Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Jodie Foster’s Second Oscar Win

Jodie won her second Oscar in only three years for Silence of the Lambs. She was 29.

In retrospect, it feels like a foregone conclusion. Jodie gave a fantastic performance in the most honored film of the year. Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon canceled each other out for Thelma and Louise. Laura Dern in Rambling Rose and Bette Midler in For The Boyd didn’t seem to stand a chance.

Did Jodie have any competition at all that year?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 66Last Tuesday at 5:50 AM

She can keep this one but her first one should have gone to M or G.

by Anonymousreply 102/19/2021

This is probably sacrilege, but I don't think she deserved either Oscar. Yes, she's good in Silence, but what everyone remembers is Hopkins. I would have given the award that year to Geena Davis.

by Anonymousreply 202/19/2021

[quote]Yes, she's good in Silence, but what everyone remembers is Hopkins

Speak for yourself. That's also just blatantly untrue. Her scene at the very end chasing and then being chased by BB, particularly the night vision part, is iconic.

by Anonymousreply 302/19/2021

The fact that the scene is iconic does not mean she deserved an Oscar. Either Gene or Susan wore more deserving imo, though i understand how difficult would be to choose. I never understood the appeal of Jodie Foster, though i also see that her general rigidity work fine in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 402/19/2021

She should have (also) won for Nell.

by Anonymousreply 502/19/2021

She should have won the Razzie for Nell.

by Anonymousreply 602/19/2021

Foster was completely convincing in every frame of Lambs and more than held her own. Most actresses would have been blown off the screek by Hopkins or tempted to overact.

I think the deservedness of her first Oscar is more of a discussion but I’d still argue she should have won both (and been nominated in Supporting for Inside Man).

by Anonymousreply 702/19/2021

Dumb thread. Foster was incredible in an incredible role.

by Anonymousreply 802/19/2021

Who do we think the runner-up in Oscar votes was?

by Anonymousreply 902/19/2021

[quote]She should have (also) won for Nell.

The Academy rarely honors comedic performances.

by Anonymousreply 1002/19/2021

They should have yanked her Oscars after Nell.

by Anonymousreply 1102/19/2021

R9 probably Susan. Silence was a phenomenon. Everyone was talking about leading right up to the Oscars a YEAR later. Plus it benefited from an early VHS release later in 1991 so Academy members could enjoy it again or for the first time. I have no problem with her second win. She earned it. Her speech kind of sucked on her second win. Jodie never mentions her co nominees each win. The first win she was humble and almost embarrassed. The second one she acted like she could walk on water.

by Anonymousreply 1202/19/2021

R9 it was obviously me! Everyone knows THE ROLE won Frigid Foster MY Oscar! Just like when that flying nun robbed MY Oscar for THE ROSE!

by Anonymousreply 1302/19/2021

Susan was the one people thought was just behind Jodie, but I also recall a vein of comments around along the lines of "I know she's won before, but Geena Davis does more with less in T&L." A lot of the support coalescing around Jodie came from that conflict (Dern and Midler were never factors), and that helped, I think, Hopkins over the line (at the time, Nolte and Hopkins were neck-in-neck).

In retrospect, it's rather obvious (to me, at least) that Jodie's first Oscar belongs to G or Sigourney Weaver (or the un-nominated Susan Sarandon for Bull Durham) or even M for The Dingo Ate My Baby. Foster is impactful, but that's a supporting performance.

1988 was a fabulous year.

One good thing came from it all: had Jodie not won in 1988 or 1991, she likely wins for Nell in 1994, and that would be a much bigger issue.

by Anonymousreply 1402/19/2021

R5 Child please; she barely deserved it for The Accused, but I love her in that so I’ll let her keep that one.

What Lange does in “Blue Sky” is riveting, transcendent, [italic]and[/italic] nearly peerless - even Streep could never but, then again, that’s why Streep loves her so and can’t get Lange off her mind. It is also why the Academy, HFPA, and LAFCA awarded her even when she was up against old and young gals that were Oscarless. Spin that however you please, but Lange won on the merits of her performance and deservedly so. You’d have to literally go back to the Stars and Actresses (capital letters intended) of a bygone era - a few which Lange purposefully emulates in the film - like Monroe, Taylor, Bardot, and Leigh, to get a performance as simultaneously succulent, sexy, potent, volatile, and vital as Lange’s.

Foster can be good but I never got her appeal either. I loved her in The Accused and... actually, I can’t think of any other films I’ve loved her in. Nell is a joke of a performance and film, bordering on insulting, and though she’s good in Silence of the Lambs, she isn’t Oscar-worthy. She’s a masterpiece of a film above wins like Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Lawrence, Helen Hunt, et al - all performances that, ultimately, don’t deliver the goods and ride on the coattails of films the critics and the Academy had hard-ons for. Their wins are consequential - casualties of war, really - and robbed many women (Pfeiffer, Bening, Burstyn, etc) of deserved awards.

by Anonymousreply 1502/19/2021

Could Michelle Pfeiffer done a satisfying Clarice Starling? She passed on the role and sometimes wonder if she has regrets.

by Anonymousreply 1602/19/2021

R16 She could’ve have been stunning - she actually delivers - but she can be hot and cold, so it would’ve depended on her mood and headspace.

Personally, I think she would’ve knocked it out of the park.

by Anonymousreply 1702/19/2021

r15, no one is saying Foster should have won for Nell. It's a cringe-worthy performance. But the din at the time was, with Linda Florentino being ruled ineligible for The Last Seduction, that they needed to find someone else to give it to. I agree with you about how great Lange's performance was, but literally no one had seen it. We owe the Golden Globes a debt of thanks that they nominated Lange, and decided to go with her over Foster (Jennifer Jason Leigh in Mrs Parker and Miranda Richardson in Tom and Viv both gave great performances, IMO, but neither was getting enough critical love at year's end).

by Anonymousreply 1802/19/2021

Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard the Fiorentino bit enough and though I like her and nominate her that year, that simply is not a Best Actress Oscar performance. It’s very subdued and, quite frankly, replicable by a handful of other talented actresses. My favorite scene of hers in this film amounts to her banging her hands with abandon against the roof of a car with momentary abandon and... that’s it.

Just no.

by Anonymousreply 1902/19/2021

Jodie was on Marc Maron podcast recently, it's funny it was the first time I heard her curse, ever. She said "shit".

She has a new movie coming out about the very depressing story of an innocent man being tortued in guatanamo for years. She plays his lawyer. I'm glad she got out of retirement to do such a light hearted project !

by Anonymousreply 2002/19/2021

Someone said Hopkins is what people remember. Who gives a shit what people remember?

Reading about the 30th anniversary of the film this year, Foster was the one who really pegged the central focus of the film, which was Clarice becoming a woman in a world of men. It's her story. Demme (the director) talked about how she was the first person to recognize this and he incorporated it into his vision at a point where he had met with Foster but was still deadset on casting Michelle Pheiffer or Meg Ryan.

Foster was also astute enough to worry about Demme as a director for this project. His brand was quirky comedy and what makes Silence so cool is that it is full of lots of bizarre quirks--it could have easily gone in the wrong direction. He treated the quirks with dead seriousness and the combination became uniquely disturbing and unsettling.

Demme also had a very cool take on the cinematography for this. He reused many of the techniques in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and it doesn't work at all for that one.

by Anonymousreply 2102/19/2021

R21 I think The Manchurian Candidate is underrated. One of my favorite performances by Meryl.

by Anonymousreply 2202/19/2021
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2302/19/2021

Barbra should have won for Prince of Tides. She wasn't even nominated!!

by Anonymousreply 2402/19/2021

She is in almost every scene of an iconic movie, making a totally absurd story believable and captivating. One of the few truly deserved Oscars. This is a non argument. The argument is if Hopkins is supporting and I say yes. If that was a female role it would have been placed in supporting, but the actual lead was female so there just HAD to be a male lead too.

by Anonymousreply 2502/19/2021

I can’t believe she was only 29 - tempus fugit.

by Anonymousreply 2602/19/2021

SOTL is why movies are made. There is not a single component in this film that could make it better. It is like lightening in a bottle.

by Anonymousreply 2702/19/2021

The 1988 win should have been Glenn for Dangerous Liaisons

Jodie for The Silence Of The Lambs in 91

Saggy Susan in Atlantic City could have won in 1981 over Hepburn (she did not merit 4)

Meryl then wins in 95 for Madison County

by Anonymousreply 2802/20/2021

Jopdie didn't deseve the win for The Accused--I saw the movie for the first time a few months ago and it sucked. It's Lifetime movie material and Jodie's performance isn't anything special. Her attempts at an accent and dancing are particularly embarassing.

by Anonymousreply 2902/20/2021

R28? Where's Bette Midler's oscar?

Bette is very good in For the Boys, and the best part of the movie. The problem is James Caan is completely miscast as Eddie and they have zero chemistry together.

But Midler makes the movie work beautifully. Her mistake was releasing it during holiday season in a strong year for female performances. Had she waited a couple of months she would have qualified for the 92 race which was much weaker that year, and she would have won hands down.

by Anonymousreply 3002/20/2021

Sarandon was the clear runner-up.

Bette was terrible in For the Boys. Brassy and blowsy for 140 minutes.

by Anonymousreply 3102/20/2021

Why the fuck was I not nominated? Do they know who I am? Oh, they don't? OK, do they know who I am MARRIED to? I was soon going to be Mrs Warren Beatty.

by Anonymousreply 3202/20/2021

R13 All nominees should practice that perfect bemused stank face Bette gave when Jodie's name was announced.

by Anonymousreply 3302/20/2021

"Bugsy" sucked and your role was lame, but you deserved to win for "The Grifters".

by Anonymousreply 3402/20/2021

R30 are you on something? Emma Thompson won ever award going in 92 for Howard's End. Bette would not even have won in 94.

by Anonymousreply 3502/20/2021


by Anonymousreply 3602/20/2021

[quote]Jodie was on Marc Maron podcast recently, it's funny it was the first time I heard her curse, ever. She said "shit".

Apparently Jodie talks like a sailor at times. It makes sense since she grew up on movie sets.

by Anonymousreply 37Last Sunday at 2:48 AM

After Jodie won for Silence, I saw her grocery shopping at Ralph’s (Coldwater and Ventura) at 1 in the morning. We were the only two in the store. We both got to the checkout at the same time. I told her to go ahead of me. She said, Thank You.

I thought what was she doing grocery shopping when she just won an Oscar a few hours ago!!!

by Anonymousreply 38Last Sunday at 3:25 AM

She 100% deserved it for SOTL.

But her first Oscar? No. She would be #5 out of that list for me. Meryl and Glenn were both excellent, and even Melanie was better than Jodie. But I’d give it to Sigourney. I hope she wins one day. I just love her.

by Anonymousreply 39Last Sunday at 5:33 AM

Bette lost partly because of the dreadful old-age makeup in For the Boys.

The movie was also a bloody bore that went on too fucking long.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40Last Sunday at 5:46 AM

R40 Bette won the comedy globe, but the movie was a failure on multiple levels. Bette acknowledged that in her globe speech and almost cried during it. It’s a miracle she was Oscar nominated. It was a foregone conclusion Foster won. Huge smash film with a word of mouth that lasted a year. Plus the film industry saw her as one of their own.

by Anonymousreply 41Last Sunday at 5:58 AM

As much as I loathe her it should have gone to Sarandon. I think it’s the best work she’s ever done.

by Anonymousreply 42Last Sunday at 6:20 AM

[quote] Could Michelle Pfeiffer done a satisfying Clarice Starling? She passed on the role and sometimes wonder if she has regrets.

I think she looked too old to be plausible as a student in 1989.

by Anonymousreply 43Last Sunday at 6:30 AM

She gave a restrained performance in a horror movie. Must have been a slow year.

by Anonymousreply 44Last Sunday at 6:36 AM

The first time I saw The Accused, I didn't get the acclaim for Foster's performance. It showed up on cable a lot and the third time I saw it, I understood how good she was in it. Can I tell you now, 35 years later? No. But I think she deserved it.

by Anonymousreply 45Last Sunday at 6:48 AM

Is that Armani suiting?

Strange, I considered his fashion timeless but it looks like an 80s power suit.... in pink.

by Anonymousreply 46Last Sunday at 6:50 AM

Her performance anchors the movie and I'm always thrilled when a horror film gets some love from the major awards. Some of my favorite performances have been from horror films and so few of those are ever nominated. You have to be a really fantastic actor to pull off some of the crazy shit a horror movie throws at you.

Horror forces you to go to some really dark places and showcase some unpleasant emotions. In the wrong hands, it can look comical or silly.

To make some of these things seem realistic is a minor miracle and Foster sells every moment and you're always on her side the entire time. It's not a flashy performance that screams "Oscar bait" and that's why I love it. Her performance in Nell, on the other hand...that's screaming "give me the Oscar" every second she's on screen.

by Anonymousreply 47Last Sunday at 9:27 AM

She definitely didn't deserve the Oscar for The Accused. But then again, how often do the Oscars actually go to peopel who deserve them?

by Anonymousreply 48Last Sunday at 9:53 AM

If the pedestrian and tediously bland Sally Field can have two Oscars, Jodie Foster deserves two as well. Field deserved the win for Norma Rae but her second win was completely undeserved.

by Anonymousreply 49Last Sunday at 11:32 AM

I think the Hinckley narrative was the thing that put Foster over the edge in 1989. A strong case could made for any of those actresses to win. I think even Meryl deserved a third win in less than 10 years for ACITD. This and Bridges of Madison County were her strongest nominated non winning roles. A real competitive year for lead actress in 1988.

by Anonymousreply 50Last Sunday at 11:44 AM

Could be ^

by Anonymousreply 51Last Sunday at 11:45 AM

Didn't poor Sigourney Weaver win the drama Globe and go in as the favorite on Oscar night the year Jodie won for The Accused?

by Anonymousreply 52Last Sunday at 12:01 PM

R52, Jodie and Sigourney tied for the Globe drama actress award and Melanie won the Globe comedy actress award. Meryl wasn’t really in the race since she had already won two, but the others were all in real contention.

by Anonymousreply 53Last Sunday at 12:07 PM

I think Michelle Pfeiffer would have been oddly too good looking/sexy (even if inadvertent) for the role R16/R17. She is a great actress, but there are some things you just can't unsee.

by Anonymousreply 54Last Sunday at 12:10 PM

R54, and I do think Pfeiffer is kind of cold. Which works for a movie like Catwoman but not for Silence of the Lambs.

by Anonymousreply 55Last Sunday at 12:11 PM

Pfeiffer would have been to pretty to be believable as an FBI trainee. Jodie has the toughness that makes her a better fit.

by Anonymousreply 56Last Sunday at 12:58 PM

r52 Sigourney was considered a shoo in for the Supporting Actress Oscar for Working Girl but somehow lost to Geena Davis. (in the past double nominees always won the supporting award they were nominated for)

Best Actress was seen to be Jodie vs. Glenn.

by Anonymousreply 57Last Sunday at 8:18 PM

How come Geena Davis wasn't even nominated for a Globe that year? How did she manage to get nominated for the Oscar and then score the shocking win?

by Anonymousreply 58Last Monday at 11:10 AM

R58 Kevin Kline the other supporting winner wasn’t up for the globe either. With the exception of Dustin Hoffman who had the best actor category to himself, it was one of those strange years. Kline and Davis, while they were good, benefited from a split vote. I think Pfeiffer and McDormand siphoned off some of Weavers votes. Pfeiffer was just becoming red hot at the time career wise, and McDormand was the critics darling. Foster less of a split. But Griffith, Close and Weaver were hot on her heels.

by Anonymousreply 59Last Monday at 11:41 AM

R59 wasn't Geena Davis as a Supporting Actress a case of category fraud anyway? She may not have had as much screen time as Bill Hurt but to me her character was the female lead in Accidental Tourist.

by Anonymousreply 60Last Monday at 10:55 PM

No, G or M shouldn't have won in 1988.

It should have been the blind character Helen Barton in Midnight Crossing that won the Oscar for the actress who played her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61Last Tuesday at 1:01 AM

r48 is correct. The problem is that in most circumstances the Academy honors actors who were amazing in a previous role, but lost out to another who was "owed" the honor but lost for a previous role. With this being the case, actors really have to amass a great body of work (not always, but usually) before having any chance of winning. It does become tedious however when so many are awarded the coveted prize for a so-so performance or character - an award that is really given for earlier roles that were perhaps snubbed for the same reason. Best Picture and other awards given rarely follow this logic however - at least not to the same degree.

by Anonymousreply 62Last Tuesday at 1:20 AM

R59 category fraud has been rampant for decades. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen AC, but Davis didn’t have as much screen time as Hurt. I’d call her supporting bordering on lead.

by Anonymousreply 63Last Tuesday at 4:56 AM

My pick in '88 was Christine Lahti for Running on Empty. In Hindsight, I'd go with Glenn.

My pick in '91 was Mimi Rogers for The Rapture. I stand by that choice.

My pick for the Razzie in '94 was a tie- Lange and Foster. My pick for the Oscar was Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Now that I actually vote, I'm far more strategic in my choosing.

by Anonymousreply 64Last Tuesday at 5:08 AM

I was completely surprised to find out there are about 20 songs with Jodie Foster in the title.

by Anonymousreply 65Last Tuesday at 5:35 AM

Actors vote for those they like, not just for a performance. She’d been in the business since she was a kid, worked hard, was respected by below-the-line crew and supporting cast members.

by Anonymousreply 66Last Tuesday at 5:50 AM
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!