up to the motion picture camera portraying a faded 50 yo silent film legend. Theatre is one thing.

[quote] At 70, I don't think Glen could stand up to the motion picture camera portraying a faded 50 yo silent film legend. Theatre is one thing.

Oh, honey, she couldn't even do it from the back row of the Palace.

Cher deserved nothing. For her to win an Oscar over Glenn Close was the height of bad taste... a case of the Academy pandering to lowbrow showbusiness types instead of real artists, just because the former have the popular vote. This woman is not an actress, she's a drag act, a vaudevillian. Even a teen Winona Ryder acted circles around her because Cher's entire acting range consists of stomping about yelling her lines and slapping her co-stars across the face. She is a disgrace.

"Yes! Cher deserved the Oscar. Hers is of the best performances in one of the best films of all time."

Oh, please. That movie was a disposable rom-com. And Cher's performance was nothing compared to Holly Hunter's.

r87, I agree that Glenn deserved the award over Cher but come on... this assessment of Cher was savagely over the top.

Everyone knows that AMPAS gives part of their vote for likability. The other actresses against Cher were some talented yet cunty actresses. Cher deserved her Oscar.

Cher was EVERYWHERE at the time Moonstruck came out. She had just released a new album, the first in a while and the first in an even longer while that was actually a hit. She was on Letterman reuniting with Sonny, she'd done three films that year and paired up with a much younger lover that kept her in the tabloids all fall and throughout Oscar season. No one was going to stop that train. Even Lillian Gish, who was 633 years old, got it. When not nominated for an Oscar that year she said- Well, good, now I won't have to go and lose to Cher.

I see r87 is in an especially cunty mood tonight... SNAP OUT OF IT!

Love the film and the performance, most of it, but Holly hadn't learned yet how to control that twang. She has a few cringe worthy moments where she sounds like Bugs Bunny: "Ehhhh, I'll be the judge of that!" And she and Hurt both have the same trick, a form of vocal upstaging, where they pause at odd moments and linger so it makes it harder to cut away from their performance. It's like Dueling Upstagers on that film (poor Albert doesn't do that though).

Brooks verged on great but he was such a sloppy filmmaker. Things like that shot of Holly at the end from a damaged negative (and, later, Helen Hunt saying a dubbed in line while her mouth is clearly not moving on screen in "As Good as it Gets". I think he just thought audiences were too dumb to care and I guess he was right). ***

I miss that period so much and the early 90s too, when you were guaranteed to see true talent and true star power competing at those shows. Now, it's just a joke. Over the last 15 years, it has just lost all of its magic.

Cher was fabulous. I've seen Moonstruck dozens of times and the film does hold up very well. Every performance spot on by the cast.

As for the rest, meh. And I wouldn't see crazy Sally if she was appearing in my back yard.

Found it. 'It hurts... it hurts..." (Oddly enough, I was pretty young but still completely related to poor Anna. I think a lot of us had a Paulina/Christina in our lives, even early on. And it indeed hurt). Great performance.

Say what you will about the other performances, but it just thrills me to no end to know that Cher is an Academy Award winning actress. And if it was for Moonstruck, so be it. I taped best actress that night and watched it many timesaver the years. Her acceptance speech was goofy, modest and lovely. The ENTIRE ROOM was in the palm of her hand that night. And she looked FAB-U-LOUS.

R97 that always struck me too. The ovation and eruption that went off in that room speaks for itself. I think Cher won by a decent margin. Kirkland was desperate to win but there was no way she was going to pull off a win against Chers star power.

I think the polarizing nature of Fatal Attraction worked against Close just like Huppert this year in Elle. It was too soon for Streep to win a third. Hunter was brilliant but Broadcast News was shut out all the awards that night and didn't even land a nomination for Brooks as director.

Gish was smart and she knew the outcome months in advance. As the above poster pointed out Cher was everywhere in 1987 and early 1988. It's all about momentum, traction, popularity and performance.

When I watch Moonstruck ,though Ive seen it countless times,I smile and laugh all during it. Its a dearly loved old friend. How many movies can you say that about ?

Agreed, OP. Just watched Moonstruck again recently and it's still one of my favorites. Everyone was great in the film and well cast. She was brilliant--one of her best roles. I'm always amazed at what a wonderful actor she is.

Look at all the actresses who were considered for Alex in Fatal Attraction, and who turned the part down. Quite a range. Cher was even considered for the part.

r98, good comparison. Cher/Moonstruck was the Emma Stone/La la Land of its time... the crowd pleasing innocuous fave. Thought provoking performers like Close and Huppert are harder to relate to for the general public.

Yes, Cher deserved her Moonstruck Oscar. A thousand times yes! Close was a grotesque vulgarian that year.

Yes, 1987 and 88, Cher was on top; probably the peak of her career. Three movies: The Witches of Eastwick, Suspect and Moonstruck, plus her comeback album with the hit "I Found Someone", and her reunion with Sonny on Letterman.

A great time to be a Cher fan.

I agree 104, but it's always a great time to be a Cher fan- other than when she was ill and did the Lori David shit in the 90s. That would have ruined anyone else's career, but she always seems to pull off something.

I agree it should have gone that year to Maggie Smith for The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, which was probably her greatest performance (and she is one of the five or so greatest actresses of the 20th century).

I think that we have all covered the fact that Oscars rarely go to the right person or even film in many cases. The PR campaigns behind the nominations often do not even allow for the best nominees, although those are usually more spot on than the actual winners. What I also find fascinating is that 50% of the time - winning an Oscar turns out to be a kiss of death for that actor's career (although this rarely applies to the directors and producers).

Marisa Tomei, supporting- I think that category is the kiss if death. The big one, not so much.

As said before, It should have been Maggie Smith's Oscar, and there were other, but Cher's winning, just like her performance in Moonstruck (and the film itself), was just so likeable and heart warming I can't really oppose it.

And I always it was like the three witches of Eastwick did made some deal with the Devil, since they each starred, immediately following that film, in three of the greatest post Golden Age romantic comedies - Cher in Moonstruck, Sarandon in Bull Durham and Pfeiffer in Married to the Mob.

^ should have been "and there were other worthy performances"

I love Cher. And just loved her in Moonstruck. However, in retrospect, and in now knowing that Glenn Close has never received an Oscar, I think Glenn deserved it more for her terrifying, compelling performance in Fatal Attraction. Yes, I know this means that Cher wouldn't have an Oscar, but I really do think Glenn deserved it more.

Cher should have been nominated and won for Mask.

But I do have the Oscar! So fuck Bette and Diana.

Although I totally believe that Glenn DESERVED the oscar that year - no one seems to have mentioned that Jane Fonda was also nominated for her riveting portrayal of an alcoholic washed up actress in "THE MORNING AFTER". She was fab!

R109 who decided the late 80s' were the golden age of anything but high society redux, shoulder pads, and peplums? The Golden Age of Romantic Comedies???

I loved her better in Mermaids and Mask. How she didn't get nominated for either blows my mind Especially since whoopi and julia roberts were nominated instead for imo inferior performances in color purple and pretty woman.

R114 - post golden age. POST. The golden age ended decades before the '80s. These particular three comedies are among the best made in the last 60 years or so, post golden age.

Thanks for drawing attention to the key vocabulary! My bad.

Watching the movie on tv now, still can't stand her italian accent in this .

It's not an Italian accent, R118. So it's your problem, not hers.

Well whatever ny/italian accent she is using it was awful and distracting.

Again, that's you. I grew up in Brooklyn. There's nothing particularly unusual about it. I didn't find it either awful or distracting.

And again, it's not a NY/Italian accent. Generations have passed and assimilation has changed what you expect to be "NY/Italian" accent.

Here's Jodie realizing sometimes it's best to win a hairbrush.

[R123] MOTHER OF GOD - IS SHE LOOKING HAGGARD!!!!

Cher studied with Julie Bovasso (Rita) for the accent. I thought Cher pulled it off quite well.

[quote] Cher studied with Julie Bovasso (Rita) for the accent. I thought Cher pulled it off quite well.

Cher did thank Julie in her Oscar acceptance speech, and DID NOT thank either the director or the screenwriter

Glenn isn't and never was a "Hollywood" actress. She simply believes in letting her work speak for itself. Cher OTOH, schmoozed and kissed ass and showed up to all the right parties and did whatever she had to do to stay in Oscar voters minds. Including wearing ridiculous costumes.

R27 Baby Boom is one of my fav Diane Keaton performances. Sam Shepard RIP. God, he was yummy!

[R127] So very true!!!

r113 Fonda was nominated the year prior for The Morning After. She lost to Marlee Matlin.

1987 and 1988 are my favourite years for the Best Actress race. So many great performances (and many left out). The following year, I loved Melanie Griffith in Working Girl and Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons. Jodie Foster was powerful in The Accused, so another deserved win, although now I feel Glenn should have won, or at least tied.

And of course, it was the same year Sigourney Weaver was nominated twice but lost.

Although Glenn's character was sympathetic, I think audiences hungered for a proper movie villainess which they hadn't really seen, like ever, and so she was kind of backed into a corner and forced to play up some of the unstable elements.

I think Glenn Close is fantastic in Fatal Attraction. Unexpectedly sexy and rather unnerving, especially as the film progresses. I've heard her speak about the role (including this wonderful interview she did with Michael Douglas a couple years ago) where she feels extremely protective of the character. I've mentioned this on DL before, but a friend of mine was in her old NYC apartment some years ago and the actual knife that was used at the end of the film during Alex's final rampage was proudly hanging in Close's kitchen! So, she obviously has quite a lot of affection for the role even still.

Also, I read a book of short stories recently that take place in the '80s. In one of the stories, Freddie Mercury is accompanying Princess Diana (in male drag) to a London drag bar in 1988. A drag show commences at the bar and one of the drag queens is dressed exactly like Alex Forrest from Fatal Attraction, permed hair and the sexy white dress she's wearing during the meeting when Michael Douglas gets cream cheese on his nose and at the bar during the rain. Princess Di (the story is through her eyes) has this moment where she feels empathy for the character even though the audience has clearly been directed to hate her.

All that said, I love Cher in Moonstruck. She's utterly charming and I fondly remember the scene of her walking around in the moonlight (with her shoes off, right?) But, even more than that, I love her in SUSPECT from that same year - one of my favorite movies form the '80s and something rarely discussed anywhere. Great cast, including Cher, a very sexy Dennis Quaid, Liam Neeson, and John Mahoney. And one of the most surprising endings in a courtroom drama that I've ever encountered. Cher had a banner year and I don't begrudge her the Oscar that year.

OMG can you imagine Cher playing Alex Forrest, r131? That would have been something. They could even have made If I Could Turn Back Time into the official movie song for Fatal Attraction. It seems all the big movies have pop songs incorporated as part of their brand, and I think Fatal missed a trick there. This song would go very well over the end credits if Cher played Alex, especially since she gets shot to death:

R101, I find that list to be highly fucking suspect (not your fault, you're just the messenger). Christine Ebersole was offered the role of Alex and turned it down? No fucking way they would go with a nobody and no fucking way would a nobody turn it down. And Mary Gross is a wonderful comedienne but there is no way on earth she would have cast in that role ever, for several reasons.

Cher always wore crazy outfits, it's not like she did it as part of an Oscar campaign. Cher kissing asses- you obviously don't know her.

Whoever commented on the lovely scene where she walks home, I missed buying those shoes by 1 day. Wanted to make them into a lamp base, lol.

None of those broads deserved fuck all.

"That hurts!... It hurts!", R136.

[quote]Team Glenn. Chet's performance was overrated. And her New Yawk accent was atrocious. The entire movie had a cheesy Hallmark quality to it. The supporting cast was too quaint and twee-so, so Italian and New Yawkish. Glenn Close gave a larger than life performance, far more iconic and permanent that that tripe Cher was in. Trying to make Bensonhurst quaint and lovable. NOT.

I imagine Spike Lee went home after seeing that movie and started writing [italic]Do the Right Thing[/italic].

After winning the Oscar Cher's acting career went exactly...nowhere. I don't think she ever did one single thing of note after that. Which indicates that her performance in "Moonstruck" and her Oscar win was a fluke.

[quote] I don't think she ever did one single thing of note after that. Which indicates that her performance in "Moonstruck" and her Oscar win was a fluke.

Not completely accurate. She did have Mermaids, which was a hit. But she also was focusing on her resurrected music career (her hit album in 87 was followed by an even larger hit in 1989 which kept her touring for three years), and Cher knew she wasn't an easily castable actress. She went for the money. Lucrative tours, shilling for Lorri Davis... movies were never going to sustain her. She ran towards financial security.

R139 - exactly true. This goes back to the point that I made above about the Oscar actually being a curse for so many actors who won in the past.

Also, her Oscar win wasn't a fluke simply based on the fact that she'd given two Oscar worthy performances (three if you count Come Back to the Five & Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean) in the past few years before Moonstruck and had been a previous nominee for Silkwood. A fluke is what you call Jennifer Hudson's win.

Madonna winning for anything would be a fluke.

R139 is the "Her win was a fluke" troll.

Cher as Alex Forrest would have made the movie a comedy. Can you imagine Michael Douglas trying to have sex with her... they would have been so mismatched, it's not even funny. She would have pulled off the psycho scenes but in a kind of over the top Joan Crawford way most likely, with none of Glenn's edge and the key element that Glenn brought was a sense of Alex's pitifulness. Say what you want about Cher, but someone like that could never be pitiful, or even pretend to be pitiful convincingly. You'd always get a sense of her surviving, whereas with Glenn, there was definitely a suicidal woman.

[italic]Fatal Attraction[/italic] is about how compulsory heterosexuality destroys women.

Yes Alex is a GREAT character on the grand level of Lady MacBeth and Fatal Attraction is a timeless much treasured chef d'oeuvre du 7eme art. Glenn's staggering performance is one for the history books. Its all so very nearly equivalent to La passion de Jeanne d'Arc and treated in the critical literature as such, not to mention the joy and pleasure it continues to bring to movie lovers the world over.

[quote] Yes Alex is a GREAT character on the grand level of Lady MacBeth and Fatal Attraction is a timeless much treasured chef d'oeuvre du 7eme art. Glenn's staggering performance is one for the history books. Its all so very nearly equivalent to La passion de Jeanne d'Arc and treated in the critical literature as such, not to mention the joy and pleasure it continues to bring to movie lovers the world over.

If they didn't get her they would have gotten Pia Zadora.

I would have voted for Meryl Streep and for Jack Nicholson for Ironweed--yes, one of the single most depressing films ever made, but beautifully done on all levels. And Carroll Baker is heartbreaking in her small role.

Is Binky Urban EVAH going to sell my script about the ageing gay shop bottom frenemies who have bickered for decades over Academy Award minutia and find themselves in a mad cap caper involving a gorgeous twink new hire who's a Chinese sleeper cell, supply chain scandals, murder, slave labour in Macau and the Taiwanese transgender pop princess?

R144 is a Cher worshipper. A sad thing, that.

Her win was just one of those weird things that happen at the Academy Awards. The other actresses nominated gave better performances.

As for "Mermaids"...well, that was more a Winona Ryder movie than a Cher one. Ryder was the "It Girl" back in those days. As I recall, all the publicity centered on Ryder; Cher seemed secondary. Anyway, the casting of Ryder as Cher's daughter was ludicrous. She looked as much like Cher's daughter as Cynthia Gibb looked like Bette Midler's daughter in that awful "Gypsy" remake.

How would Meryl have played Alex Forrest?

Cher was wonderful in Tea With Mussolini as well. She works well in ensemble casts. Cher has turned down more than most actors are offered in her career and she isn't done yet.

Cher is incredible in MASK. I'm actually really surprised she wasn't nominated in that. Also really liked Kathleen Turner in PRIZZI'S HONOR that year.

"Cher has turned down more than most actors are offered in her career and she isn't done yet."

How would YOU know what she "turned down?" And her career as an actress has been over for many years; she is indeed "done."

Because I KNOW her, asswipe. Not everyone lives in Flyoverstan with EBT recipients for friends.

"Because I KNOW her, asswipe. "

You KNOW her? Sure you do! HAHAHAHAHHA! Good one, troll.

It's not that she didn't have any work done before 1987 - her face was already quite altered by then - but Cher addiction to plastic surgeries became unhinged following her career revival and she eventually morphed into practically uncastable as a "common" character in films.

Don't be so quick to judge posts- that's why the good gossip on this board has trickled down to shit.

There was talk of a nomination for Tea with Mussolini.

She was great in Tea with Mussolini. It's a shame Cher didn't do more movies. Even after Believe re-ignited her career, there were not many films.

But r158 is right. The plastic surgery became a distraction, especially in Burlesque. Cher's face and body barely moved. Every scene she was standing behind a desk or sitting on a chair. Nothing that required any movement. It was very awkward to watch.

Part of the problem is the managers, friends, relatives and other advisors. Cher can make $60 million a year in Las Vegas for working 2 hours a night.

Any movie requires much more effort for very little payout.

[quote]Cher/Moonstruck was the Emma Stone/La la Land of its time

No, it wasn't. Moonstruck didn't suck.

I'm a lesbian exposed to toxic waste. Ho!

To eldergays: What was the makeup of the supporting race the year Cher was in the running for Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean? I would think that she, Sandy Dennis, and Karen Black would have been in the conversation that year. Or would Sandy Dennis have been in the running for Lead?

This is really funny, because Cher tells this story as well. Went to a screening of Jimmy Dean at the theaters in the Beverly Center and when Cher's name came on the screen, several people laughed. Same thing with Silkwood. After that film, people quit laughing.

[quote] To eldergays: What was the makeup of the supporting race the year Cher was in the running for Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean? I would think that she, Sandy Dennis, and Karen Black would have been in the conversation that year. Or would Sandy Dennis have been in the running for Lead?

Cher was actually nominated for a Golden Globe for Five & Dime, so she must have been in the mix, albeit in a very minor way. But the movie was barely released and likely didn't have the money to wield a large enough campaign to make a difference. The HFPA love Cher and always have and likely wanted her at the ceremony (not that she didn't deserve the nomination).

[quote] This is really funny, because Cher tells this story as well. Went to a screening of Jimmy Dean at the theaters in the Beverly Center and when Cher's name came on the screen, several people laughed. Same thing with Silkwood. After that film, people quit laughing.

Cher changes that story as fits the situation.

Well, I was there for both and yes, people laughed.

[quote] Well, I was there for both and yes, people laughed.

That's delightful, sweetheart, but the actual story she told was she went to see something prior to Silkwood's release and the TRAILER for Silkwood came on and the audience laughed when her name came up. (It's likely apocryphal no matter what iteration). Why would people laugh if they were in the actual movie? They know what they're going to see and who's in it.

Whether or not they think her to be an Academy Award level actress, most people really adore Cher. She presents as a fun, lovely individual. I can't imagine audiences laughing at her name being credited for any movie. Do I believe that she deserved her Oscar? For Moonstruck alone - not really. But she has done great work and certainly proven her acting ability in the few roles that she has performed in.

I have no idea why people laughed- it wasn't only people in the movie, but pointless to discuss with Flyoverstans. Your only screening experience is probably your annual ass check.

And don't call me sweetheart, cunt.

[quote] And don't call me sweetheart, cunt.

Sorry. I meant to call you a liar.

Julie Andrews, Jane Fonda, Cher, and Sean Penn are the least deserving lead acting Oscar winners of all-time.

[quote] Julie Andrews, Jane Fonda, Cher, and Sean Penn are the least deserving lead acting Oscar winners of all-time.

Chile, PLEASE

Jane Fonda as least deserving? Please.

Scratch that. I missed the "lead" part. I meant to sign this

I said lead acting, R175.

I think Jane Fonda is an emotionally clipped, economical, and brilliant actress in the European tradition. Certainly deserving of a major acting award.

Whatever she has achieved, I would say Roger Vadim had a great influence on her. Its all very French. Godard was moved enough by whatever magic Fonda had to make a movie centered on her.

That Viet Cong speech proved she wasn't acting when she played a prostitute in [italic]Klute[/italic].

Philistines. Palestine.

Did Vanessa Redgrave fuck Tariq Ali? If I were her, I TOTALLY would have fucked him.

[quote] Did Vanessa Redgrave fuck Tariq Ali? If I were her, I TOTALLY would have fucked him.

Hail any taxi in NYC and you can, dear.

no, has has to be an authentic intellectual

Even old, he has it.

Also, imagine the delicious cocks Jane has had in her cunt. FAR FAR better cocks than Cher. Greg Alman was kinda hot in his way, though.

Best Actress Academy Award winning Joan Crawford enjoyed some great fucks. That award should be good for something.

Its a pity they haven't thrown some British or American awards at Monica Bellucci.

Glen's hair deserved an award of some kind,

Saw a trailer previewing Silkwood at a theatre in Maine and the audience laughed when Cher's name was shown---at the time, "Cher" was so incongruous with Kurt Russell and Meryl Streep. Cher then was still Cher of Sonny, Dark Lady, Half-Breed, tabloids and Vegas. In addition to being fully deserved, Cher's Oscar win for Moonstruck was so satisfying.

Well, she was better than Madonna, I'll give her that.

[quote] As for 'Mermaids'...well, that was more a Winona Ryder movie than a Cher one.

a-HEM.

Thanks 188, some of the vile queens on here are crazy.

Better than Madonna- faint praise.

Don't forget me, R174!

"Julie Andrews, Jane Fonda, Cher, and Sean Penn are the least deserving lead acting Oscar winners of all-time."

There are many more who can be added to that list. Among them: Gwyneth Paltrow, Helen Hunt, Halle Berry, Elizabeth Taylor (for "Butterfield 8"), Marlee Matlin, Emma Stone, Sandra Bullock, Roberto Benigni.

R193, good list, but how could you forget Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson?

R194 - I was about to add Brie. And Jane Fonda is magic; how stupid that anyone would think otherwise. Jane is Hollywood royalty. Perhaps Faye gives her a run for her money, but Jane RULED the late 1970's and damn if she is not still gorgeous and incredibly talented.

Oh God, yes, Brie Larsen wins for the Lead categories hands-down. Such a wispy unimportant performance. Think of what every other major actress, past and present, would've done with that killer role. Brie just looked tired in every frame -- before and after release. Hated her, loved the kid.

She's bland and unpleasant, and while a lot of celebrities opposed the Vietnam War, even Bing Crosby, none of them swallowed the Viet Cong propaganda whole like she did.

Jacob Tremblay (and even Joan Allen) outshone Brie Larson in Room. I barely even remember Brie's performance.

Halle Berry was a joke for sure - it seems that she was given the award only because an actor of color was due for an Oscar (yeah, I am ready to get lambasted here - but truth is truth). There are tons of TALENTED black actors, she just isn't one of them. Brie was all out bizarre to me and completely not deserving. Gwyneth Paltrow never could act and only exists in Hollywood due to nepotism IMHO.

At best for Cher IA with R11 but she should not have won for Moonstruck. Her performance and the entire movie was not Oscar worthy and her NY accent was as phony as a 3 dollar bill. IMO Close should have won.

1987's Best Actress nominees ranked in order of merit:

1. Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction) 2. Sally Kirkland (Anna) 3. Holly Hunter (Broadcast News) 4. Cher (Moonstruck) 5. Meryl Streep (Ironweed)

I think they all gave genuinely good if not great performances. Meryl was really supporting.

The oddity was the snub of Lillian Gish for Whales of August. Many people thought she'd win, then no nomination, clearing the way for Cher's sentimental win.

It didn't seem as big of a deal at the time, but in retrospect, Glenn Close's performance is really the most iconic. She was an also-ran at the time. Today she'd win hands down!

She deserved anal

R202, I wouldn't say Glenn's was the most iconic at all. Moonstruck has held up well and is still watched. I don't think most people watch Fatal Attraction anymore.

Exactly R171, Cher is fun and cool! I hung with her on set at Encanto Park in Phoenix, Arizona when she was making 'Chastity' and she was super-super nice. I was only eight yrs old but I remember it well. Of course she was very young then, but there was no sense of entitlement anything like that.

And over the years you rarely hear negative insider gossip about her. I know she's tough and a survivor, but that comes with the territory in her case and she wears it well.

1. Cher 2. Sally 3. Holly 4. Meryl 5. Why was that grotesque ham-fest even nominated?

R204 - I think that both movies are watched equally and neither one is terribly praised by many these days. 1980's camp - the both of them. We are not talking about a Chinatown level of greatness for either fluffy, cotton candy film. I happen to like both however. Glenn's was the more difficult acting role and was superior in skill; Cher's role was more heart-warming and lovable but did not demand the same level of acting prowess. Cher benefited greatly from her costar Olympia Dukakis, who always blows me away with her supporting abilities. Micheal Douglas was a total drag in Fatal Attraction and that might have adversely affected Glenn's chances - despite the huge box office, he was a weak link in a way that damages the film's appeal. Anne Archer was even worse. Who knows, to me it was rather neck and neck between Glenn and Cher considering that Cher had already been passed over for earlier work that was quite stellar. Glenn deserves a shot - she has been the least awarded GREAT actress of all time and I hope that will change some day soon.

Julie Andrews deserved her Oscar

Moonstruck sucks And it has NOT held up well at all. It's boring and they had no idea how to fucking end it, Cher's fiancee's mother doesn't die and the fiancee comes back to tell her the wedding is off but cher gets engaged to the younger brother instead after meeting him just a few days earlier. Lol I didn't think fatal attraction was all that great either .

R209 - as I said above, I totally agree with you that Moonstruck has not stood the test of time at all. It really was ridiculous fluff and not endearing in the slightest. The best thing out of the film was that Nick Cage was hot and back then you really wanted to fuck him in the ass. That was pretty much the only win for me.

R202 Imagine how awful it would have been if Gish had been nominated and then lost--which I think she would have. I mean, Emmanuelle Riva lost to Jennifer Lawrence, Fernanada Montenegro lost to Gwyneth Paltrow, and Charlotte Rampling lost to Brie Larson. Oscar tends to overlook great older actresses when it comes time to give the awards themselves, and it would almost be better for them not to have been nominated. It was ever thus--I suspect people were shocked when May Robson lost to Katherine Hepburn back in the 30s. Did people expect Hepburn to win for that terrible performance in that terrible film, "Guess Who's Throwing Up Dinner?" And if Spencer hadn't died, would she have won? I think Dame Edith (Big Edie) Evans won most of the critics awards for the brilliant, but hopelessly depressing "The Whisperers," and some might have thought Dunaway would win for "Bonnie and Clyde." Bancroft gave what may be the most lasting performance as the iconic Mrs. Robinson (as I get older, I find myself more on her side than Benjamin's), and Audrey was nominated mainly for playing blind, but gorgeous.

R208 is a paid Disney shill.

Cher doesnt deserve to win shit

[quote] Imagine how awful it would have been if Gish had been nominated and then lost--which I think she would have. I mean, Emmanuelle Riva lost to Jennifer Lawrence, Fernanada Montenegro lost to Gwyneth Paltrow, and Charlotte Rampling lost to Brie Larson.

While I still don't think she would have won if she'd been nominated, you're comparison doesn't really work. Lillian Gish was film history royalty. No one in Hollywood knew who the fuck Fernanda Montenegro or Emmanuel Riva were, and Charlotte Rampling falls somewhere in the middle. I could totally see Hollywood giving Gish the Oscar if a savvy publicist would have taken the ball and run with it- But that was why she didn't get nominated in the first place- it was a small film by a small distributor with a very limited release and no press push. Battling three very zeitgeisty at the time films, Meryl Streep and Sally Kirkland, who was in the same kind of film as Gish. And you saw what Sally had to do to get a nomination. There was no way Gish had any room to muscle her way in there without a LOT of campaign help. And she just didn't care.

Did she deserve the Oscar? I can't judge that but I enjoyed the movie, thought she did a good job and watch it when it's on tv. I'm a long time fan and hope she stops with the fillers. She's closing in on Madame the puppet looks.

"Whales of August" was a huge bore and all anyone talked about was how mean Bette Davis was to Gish. Who calls her "dear" onscreen 76 times, I think.

Moonstruck is on many lists for top romantic comedy ever, including the AFI.

She really was wonderful in it.

The performance is memorable in a way that many "better" acting jobs by "better" actresses aren't. You remember various scenes. Not in a genre I usually like, "Moonstruck" is about perfect in every respect, starting from her and Dukakis.

Romcoms are lightweight movies with generally lightweight performances. Cher's performance was definitely of that caliber. Not Oscar worthy at all.

The real crime is that the legendary Bette Davis was not nominated for her exquisitely heartbreaking and brittle work in Whales of August. She wipes the one note, goody two shoes Gish off the screen. Truth. And Ann Sotheen's Supporting nomination is simply an Oscar mystery for the ages.

219, shut up. You are tedious and boring.

R221, shut up. Just because you love and worship Cher doesn't mean everyone is of the same opinion. You are an asshole.

Both of you tedious cunts shut up.

Such clever retorts.

They should have pushed Christine Lahti for Supporting for her excellent work in 'Running on Empty' (and I would have nominated Steven Hill too for his 5 minutes with Lahti in an heartbreaking scene near the end of the film).

Could not agree more, R225. Steven Hill should have been nominated. Lahti would have been lead and should have won.

But both would have been the year after. RoE came out in 88.

The humorless Lahti always annoyed me, especially in that film. River saved it and was awarded accordingly.

Oh, sorry - ROE was 1988! Christine had two great years in a row...in 1987 it was the superb film "Housekeeping". I would have nominated her for that film over Meryl/Sally.

Interestingly, Glenn Close was also Cher's competition when she was first nominated in support for Silkwood (against Close in "The Big Chill"). Both, of course, lost to the unforgettable Linda Hunt.

[quote] Interestingly, Glenn Close was also Cher's competition when she was first nominated in support for Silkwood (against Close in "The Big Chill"). Both, of course, lost to the unforgettable Linda Hunt.

I thought Cher should have won for Silkwood. That Oscar was wasted on Hunt. It was a fine performance, but not Oscar worthy. (Of course, Close did nothing interesting in The Big Chill. The standout in that film was Mary Kay Place.) I wish Dianne Wiest would have been recognized for her superb turn in Independence Day that year.

I now have an image of Dianne Wiest killing aliens 👽.

(Yes, I know it was a different film, lol).

Poor Dianne and her grasshoppers. And her matches. She was amazing and that was my (maybe everyone's?) introduction to her. Too bad they couldn't figure out how to release and changed its name to the dreadful "Follow Your Dreams" at one point.

Many forget that it was Moonstruck that made Nicholas Cage a star. Cher was wonderful in this and they had great chemistry. Maybe this just appeals to my love of 80's movies starring wild haired women. I also loved Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan (although she wasn't as good as Cher in Moonstruck) and Amy Irving in Crossing Delancey.

The 80's was a time of interesting hair for men (as in 80's hair bands) and women. Today everyone just have boring, flat hair.

The 80s had "interesting hair?" *80s hairstyles sucked! Hair was haystack enormous then, piled high, teased and sprayed within an inch of its life; I remember pictures of female celebrities whose hair was bigger than their heads. Mullets were also popular. 80s fashions and hairstyles were atrocious, very over the top, as was the decade. It was the decade of more is more. "

It's better than the current decade of every woman has the same hair R234.

Ok thought that link would have pictures. Lets try this one

She won it and she has it. Whether you think she deserved it or not doesn't matter. Stupid threads of stupid opinions about what armchair movie critics felt about who they think should have won it are useless and, yes, stupid.

R232, I remember first discovering Dianne Wiest the year before in a small role as Jill Clayburgh's psychiatrist in "I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can" (1982). I've never been able to revisit that film because of the extremely disturbing domestic scenes in the middle when Clayburgh is opposite Nichol Williamson.

R238 he wasn't really hitting her. It was make-believe.

R16 writes, "Should be noted that Holly Hunter swept ALL FOUR critics awards that year for 'Broadcast News.' | NY & LA Film Critics Awards, Board of Review & National Society of Film Critics Awards for Best Actress that year."

No.

Holly Hunter did not win from National Society of Film Critics.

The winner was Emily Lloyd in "Wish You Were Here."

Holly Hunter tied Lilian Gish ("The Whales of August") from National Board of Review. She tied Sally Kirkland ("Anna") from Los Angeles. She won the prize solo from New York.

"Whether you think she deserved it or not doesn't matter. Stupid threads of stupid opinions about what armchair movie critics felt about who they think should have won it are useless and, yes, stupid."

Oh, go fuck yourself, you idiot. This is a website where everything is discussed. If it hurts your feelings to hear some people say Cher didn't deserve an Oscar...well, that's very stupid. You're a very stupid person.

why the fuck click on a thread u think is stupid and then take time and post about it, get a fucking life lol

the clip at r8 may explain why G was a surprise loser the next year for Dangerous Liasons

proclaiming she deserved it like that (and those BW interviews were highly watched at the time) probably turned off some Academy members.

(at least Shirley MacLaine was smart enough to say she deserved it after she won! But she was never nominated again despite coming close for Madame Souzatska, Steel Magnolias and Postcard from the Edge)

r230 I never really got the acclaim for Linda Hunt either. I never believed she was a man and nowadays pretending to be Asian like she did would be a big no no. Odd that it wasn't back then.

r211

Interesting point. Not sure if Gish could have won had she been nominated but she may have stood a better chance than the ones you mentioned. She was kind of a film pioneer.

Riva and Montenegra were old but were barely known in the US at all prior to those films and Rampling was never really that highly acclaimed for her work. She was more of a beauty.

R243, Cher had actually campaigned hard for it and was quoted as saying "It's not enough to be nominated...you must win one" or something very close. Glenn's interview with BW showed she wanted it too but by then it was much too late. If I recall correctly, BW's special aired very close to Oscar night so it wouldn't have made a difference one way or another.

R244 "back then" (aka the '80s) you still had major motion pictures with C. Thomas Howell in blackface (SOUL MAN) and Fisher Stevens playing an Indian (complete with tan, prosthetics, Apu accent) in the two SHORT CIRCUIT movies. In the sequel, he even was the main character.

Last night I watched Jagged Edge for the first time in over 30 years and I remembered Glenn was considered a possible dark horse for a nom in '85 for Best Actress, especially as she had the momentum of 3 back to back Supporting Actress noms. But that year was a very tight race in Lead Actress with a lot of deserving performances not making the cut (Miranda Richardson for Dance with a Stranger, Norma Aleandro for The Official Story, Cher for Mask, Kathleen Turner for Prizzi's Honor, etc.) and Glenn was one of them.

Having watched the film again, Close was kind of terrible in it and her character was an absolute fucking moron. I can't believe that movie was a hit.

The only thing that tard ever deserved was a boot to the chops...

Robert Loggia was the only things worth nominating in Jagged Edge.

Bob Loggia was a mean drunk

I like Glenn a lot but I agree with R248 that her Jagged Edge character, supposedly a smart lawyer, was terribly written and behaved in deeply stupid ways just to keep the thriller narrative moving.

Another great 1985 performance that was overlooked (and probably didn't come close to a nomination, despite the LA Film Critics newcomer award) was young Laura Dern in Smooth Talk. Such a natural, raw and believable portrait of awkward adolescent sexuality.

Cher was so much better in Mask (and even Silkwood) than her winning role in Moonstruck.

Nobody ever wins for their best performance

Laura Dern was also memorable that year as the blind girl playing the object of Rocky's affections (alongside Cher) in "Mask."

Shoo Mask troll

God, we are rewriting history though with all this praise for "Mask". It was always awful with Cher and those cuddly teddy bear bikers and puppies and blind girls who never were explained the concept of "colors" despite rich parents and black baby prostitutes with hearts of gold. All of it was puke. Cher had her moments but there wasn't an honest moment in the whole film.

R244 'Billy Kwan' was supposed to be Eurasian, so a full Mongoloid or full Caucasoid actor could play it, since mixed offspring can look like either parent or somewhere in between. Genetics are tricky like that. That's why I never understood the whole brouhaha involving Jonathan Pryce's casting in MISS SAIGON. The Engineer is Eurasian!

I'm having Jennifer Jones in "Love is Many-Splendored Thing" flashbacks from all this Eurasian talk.

I thought Linda Hunt was wonderful as Billy Kwan, but I wasn't aware she was the clear front-runner that year. Cher's Globe win must have made her something of a threat. Close was a weak link in The Big Chill. Competent performance, but not a stand-out (Mary Kay Place really should've been nominated in her place). Alfre Woodard was fine in Cross Creek, but that movie is really boring. The only one who stood no chance at all was Amy Irving in Yentl (for which she also earned a Razzie nomination!)

I think in 1984 Cher really posed no threat to Linda Hunt who swept the critics awards. Plus I think the Hunt narrative of this really short homely woman defying the odds in Hollywood giving this terrific performance helped her to win. Cher was still not taken seriously as an actress then. In 1988 by not being nominated for Mask and being a survivor in the industry pushed her to a victory. I always thought Cher was just playing herself in Mask anyway but the thumbtack scene at the end gets me everytime

There were several performances in '83 that were left out in favor of some really shitty or underwhelming ones. John Lithgow in Terms of Endearment springs to mind. What a waste of a nomination. I'd much rather have seen Kurt Russell nominated for Silkwood or Anthony Edwards for Heart Like a Wheel or especially Jerry Lewis for King of Comedy. Even Matt Dillon in the Outsiders would have been better than John Lithgow and Charles Durning (for To Be or Not to Be).

And on the other side, Sandra Bernhard truly deserved a nomination for King of Comedy over Close, Woodard or Irving. And I've already mentioned Dianne Wiest for Independence Day and Mary Kay Place for The Big Chill.

R260 Lithgow deserved his. The you must be from NY line and his delivery is priceless. I barely remember Sam Shepard or Charles Durnings work in their films. So yeah I would've put in Jerry Lewis . At least him definitely.

I also think John Lithgow is excellent in Terms of Endearment and more than deserved his nomination. He was also riding on momentum from being nominated for Garp the previous year.

I would love if he could eek out a nomination this year for his Trumpian performance in Beatriz at Dinner. Brilliant work alongside Salma Hayek.

R260, YES! Sandra Bernhard deserved to fucking win for her hilarious, unhinged performance in The King of Comedy. She would have been one of the best Supporting wins of the 80s. Also agree on Dianne Wiest's lovely work in the little-seen Independence Day.

Why didn't Benrhard get any traction award season?

Bernhard's snub remains one of the great injustices of Oscar. Alongside Courtney Love.

R265, I agree with you, and I blame that on the traditional age and conservatism of the Academy. They want their actresses to be Miss Congeniality.

R266 that's Sandra BULLOCK.

Even with all we know about her these days, that performance of Bernhard's still holds up as a true original. Nobody else in the world would have brought that energy to it. It was all hers and yet still told the story perfectly, exactly what a good Supporting performance is about.

I hate when people say she was just "playing herself" (Love, too), total bullshit. So much more to it and hard to give a great film performance like that or everyone would be able to do it.

Amen, R268.

For my money, DeNiro should have won that year for Lead Actor. My guess is King of Comedy was just too close to Lennon's murder and Reagan's assassination attempt for people to look at that subject matter as a black comedy. It's certainly one of Scorsese's best, and better than anything he's done in the 21st century.

[quote]I hate when people say she was just "playing herself" (Love, too), total bullshit.

I don't get this argument either, especially since there have been many examples of famous people/politicians making cameo appearances as themselves in films or TV shows, and they're almost always terrible. You've got to have some acting talent to pull it off, even if you're just playing a fictionalized version of yourself.

Lithgow was fine in Terms but I wish the nod had gone to Jeff Daniels for the same film.

Yes Cher did deserve the Oscar. As was mentioned earlier I loved the movice. Crazy Italian-Americans - I'm Italian-American myself and many elements rang very true. The old mean teaching the dogs how to howl at the moon. Awesome.

I like Dianne Weist as well, but remember, she has 2 Oscars and had an incredible run....with very little recognition from the public IMHO.

That's right. Don't cry for her, Argentina. Dianne Weist has two Oscars.

1. Hannah and Her Sisters

2. Bullets Over Broadway

Two GREAT movies. And Moonstruck is just about perfect. Ensemble cast played it beautifully.

I love Cher and I loved Moonstruck.

In her Oscar acceptance speech, I noticed she didnt thank any of her fellow cast members. Just seems a pretty glaring omission imo given the cast was SO great and integral to that picture in particular.

Was she nervous, ill-prepared, or just gave zero fucks?

R276 - I agree that it was a very self-serving acceptance speech. Cher is always charming but she did a rather poor job of being gracious.

Yeah Cher got flack in the press for not thanking her co-stars and especially her director Norman Jewison.

Though didn't she thank her hair dresser? I think so. She does seem incredibly nervous when they are reading the nominees and she has said that her heart sunk in the moment when Paul Newman opened the envelope because he took said the winner is...........Cher. The intake of breathe made her think she had lost it because she thought to say Cher is so short you would just see "the winner is Cher" no breathe. But he apparently took in a gasp of breathe which made her think he was going to say a much longer name. She tells that story a lot.

sorry for the typos above

I think John Lithgow deserved a nomination that year because he was just great in The Twilight Zone movie which was the same year as Terms of Endearment.

I think he got the nomination based on both films and plus they didn't want to vote for Twilight Zone due to all the controversy and trials over the death of Vic Morrow and those kids on the set. Terms was a safer vote.

How Charles Durning got in again was odd. The year before I like how they awarded him with a nomination for a flop film where he really was quite good and funny and sang and danced and did stuff you didn't expect him to be able to do. But the second nomination was just too much especially when there were better people out there.

I think King of Comedy was released too early in the year and was too controversial post Hinckley/John Lennon shoootings etc.

Bernhard says nowadays that there really wasn't much of a studio campaign at the time for her. She says nowadays after winning the National Society award that would make her a prime candidtate but back then it didn't really get much attention for her and she didn't know that she could hire publicists herself and launch her own Oscar campaign without the studio so she did nothing and just hoped for the best (which didn't happen.)

Plus I wonder if people felt uneasy voting for that film because of Johnny Carson. Remember back then he was often the host and perhaps people didn't want to anger him by voting for that film. (even though I don't think the Jerry Lewis character comes off that badly in the film.)

The dizzy queens insisting Close was robbed for Fatal Attraction are insane. She was ridiculously miscast and that performance borders on pure camp. The ONLY thing Close was robbed for was Dangerous Liaisons where her natural tendency to chew every bit of scenery was somehow contained and she turned in a devastating performance.

Charles Durning should have been nominated for Tootsie.

Fatal Attraction was hugely controversial at the time. The depiction of women was a big debate as well as the fact that it basically ripped off "Play Misty for Me" plot for plot made it kind of an unlikely winner.

Bitchy Shirley MacLaine announced the nominations that year and when asked about Fatal by reporters afterwards she said I don't like movies that feature stabbing.

r283 that was the same year as Best Little Whorehouse in Texas so in a way I'm sure Tootsie helped him get some votes.

LOL at Glenn showing Barbara her costumes on wire hangers. She always has been a nerd. Isn't her performance the one people still talk about over Cher? I think Glenn should have won

R282. Foster put it out there for that performance. That rape scene is excruciating to watch. She had torn blood vessels in her eyes while filming. It's not a perfect performance but much more work than Glenn in DL. I think that and her child star narrative put her over the edge. That being said the best performance in the group is actually Meryl in A Cry In the Dark. One of my favorite of her performances along with Silkwood

Foster also infamously had a really hard time on The Accused doing the courtroom scenes. The director really pushed her and she was having trouble getting there emotionally. She wouldn't talk about specifics and Hinckley at that time but the stories of how hard it was on her got into the press and gave her a sympathy factor. As Diana Barry (Dame Maggie) says you got to get that sympathy vote.

Foster actually had to give a deposition in the Hinckley case and he freaked out and called her a liar when she said she wasn't his girlfriend and he had to be restrained.

For some reason Foster thought her work in The Accused was so bad that she thought about giving up acting and actually applied to a PhD program at Cornell in English Lit. Then the movie came out and she got a lot of acclaim (when it was sort of planned as a Kelly McGillis vehicle. She had her choice of roles. Whoopsy!!! Bad move.)

Of course all this was put into the press to get Foster that sympathy vote and plus she was really good, a child star done good and that spelled Oscar.

Dangerous Liaisons really was Glenn's best work to date. She killed it. THAT should have been her year. As we keep saying over and over again - Cher was OK in Moonstruck, but she was being awarded for past films, not that particular performance. The film is cute, but Olympia Dukakis was the far better actress and always has been. Had her role been larger and not a supporting one (which she took the Oscar for) - she could have added to the already stiff competition for Best Actress and might have bested Cher as well.

[quote]Who knows, to me it was rather neck and neck between Glenn and Cher

Bitch please. The only race that year was between Cher and Holly Hunter. Glenn didn't stand a chance with her hammy performance in a terrible movie directed by one of the all time Hollywood hacks, Adrian Lyne.

Agree with others that Glenn's best performance ever was in Dangerous Liaisons.

1987 and 1988 are my favourite years for the Best Actress category. So many great performances.

Foster was excellent in The Accused. Such a raw performance. I remember when she was on Larry King and he brought up Hinckley and she shut him down quickly telling him coldly that she wouldn't discuss it. I really admired her strength and the fact that she was clear about her boundaries when it came to questions.

She was really tough with Charlie Rose r291. She was just like you will have to move on. Then when he persisted she said something like you will really have to move on or else it will get really embarrassing and I'll have to walk off or something. I think that was when Rose still had that overnight CBS show. She must have felt guilty because when she did eventually decide to discuss Hinckley she did it with Rose on 60 Minutes.

Glenn seems so over it when she loses to Foster. Usually they just smile and clap. She visibly shakes her hands like she is fed up.

[quote]Anjelica Huston would have been much better in the role than Cher. But Cher had the glamour.

Cher also has much greater warmth than Huston, which the role requires. I don't think Huston would have worked as Loretta -- or rather, she probably would have been convincing as a woman who has given up, and far less believable as a woman transformed by love in midlife.

R291. Raw with small some nice moments of quiet power. "You wanna play pinball? That's what he said. He said you wanna play pinball? See he figures I'm a piece of shit. Everyone figures I'm a piece of shit. And why not? You told them that. I never got to tell no one nothing. You did all my talking for me. I thought you were on my side. You told me you were on my side. Why'd you do that?"

I think Foster in The Accused is fairly overrated. A cornpone in a Lifetime movie. I'd rate her slightly above Griffith that year, but below Close and Weaver. She has the advantage of playing a sympathetic character. But Close rules Liaisons over a stellar cast while playing a fairly horrible person. Only at the end do you see that she's an actual human with real feelings.

The Accused is not a great film by any means but it's much too brutal and explicit for a Lifetime movie. The ultra social issue material is what is MOW about it.

Jodie's holding hands and kissing Julian Sands when she wins is right up there with Kevin Spacey and Diane when it comes to Oscar speeches from the closet. Just say nothing about your personal life if you don't want to but don't put on a show.

Jodie is a unique actress, but her skills have been overrated IMO. I do like her, but she really isn't a great in my book. She is too "awkward in her own skin" and seems nerve-wracked in every scene that I have ever watched.

She was just so joyously free and not self-conscious in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. She never was that way post puberty.

Right, R244 - because there were so many available talented Chinese male dwarf actors with convincing Australian accents passed over for the role.

I thought that it was inspired casting. Who would you have cast instead?

[quote] Who would you have cast instead?

Some Chinese male dwarf who could do a convincing Australian accent.

Funny, R302.

Cher deserved the Oscar. The film is perfection and so is her performance. Glenn deserved the Oscar for Dangerous Liaisons.

I love Jodie and her intensity but "Accused" had a lot of huffing and puffing going on. It's a B movie compared to "Liasons" which was the classy Best Picture nominee that year. It should have been Glenn's and then Jodie had the A list "Silence...." coming up soonafter.

And I am pretty sure R295's 'You wanna play pinball?" line is not in the finished film which I have seen dozens of times (but I could be wrong).

R305 you keep track of the amount of times you watch something?

[QUOTE]And I am pretty sure [R295]'s 'You wanna play pinball?" line is not in the finished film which I have seen dozens of times (but I could be wrong).

I actually went and watched the preview of "The Accused" last night after reading this thread. I don't think that line is in the finished film.

It always reminds of me two things: One is that the Tom Hanks film "Big" was titled "Big Time" at some point (just like the Peter Gabriel song). I distinctly remember seeing a preview for the movie as a child and that was the working title. It was obviously changed pre-release.

I also remember a scene from the preview for "My Best Friend's Wedding" where Julia Roberts is practicing excuses in front of the mirror for why she can't attend the wedding. One of them is something like, "I've had a sex change and I'm a man now" delivered in a deep voice. That clearly never made it into the finished film.

sorry to digress. That might actually make an interesting thread. Things you saw in previews that were not in the finished/released film.

[QUOTE][R305] you keep track of the amount of times you watch something? Some people do stuff like that, especially obsessive cinephiles with their favorite movies. What's your point? I'm not R305 btw.

You think someone saying they've seen a film "dozens of times" is keeping track, R306?

(And I stand corrected on the "pinball" quote: it's when Jodie is in the hospital after she smashed Leo Rossi in her truck. And she does deliver it nicely. It's the moment that pushes McGillis to try the spectators who cheered it on.

On the other hand, I DESPISE the cornball cliche line, "I heard someone screaming and it was me." AND the little smile Jodie gives Bernie at the end. I bet she did not want to do that since it makes it all look like a lark).

[quote]It always reminds of me two things: One is that the Tom Hanks film "Big" was titled "Big Time" at some point (just like the Peter Gabriel song). I distinctly remember seeing a preview for the movie as a child and that was the working title. It was obviously changed pre-release.

[quote]sorry to digress. That might actually make an interesting thread. Things you saw in previews that were not in the finished/released film.

Speaking of BIG and things you thought you remembered. That movie's ending has become almost mythical. As we all know, he turns back into a boy, and he and Susan part ways. But many people misremember an 'original ending' that supposedly had Susan ask the fortune teller machine to make her 'small', and she enrolls in Josh's school and it's implied that they become high school sweethearts. Even an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader book I had repeated this false rumor in a section about alternate movie endings. But no such ending was ever written or filmed.

However, such an ending does exist for the similarly-themed TV movie 14 GOING ON 30, released the same year as BIG. In fact, '87 and '88 had a bunch of movies about boys switching bodies with their father/grandfather/what-have-you (e.g. 18 AGAIN!, LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON, VICE VERSA). Anyway, in 14 GOING ON 30, the boy uses his nerdy friend's machine to turn big so he can romance his teacher, and in the end, she turns herself small so that they can be childhood sweethearts. This is the ending that most people are misremembering as BIG's original finale, but they've just conflated the two movies.

Not to belabor this but here is probably my favorite Jodie Foster moment in cinema -- especially the little "come to Mama" finger thing she does right after this shot. I read once that Jodie was far more terrified of doing this little dance and not looking stupid than she was of shooting the rape scene itself. But she pulls it off wonderfully (and, yes, the original song was "Kiss" by Prince and then replaced with a soundalike later in the mix).

. "Cher had her moments but there wasn't an honest moment in the whole film.'

That's true. Rocky is depicted as being totally well-adjusted and sweet as pie; in real life he was something of a hellion. And that scene at the end where they go to his grave and place his favorite baseball cards on it? Didn't happen. He didn't have a grave! His body was donated to science. And the way Cher is done up to resemble a "biker chick" is laughable; it's so Hollywood fake. The real Rusty Dennis was a woman who looked like she'd done a lot of hard living; she was not glamorous at all. Cher on the other hand, looked like Cher done up to look like a biker chick. And her hair (she has a huge pile of cascading curls) is so obviously a wig that it's funny.

Actually, they died Cher's hair so many shades of red that didn't come out right, she had to switch to a wig. She had a blonde crew-cut after filming.

Cher had a great year in 1987 with three big films Withces of Eastwick, Suspect and Moonstruck.

That plus Mask and Silkwood and even Come Back To the Five and Dime made her seem due. The odd thing is that once she won she seemed to lose interest in films and didn't work for a while and lost all the momentum she had.

I think she is really good in Witches (which otherwise isn't very good) in that one big speech where she rattles off Nicholson's faults.

ah, it is even online, (how did we ever live without youtube?)

[quote] Charles Durning should have been nominated for Tootsie.

He would have been had he not been nominated for [italic]The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas[/italic] that same year.

I love the scene where Charles Durning meets up with Dustin Hoffman in that bar at the end of Tootsie.

[quote]Cher had a great year in 1987 with three big films Withces of Eastwick, Suspect and Moonstruck.

Yeah, Cher had a banner year in film, especially with MOONSTRUCK and WITCHES being among the top ten grossing films of the year. Usually, actresses benefit from a banner year (e.g. Sandra Bullock in 2009 and Jennifer Lawrence in 2012).

SUSPECT is a tense, amazing film (with a great surprise ending). One of my favorites. I'm always surprised that more people haven't seen it. It also features a pre-gentrified Georgetown/D.C. that is so interesting to revisit now for those of use who live here now. Cher and Dennis Quaid have excellent chemistry in it and it features an early appearance by Liam Neeson.

I think I posted this upthread, but Cher couldn't support her lifestyle from movies. Or the kids and everyone else she pays for.

r316 that scene is perfect. Brilliantly acted by both but in particular, Durning is wonderful.

r318 Suspect is such a great suspense film. Very entertaining. Great cast.

Cher and Quaid had zero chemistry in Suspect. Cher had more chemistry with Liam Nelson than with Quaid.

Anjelica Huston is a reptile and gave a magnificent performance in The Grifters.

R211 All the non-winning actresses you named were in foreign-language films, except for Rampling who is British. I think that made the difference far more than their age. I think Lillian Gish having basically given birth to movies would have given her far more sentiment than Cher. Plus it was a great performance. But we'll never know.

Lillian's pussy stank.

Kenny Goss was a key grip of this film

She's solid it in, but not really. The Academy was playing into her "comeback" narrative.

Usually the Academy's narrative with best actress is "beautiful young thing gives amazing performance" like Emma Stone or Halle Barry. Can we say that either of them REALLY deserved to win?

Everyone talks about Cher being the big snub for Mask in 1985. I think it was Norma Aleandro for her work in The Official Story. One of the best lead female performances of the 80s.

Everyone deserves to win!

R327 it was an Argentinean film. The AMPAAS is first and foremost and American institution that was founded to award/promote American movies. I don't understand people who expect the Academy to consider every movie and performance worldwide. Granted, they'v nominated and awarded foreign language performances, but they're the exception.

[QUOTE][R327] it was an Argentinean film. The AMPAAS is first and foremost and American institution that was founded to award/promote American movies. I don't understand people who expect the Academy to consider every movie and performance worldwide. Granted, they'v nominated and awarded foreign language performances, but they're the exception.

Yeah, um, I know all this, but I still think Aleandro's performance was superb and deserved recognition that year regardless of the fact that it wasn't an American one (and it is certainly worth mentioning in this particular thread). Honestly, I don't really need to be schooled about the Academy's propensity to ignore foreign performances. It's very well known.

R330 do you expect the Césars or Goyas to consider the world at large, too? They mainly nominate/award French and Spanish films/performances, understandably, though they too have awarded foreign actors before. Off the top of my head, Adrian Brody won the César for THE PIANIST, though that was not an American production; it was a European collaboration. He just happened to be an American (playing a Pole) in a film that was partly financed by France.

Re Aleandro, perhaps her Supporting Actress nomination two years later for the little seen and box office flop (though pretty good) GABY: A TRUE STORY was a makeup nod for THE OFFICIAL STORY (though she was also really good in it)? Rachel Levin also deserved a nod for GABY.

[quote] Re Aleandro, perhaps her Supporting Actress nomination two years later for the little seen and box office flop (though pretty good) GABY: A TRUE STORY was a makeup nod for THE OFFICIAL STORY (though she was also really good in it)? Rachel Levin also deserved a nod for GABY.

Totally agree on this. Gaby barely got released. I think it was a make-up nomination. Aleandro was good in it, but Levin was the standout. She absolutely should have been nominated.

Rachel Levin wasn't nominated because too many voters didn't realize she was not disabled. She was unknown and everyone assumed she was playing herself. She should have hired a publicist and done the talk-show circuit. After seeing what she was really like, her performance is only more astonishing.

And for DL'ers who don't know - (and I can't believe there are any!) -Levin changed her last name to Chagall and played Fran's best friend, Val, on The Nanny.

Just did a search for "Gaby" DVD and looks pretty impossible to find. Not even overseas.

I rented "Gaby: A True Story" from a video store back in college in Vermont in 1999. I'm an Oscar completist and was shocked that I had finally found it.

LOL, "Oscar completist" is the perfect way to put it -- and EXACTLY why I just went searching for it, even a used copy. Can't believe I didn't buy it back then since this isn't a new hobby/obsession. Maybe I had it (still do?) on VHS since it was from that era.

(Our only hope may be Criterion. It seems like it'd be right up their alley).

R336, here it is on eBay for $17.

[quote] (Our only hope may be Criterion. It seems like it'd be right up their alley).

I know the MGM HD channel has played it now and then, as I've watched it in the past few years. You might try iOffer to see if someone recorded it and is selling a DVD-R. MGM HD shows films in OAR and HD (of course).

However, I would say that your best bet is not Criterion, but one of the three specialty labels who have licensed MGM titles in the past- Kino Lorber Classics, Twilight Time or Olive. I would be surprised if one of these companies did not put it out on blu ray in the next year or so.

"Oscar Completest" - That's great! I used to be one. I think I had seen every Movie and Performance nominated dating back to 1963 - (the year I was born). That ended in 2001. I just couldn't bring myself to see the 3-hour Lord of the Rings, (the first one). I promised I'd see it if it won. It had little chance and didn't, so I decided that would stay my one exception. Then the second one came out. Ugh! Well, I didn't see the first so that was my excuse for skipping the second. Then the 3rd - and it won! Ugh!! To stay a true "Oscar Completest", I would have to spend close to 10 hours and watch all three. I rented the first one. It sat on my tv collecting dust for two months before I finally sent it back.

I've missed a few others along the way. But I'm at peace. lol

Any similar stories?

I once tracked down a VHS copy of "'Round Midnight" (1986) in a video store in Tokyo and almost flipped out. I'm an Oscar completist and it had been one of my hard-to-locate films (for Dexter Gordon's Best Actor nomination). I've seen almost every acting nominee in every category (and definitely all the winners). TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" is a great opportunity to catch up on obscure films that have been nominated in the past.

Like, try tracking down a recording of "The Mark" (1961) sometime. Some of these films are really hard to find.

Is this film worth watching?

"I rented "Gaby: A True Story" from a video store back in college in Vermont in 1999. I'm an Oscar completist and was shocked that I had finally found it.'

That's how I saw " Gaby", too. I rented it many years ago from a video store that specialized in having movies that you wouldn't be able to see anywhere else, lots of interesting, obscure films, lots of cult movies. Sad to say, that video store is no more. It finally closed a few months ago. It was "The Video Fan" in Richmond, Va. It will be missed.

by all means, let's discuss something that happened THIRTY YEARS AGO.

Are you new to Datalounge, R344, or just an uninteresting, jobless millennial?

I found "Round Midnight" for $3 at Big Lots, brand new, and I was thrilled for reasons only you other Completists will understand. That was a few years ago.

I boycotted the Benedict C. movie from a couple of years ago because the writer's Oscar speech pissed me off so much -- that faux "coming out" thing that was so pathetic. But I saw it for cheap a few weeks ago and caved, bought it, though I still haven't watched it yet. (The good thing about this stuff: there's always tons of stuff to catch up on and it never really ends, especially since I do nominations too. I just did "Discreet Charm..." a couple of nights ago and loved it).

R344, did you ever say that to your history teacher?

"Passion Fish" and "Love Field" right before. "Love Field" was a tough one to find but I got lucky with a 4 disc Pfeiffer collection that I got cheap on ebay, despite its being out of print for years.

Did Cher deserve this thong?

"Anna" (1987) is actually somewhat difficult to track down. I've never seen it appear on television. I think I might've watched it on YouTube actually.

"Anna" in (was?) on dvd from Artisan -- but they do one unforgivable thing. No subtitles on the Czech dialogue and there is quite a bit of it between Kirkland and Paulina. I know what they are saying because I saw the original movie so much but others. seeing it for the first time... no way. Lazy fucks. Hope Criterion gets ahold of this one too.

Though I do want to find the infamous review from NY Times maybe titled "100 Ridiculous Moments in 'Anna'" or something like that. It was written as an actual list.

Please post it if you do, R351!

I remember reading, maybe in that "Slackers, Dykes, etc." book, that the review was how execs knew not to push "Anna" for any awards. I think Sally did her own campaign pretty much as a result.

.[quote]I just couldn't bring myself to see the 3-hour Lord of the Rings, (the first one).

Ugh I loathed that film. I went to see it with my mom back in the day, and though we both managed to somehow stay awake, we were both pretty underwhelmed by the end. We saw it during Xmas vacation 2001, but it had already come out earlier that month and had pretty much gotten raves across the boards and several Golden Globe nods. At the time, I used to track the Oscars, so I would keep track of reviews and award nominations. And this movie was highly praised by EVERYONE.

So, anyway, my mom and I were both excited for it, but what a boring piece of shit! People actually like that stuff? In fact, I had an acquaintance who was obsessed with LOTR (in every form) and had every DVD edition. It was crazy. Sometimes, he said, he'd even have a marathon and watch all three movies (in their long versions) for the entire Saturday. We never became friends, because he said he couldn't be friend with someone who didn't appreciate LOTR. I shit you not.

I didn't bother to see the two sequels. I couldn't put myself through that torture again. I'm not a masochist.

I saw the first LOTR in the theater with one of my best friends and midway through the 16th hour, I turned to him and asked- Doesn't it seem like they keep rerunning the same battle every 45 minutes?

Never bothered with any of the others.

I am sorry R345 and R347------- but this just opens very old yet still very hurtful wounds.

I'm just remembering that at one point during that year, Streisand was being discussed as a frontrunner for Nuts, along with Karl Malden and Maureen Stapleton for supporting.

And then the movie opened.

The worst LOTR was the second one -- because it was like they shot one long movie (they did), then cut out a middle slice like a melon and released that. It came from little and led to little. Just awful. And, speaking of Oscarphiles, that was the single WORST Oscar telecast in history,. the one where LOTR got its due after the third and final one. Boring as shit night -- and look at the Best Picture nominees that year, dear God: LOTR Part 100, Lost in a Fancy Hotel Room in Japan , "Man Overboard!!", silly Clint Eastwood movie with way too many coincidences and Sean Penn brooding for two hours plus and Secretariat, no, the other one. Horse Movie du Jour.

But at least Almodovar and "All About My Mother" won Best Foreign Language Film that year. And the "Tarzan" song win was nice enough.

[quote]Aleandro was good in it, but Levin was the standout. She absolutely should have been nominated.

On reflection, Rachel Levin should've gotten Cher's nomination. I've always found Cher the weakest of the nominees although I did love MOONSTRUCK and her in it. But there's just no comparison.

[quote] But at least Almodovar and "All About My Mother" won Best Foreign Language Film that year. And the "Tarzan" song win was nice enough.

No it didn't. That was 1999. You're talking about 2003.

[quote] On reflection, Rachel Levin should've gotten Cher's nomination. I've always found Cher the weakest of the nominees although I did love MOONSTRUCK and her in it. But there's just no comparison.

it's fun to think about what kind of career Levin might have had if she had been nominated for Gaby. I don't think it would have made her a star, but it might have given her entree to a few roles she didn't get otherwise, and it's possible she would have been told not to take the role on The Nanny.

You're right, R360. Funny, those were two separate times I watched Oscars with the same friend and I let them all blend together -- though 1999 was a very different year with better nominations. I had forgotten the LOTR night was when Charlize won for "Monster" (which might as well have been up for Best Pic over some of those others).

Levin did get a Golden Globe Best Actress nod, at least, along with Aleandro in Supporting.

FUN FACT: Theron won her Oscar for "Monster" on what would've been Aileen Wuornos' 48th birthday. I thought, for sure, she would mention Aileen somehow in some way related to the film and the coincidence of that night also being her birthday... but nothing.

I despise the idea of watching movies this way but "Gaby" is here, at least. If I get desperate.

[quote]and it's possible she would have been told not to take the role on The Nanny.

That would be a drawback. She was hilarious on THE NANNY. I loved Val.

[quote] That would be a drawback. She was hilarious on THE NANNY. I loved Val.

Oh, agreed. But I'd like to see what else she might have done (in addition).

"I thought, for sure, she would mention Aileen somehow in some way related to the film and the coincidence of that night also being her birthday... but nothing."

Why the hell would you have thought that? Mentioning Wuornos would have seemed like Theron was making a tribute to her, and God knows THAT would not have gone down well. Wuornos was a demented, remorseless, vile serial killer. What did you think Theron should have done, said something like "I accept this award in memory of AIleen Wuornos, who would been 48 years old tonight." No way did Wuornos deserve ANY kind of mention. Theron would have been crazy to bring her up.

R368 have some respect for the dead.

R369, I have no respect for serial killers, alive or dead. I suppose you do. That is not healthy.

eileen Wuornos had the most terrible upbringing (or down bringing) AND childhood....it was horrific. no wonder she ended up the

way she was....it was devastating sad. srsly. she was used abused and treated like garbage.....few, is any treated her with any

love or a shred of kindness.

also

, Nuts was a great movie.

ok then, nite nite all.

Follow this you bitches!

Somebody up-thread mentioned The Mark from 1961. Every once in a blue moon, they'll show it on TCM. It was on within the last year. I noticed too late so was unable to set my DVR.

My latest oddball find in my journey as an Oscar completist was Walter Matthau in "Kotch". He was sweet, the movie (directed by Jack Lemmon) just okay, the leading lady dreadful and long forgotten.

R374 just read that synopsis for that on IMDb, and it sounds like BREEZY, another movie I learned about this year about an older man (William Holden) befriending a teenager. Was this a thing in the early '70s, old actors being paired up with teenage girls?

[quote] He was sweet, the movie (directed by Jack Lemmon) just okay, the leading lady dreadful and long forgotten.

Wasn't the leading lady Mrs. Jack Lemmon?

hate Cher she looks like a transgender my sestra insists Cher is a man

R376 Deborah Winters?

And, later, Lemmon did not one but two old man/teen movies (of sorts), "Alex and the Gypsy" and parts of "Save the Tiger" But "Kotch" is innocent, no romance. A very corny (Oscar nominated, I think) theme song, all very 1970 old school. But I always loved Matthau.

Indeed, Deborah Winters who was also in the sequel to "Summer of '42" that few remember, though it was when I knew as a boy that I would be in a fraternity one day (and was).

("Kotch" was actually up for FOUR Oscars, to my surprise. Not one you hear mentioned much these days. But I'm glad I saw it. Now I am on a mission to find Carrie Snodgress in "Diary of a Mad Housewife". I can only find it on, get this, BETA!)

Could someone start an Oscar Completist thread perhaps? I feel bad that we have hijacked this one from Cher a bit. And I'd love to know others' Holy Grail movies/performances, etc. Thanks!

I will, but tell me what to say and what to title it.

Don't you ancient "completionists" have some soul searching to do? What empty pursuits.

Fuck off, R383, go watch the new comic book bullshit at Cinema 6. Some of us actually love and respect film. Some of us even work on them.

Thanks, R382, how about: Oscar Films and Performances You Want to See (but are Hard to Find). From the Cher thread... Are you an Oscar Completist who tries to see every film ever nominated, both old classics and more current titles? What are some of your Holy Grail films/performances that you want to see but are hard to find? (Or post recent finds and their impact on you)."

[quote] [R376] Deborah Winters?

Sorry, I've not actually seen the film, but I know Lemmon's wife Felicia Farr had a large role in it. I assumed she was the lead. She played Matthau's daughter-in-law

[quote] Now I am on a mission to find Carrie Snodgress in "Diary of a Mad Housewife". I can only find it on, get this, BETA!)

You can find it on YouTube

Oh yeah, Farr is interesting, very icy, from that Jean Seberg 1969 school. A lot of them spoke like Joan Hackett did, very precise, crisp. I had no idea that was Lemmon's wife. She manages not to be just a bitch but just barely...

Winters really was one of those actresses, like Patricia Kalember, that don't have a funny bone in their body and always seem to deliver every line with a scowl. But someone at Warner Brothers was determined to make her a star. Didn't work.

And thanks, R387. Not a horrible print either.

I was able to buy "The Mark" on VHS a number of years ago. Touching and progressive film for its time--but surprised such a little name, "small" British film was able to get Stuart Whitman a nomination--one he certainly deserved. Also featured Rod Steiger as a sympathetic therapist, just a few years before "The Pawnbroker" (for which he should have won) and "In the Heat of the Night" and before he began his descent into delicious ham-dom.

MY GOD......Frank Langella was quite the stud in r389

[quote] And thanks, [R387]. Not a horrible print either.

You're very welcome, R389. I viewed it there, too, a couple years back when I was working on a piece about Perry.

This is about Cher you fuckers. Start another thread.

Already discussed, cunt R393. Relax.

[quote] This is about Cher you fuckers. Start another thread.

There's nothing more to be said about Cher or her overrated performance in Moonstruck.

Well then quit posting. You must not be too bright.

Cher won the Oscar when she walked out of the beauty salon with the new, glamorous 'do. She was right to thank her hairdresser!

Can someone link to the new "Oscar Completists" thread?

Hope this takes some of you there.

Thanks, R399!

Snap out if it!!!

Glenn Close should have won.

Yet another year of all white actors and wins