Where was Glenn Close's Oscar, exactly?
-
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. -
simonasmith-1 — 16 years ago(August 10, 2009 01:44 AM)
There are just so many fantastic GC moments in this film, it's hard to remember/pick out them all.
One of my favourites (and it shows how good it is, that it only lasts a split second) is when she arrives at the chateau of the Vicomte's aunt (when she's wearing the yellow dress) and as she steps out of the carriage you can just see a wicked smile on her face - you can only just see it under the brim of her hat - and that smile almost instantly transforms into faux-concern as she moves up to greet Mme de Volanges.
For humour, I also love the scene when the Vicomte returns to Paris (the scene that starts with 'your damned cousin - the Volanges bitch'); then they almost kiss on the sofa, but the footman interupts to announce a visitor, and Marquise smiles wickedly and say to the Vicomte 'Aahh - Madame de Volanges !' - don't know why, GC always cracks me up at that bit. -
rascal67 — 12 years ago(February 06, 2014 05:50 PM)
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.
That negates the 'quality' and 'best' of the performances or nominees, by awarding an actor just because of 'acknowledgement'it is therefore meaningless.
saying that Cher didn't deserve the oscar for Moonstruck, you simply don't have an eye for talent. ., this woman is an amazing actress, and definitely deserves an oscar.
I would say that I have a reasonable eye for a talented performance. Cher can act; but she did not deserve to win for MOONSTURCK. Not when you take into account the strength of the other nominees for 87'Cher was the least deserving. I would be been more inclined to have awarded her support for SILKWOOD-83', if she was to have been given an oscar
. -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 06, 2014 07:35 PM)
'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.'
Is that what we don't understand,that the Acedemy Awards is not some board game?
'that Cher didn't deserve the oscar for Moonstruck, you simply don't have an eye for talent. ., this woman is an amazing actress, and definitely deserves an oscar.'
Why is it "amazing"? Amazing means something that defies reasonable expectations. Being a good actress is not "amazing"; it's quite common, not amazng.
And the word "simply". It doesn't simply mean what you said. You simply are enchanted with Cher and therefore think she deserves to won because she's Char. Did the poster say has no talent or that she didn't deserve to win? -
Missyrocks — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 11:41 AM)
So true. This movie is underrated and she is ridiculously so. I do not know how this didn't win Best Picture and she should've won Best Actress, as good as Jodie Foster was. I always think Glenn Close never won because she makes it look so easy. She was nothing short of brilliant in this movie. All 3 of them were, but particularly she. The scene where she visits the aunt's house and they are attending the opera performance. She watches Malcovich looking at Pfeiffer and realizes he really does love her. Her face is pitch perfect in that scene. Of course, the ending. And when she says my victory wasn't over her, it was over you. This should be a top 50 film, if not top 25.
-
groucho-nc — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 10:50 PM)
Agree absolutely to all the acclaim for Glenn Close's performance in DL. Her subtle facial expressions, her barely-concealed anger and desire revealed Close's mastery of acting.
This is the film that made me watch all her films and became a lifelong fan. The scene that is indelibly etched in my mind was the confrontation she had with Valmont where she burst out an inchoate anger by saying: "What are the reasons why I never re-married despite the bewildering urges of my ageit's my determination NEVER AGAIN to be ordered around." When she spit out the "Never again" line, I believed her anger and frustration at he lot of women during that period.
And for Close to very vividly capture it is a work of pure genius. -
kylgary — 15 years ago(April 07, 2010 01:52 PM)
I truly believe that the Oscar belonged to Glenn Close! What a performance! She owned that film.
Jodie Foster was much better in her 2nd Oscar winning performance for "Silence of the Lambs." This was more of a comeback in an ok film - not necessarily the greatest piece of acting.
Streep can do no wrong, and this was no exceptionhowever, just an ok film.
Sigourney Weaver was good, but felt her Supporting Actress nomination for "Working Girl" was better.
Melanie Griffith was outstanding, but no Judy Holliday win heredeserved of the nomination alone. -
bmw2009 — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 07:14 PM)
I haven't seen Jodie Foster in
The Accused
, but I can't think how it can get much better than Glenn Close in
Dangerous Liaisons
. She was phenomenal in every scene, especially scenes towards the end of the film.
My questions is (and maybe this has already been discussed, I haven't read through the whole thread), why did this movie not get
any
Golden Globe nominations!? Was it not released in time? To be nominated for 7 Oscars (5 of which are also GG categories) without being nominated for any GG's seems strange to me. -
Missyrocks — 15 years ago(August 16, 2010 01:17 PM)
I don't know why this movie didn't win several big nods at the Oscars. It is so brilliant. And, as good as Jodie Foster was, she won because she was a rape victim. Like Robert Downey said in Tropic Thunder, playing people with disabilties, etc. is the ticket to the Oscar. And Close makes it look so effortless.
-
arman0612 — 15 years ago(December 10, 2010 09:27 PM)
I can't believe people like Cuba Gooding Jr., Marisa Tomei, Helen Hunt, Cher and many others have won Oscars and Glenn Close hasn't, she was completely perfect in this film, she created one of the best villains in movie history and she didn't miss the mark at any point, I can't believe she didn't get the Oscar for this, it has to be the biggest snub in history, it is so unfair! She's so incredibly underrated.
-
Larry-115 — 14 years ago(May 24, 2011 11:16 AM)
Not wanting to be troll-like in a thread that obviously has lots of fans of Close's work in this movie, but IMO she was miscast, or at least did not give the character the right kind of accent. She needed to have, in addition to malevolent calculation, a mystique of sensuality, which I think is really lacking in her performance. It's undermined by the antiseptic hardness she brings to the part.
I think she's a splendid actress, don't get me wrong. She really shines when she plays parts like Sarah in
The Big Chill
. But I think the problem with her perfomance in this film is the same as the major flaw in
Fatal Attraction
she does not bring a sense of sensuality to her parts. When she tries it, what we get instead is a hard-edged character.
Performers cannot stretch infinitely, at least relatively few can. Take as another example Adrien Brody, a fine actor who, inexplicably, has recently been cast as an action hero. Adrien Brody is no action hero, and it really shows on the screen, painfully so in fact.