Where was Glenn Close's Oscar, exactly?
-
easergood — 20 years ago(October 22, 2005 05:41 PM)
This is the movie that made me LOVE Glenn Close and 17 years later I STILL watch anything that she is in. I remember that Oscar night and I also remember me throwing a pillow at the screen when she lost. (I've secretly resented Jodie Foster ever since)
I love all the scenes others have mentioned, but I would like to add two more. The scene when Valmont tells her about his conquest of Torvel and there is a close up of her face. You can see it change from wicked delight to fear as she realizes that Valmont is in love with Torvel. It's a very subtle moment, but it is SO powerful.
Another scene I love is when she is talking to Cecile about marriage and sex and how even the least accommodating husband is less trouble than a mother.
Overall, I think it is one of the smartest scripts written. At least it received a well-deserved Oscar for Best Screenplay.
And don't be too sad about her not getting the Oscar, she does have three Tonys.
-
whatarefilms — 20 years ago(December 02, 2005 11:07 AM)
I agree, she is SO good in this film as she is in most of the films she has appeared in! The scene where she is screaming and going mental after finding out about the death is fantastic. What a great actress!
-
ainct — 20 years ago(December 11, 2005 01:10 PM)
Glenn Close was nothing but extrodinary in this role. I'd like to add one more subtle scene, no longer than a couple of seconds long that shows Ms. Close's subperb ability. This is the scene where she recieves Cecile's letter about Valmont's 'violation' over her. When Glenn Close lowers the letter and reveals her face, the look is priceless Even when I first saw the movie, I noticed how incrediblly accurate a reaction like this would be.
-
Connie_n_Raymond_Marble — 20 years ago(December 23, 2005 08:06 AM)
Close's performance in this film really does belong in the Great Performances Hall of Fame. Purely classic. Every emotion, every nuance is played with sublime perfection. She really does BECOME this woman, showing us all facets of her complicated personality.
For Connie n Raymond Marble, it was the beginning of the end! -
Drumm09 — 20 years ago(December 23, 2005 10:27 AM)
I have seen the movie "Moonstruck" over and over again and I CANNOT see what the Academy Awards judges saw in Cher that they didn't see in Glenn Close's performance.
Had the Academy Awards given the Oscar to an actress based on the ACTING, Glenn Close would have taken the statue, not Cher. That's just my opinion. -
easergood — 20 years ago(January 08, 2006 04:16 PM)
Since when does the Academy give Oscars based on performances? Every year there is at least one winner who was the "it" person of the moment, had the publicity machine in their corner and walks away with the award. The performance becomes secondary to the celebrity.
Look at 1950 when Judy Holliday won for "Born Yesterday" against two screen legends both giving their finest performance (Bette Davis for "All About Eve" and Gloria Swanson for "Sunset Boulevard"). Not to say that Judy wasn't great, but come on!!!
Or 1993 when Marisa Tomei beat out 4 great performances from Joan Plowright, Miranda Richardson, Vanessa Redgrave and Judy Davis. Again, I am not saying that Marisa wasn't great, but could anyone honestly say she was MORE deserving than the others?
I could go on and on, but I'll spare you anymore of my perceived slights by the Oscars. -
wmboos — 20 years ago(February 02, 2006 12:09 PM)
That's what sucks sometimes about Hollywood in general. Some years you get all five nominees in great movies with once in a lifetime performances, then you get years like this year; ie. mediocre. If the movie came out this year, she'd take the Oscar with ease. But it didn't. I feel for her, but that's Hollywood.
As a side not: I loved Tomei in "My Cousin Vinny". One of my all time favorite characters. She was very, very, good. Whether or not she deserved the Oscar over others in that year I don't know, but I think the problem people had was the role itself. Not her performance. People like Oscars to go for serious roles. Not comedic, sassy, Brooklinites. I thought that she was great and I'm glad she got it.
OH. And another thing: We never know how the voting went. How many winners won by a single vote, or how many lost by a single vote is something the public will never know. -
ManWithoutFriends — 18 years ago(July 05, 2007 07:25 AM)
i have always found this to be her greatest performance and one of my all-time favourites, and she DEFINATELY should have gotten an oscar.
however, i honestly thought that she would have had a better chance with "101 dalmations" just because she was so unrecogniseable in the role. the characterisation was just perfect, much more-so than meryl streeps "devil wears prada" which actually received a nominated as a lead role despite it being a supporting role.
"they should give nicole kidman an oscar for being able to show any emotion after THAT much botox". -
Mr_Mack — 18 years ago(August 23, 2007 10:53 AM)
A terrific performance indeed. You could just tell that Glenn relished her role and it is always satisfying to watch an actor who is enthusiastic about that. I found her subtle moments to be the best (like the cynical smile she gives under hat as she steps out of her carriage to meet Madame de Volanges).
-
jaydf60 — 17 years ago(October 10, 2008 08:05 AM)
I'm sorry but Close in FATAL ATRRACTION is so over the top it would bring someone like her character back to sanity to watch it. Close I'm sure is genius on the stageunfortunately she brings that stage acting style to her films and, IMO, that is not a good thing.
I will admit DANGEROUS LIAISONS is one of her better performancesstill she's over the top and maybe afterall it works for this projectbut not many of her others.
Kevin Spacey & Annette Bening are in the same camp for meway too much acting for the stage done on the screen! -
Prom_Queen_Carrie — 17 years ago(December 03, 2008 12:19 AM)
I love the makeup scene but to me I don't think she deserved to beat Jodie Foster. Jodie Foster had to carry the entire film and so rose above the lifetime tv nature of it and gave a natural, believable, explosive performance from start to finish. She also was so convincing as this white trash party girl character that she was nothing like in real life.
Glenn Close wasn't even in the film much! It seemed like the John Malkovich show. Plus unlike Foster, Glenn had the benefit of a juicy character and juicy lines which allowed her to play up these mannered scenes. I still don't find her as memorable or natural as Foster. I would give her a win in supporting actually. She's absent from the film so often afterall. So I think in the end the Academy made the right choice and awarded the best, most deserving complete performance. #2 would be Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark.
Predictions:DiCaprio/Winslet/Davis/Shannon -
aeljs — 17 years ago(February 24, 2009 06:53 AM)
Glenn Close is THE MOVIE ITSELF!
It was her presence that spelled the most difference.
Can't imagine the movie without her character or other actresses playing that role. That role was indeed made for her!
Definitely should be ranked as one of the finest, one of the best films of all time.
And that 'Ok.. WAR!' scene, WOW! should rank high among the most memorable dialogues and/or scenes of all time.
That was simply FANTASTIC! GREAT! and SUPERB! -
aaronva83 — 17 years ago(March 07, 2009 07:46 AM)
What I don't think some of you understand about the academy is that it tries to give acknowledgement to as wide range of actors as possible (because there are so many great ones) but sometimes that becomes difficult. They have tried their best to give all those deserving a statue, however, unfortunately, the winners usually get them for performances that weren't necessarily their best, however, if you look at their acting history, you can say that they definitely were an oscar-deserving actor (most of the time). For example, Cate Blanchett should have won Best Actress for Elizabeth however they gave it to Paltrow. I promise you that in the next three years, Cate will win a leading oscar (as long as she continues to do what she has been doing). It might not be as good or deserving of an oscar as she would have been for Elizabeth, however, the academy will try to make sure they recognize her talent.
Honestly, if they just gave the statue to the best actor every single time, Meryl might have something like 8 oscars (not saying she doesn't deserve that many), but like I said, they want to honor as many people as they can, and trust me, Meryl will win AT LEAST one more oscar before she ends her career.
To resond to the person saying that Cher didn't deserve the oscar for Moonstruck, you simply don't have an eye for talent. I believe the academy did this because of her nothing less than amazing roles in Silkwood, Mask, and Suspect (witches of eastwick was in there during that 4 year run - not worthy of consideration, but was popular nonetheless, which is important, as one poster pointed out, popularity goes a long way). If you had seen these three movies and then watched Moonstruck, you would say, this woman is an amazing actress, and definitely deserves an oscar.
Sometimes the academy is afraid and has to factor in whether an actor will get another shot at getting their statue, or if they know they will have many more nominations to come, in which the academy can award them for later.
Basically, its not easy. One would say: Simply give the best actor the oscar. Well, it's all a matter of opinion. There would be no excitement if Meryl, Winslet and Blanchett took the next 12 out of 13 oscars, now would there? These people are in the entertainment business, don't forget. So while, I think they try to do their best in acknowleding the work of the great actors, they also have to think about how entertaining their award show is (because the more people that tune in, and the more people care about it, the more money they make off of it, and the more prestigious the award becomes).
That is why, most actors really shouldn't let their esteem be influenced by winning or not winning an oscar (even though it is). I am sure they have all seen the injustices that have occurred over the years with actors winning awards they should not have, either because of public opinion, or to simply honor an older actor who might not get another chance at the bat, so they give them an award (like i was saying earlier) to pay tribute to some of their past work that got overlooked or was not recognized. So, that being said, hopefully the actors all realize that much more goes into picking oscar winners, and that just because they didn't win, doesn't mean they weren't the best. Basically, as cliche as it sounds, to be nominated is really where the prestige lays (especially when they have multiple nominations because it represents a consistency in the quality of their work). Just look at the best actor for the last 30 years, Meryl Streep, with, 15 nominations, more than any actor in history (even though she only won four). That number, number of nominations, to me, is a better indicator of an actor's quality.
All that being said, Glenn Close is an amazing actress and probably does deserve an Oscar for her works in "The World According to Garp," "The Big Chill," "The Natural," "Fatal Attraction," and of course "Dangerous Liaisons." However, she was nominated for academy awards for each of these movies, and like I said previously, that is probably a better way to judge the skill of an actor. Hopefully she can land herself one more great role and give another great performance, and if she does, I bet she will get herself a statue of her own.