Correcting Oscar 1988

Post Reply

Lead, Support or The Other Category But Would Not Register a Nomination

Kevin Kline, A Fish Called Wanda - Lead
0
No votes
Kevin Kline, A Fish Called Wanda - Support
5
33%
Kevin Kline, A Fish Called Wanda - Other Category But Would Not Register a Nomination
2
13%
River Phoenix, Running on Empty - Lead
5
33%
River Phoenix, Running on Empty - Support
1
7%
River Phoenix, Running on Empty - Other Category But Would Not Register a Nomination
2
13%
 
Total votes: 15

dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3794
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by dws1982 »

Need to watch A Fish Called Wanda again to know where I would stand on Kline (and it's sitting on my shelf so maybe this weekend), but I would definitely rate Phoenix as one of the more egregious cases of category fraud, on the Hutton level. The story is very much about him, about how he tries to create his own life apart from his parents. Putting Phoenix in Support eliminates the chance of a true supporting performance in that film, like Steven Hill's, from getting any recognition. (Although Hill probably wouldn't have a chance anyway, because it is just a bit more than a cameo.) I think that Lahti is a co-lead and was rightfully campaigned there as well, and Hirsch could probably could go either way but wouldn't register. I don't think Phoenix would have been nominated in Lead though.

I'd like to rewatch Running on Empty; I've always thought it was Lumet's best film, but I find it very difficult to watch River Phoenix films. As I've aged--and this may be due to my own relationships with things like depression and addiction--I find it very difficult to watch films and TV shows from people who died young due to addiction and depression. I don't think I've watched anything with Bourdain, other than some Top Chef episodes, where he's not in the foreground, since he died, for similar reasons. It's a strange thing, and I find it hard to explain.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10060
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Reza »

Big Magilla wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:40 am All I remember of Kline in that movie is his making fun of Palin's stutter which I found reprehensible - his making fun of it, not Palin's unfortunate stutter.
The screenplay intentionally overdoes the stutter making Palin extremely annoying which makes Kline's imitation look hilarious. In any case the Monty Python-Cleese-Palin humour was always hilariously savage making fun of everything and everyone. Not to be taken literally. Kline's win was delightfully unexpected.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19339
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:13 pm
Big Magilla wrote
All I remember of Kline in that movie is his making fun of Palin's stutter which I found reprehensible - his making fun of it, not Palin's unfortunate stutter.
He's the bad guy.
I know that, but still.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10761
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
All I remember of Kline in that movie is his making fun of Palin's stutter which I found reprehensible - his making fun of it, not Palin's unfortunate stutter.
He's the bad guy.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19339
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Big Magilla »

All I remember of Kline in that movie is his making fun of Palin's stutter which I found reprehensible - his making fun of it, not Palin's unfortunate stutter.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10060
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Reza »

Big Magilla wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:31 pm I think Kline was support, but why he was nominated for that performance I still don't get.
As Sabin said Kline is "such a gloriously big, weird presence". I thought it was an inspired choice by the Academy to give the usually serious Kline the Oscar. A performance totally against type and deliciously over-the-top. He is hilarious and a complete contrast to the equally funny, deadpan comedic style of both Cleese and Palin.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19339
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Big Magilla »

I think Kline was support, but why he was nominated for that performance I still don't get.

Phoenix was clearly the central character in Running on Empty but he wouldn't have gotten nominated as lead that year, so his supporting nomination was/is fine with me. Dean Stockwell was my choice for the win.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3293
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Greg »

I don't know if there was any discussion that year for Harrison Ford, in either lead or supporting, for Working Girl. He doesn't show up until later in the film; but, then he becomes one of the two predominant characters. So, his role does straddle the lead and supporting categories.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10761
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Correcting Oscar 1988

Post by Sabin »

We really are officially in a period of time where folks on this board will be able to provide the necessary backstory for awards chatter. For instance, I have no idea how Kevin Kline's chances were seen prior to the nominations. A Fish Called Wanda had a solid enough showing of precursors, a DGA nomination, some Golden Globe noms, and a strong showing at the BAFTAs, but Kevin Kline picked up just two citations I can see and both in the lead category (BAFTA, American Comedy Awards). I have no idea if he was seen more as a lead or supporting case. He's in A Fish Called Wanda for 39.52% of the runtime. I could see a case where A Fish Called Wanda is a film with three leads. There's such an old-fashioned farce quality to it. The best argument that I can see that Cleese and Curtis are the films leads is that on the page Kline is a function of a plot. That's not exactly how it plays on the screen that's probably how it would read. He's just such a gloriously big, weird presence. Because Cleese and Curtis's romantic relationship becomes so much the thrust of the plot, I don't think it's fair to call it an ensemble film. It's a love triangle that springs out of a jewel heist. Love triangle stories are always tricky to figure out placement. There happens to be another example of the same year: Bull Durham and Tim Robbins' wonderful, Oscar-worthy performance. I don't think anyone would disagree that Tim Robbins is supporting in Bull Durham. I don't have the stats in front of me but it feels like Kline has a far more substantial role than Robbins.

It's been a minute since I've seen A Fish Called Wanda but I think Kline can be considered a co-lead in this love triangle. Had he been pushed for lead, I don't think he would've gotten a nomination. I'm open to persuasion on his placement though.

I'm reasonably sure that this board will consider River Phoenix a lead in Running on Empty. He was in the film for 56.12% of the runtime. Largely, he was across the board considered a supporting actor at the time (won at the National Board of Review, nominated by the HFPA) but that seems largely a function of prejudice against delegating child actors into that category. This harkens back to the conversation I was having earlier about films that involve the nuclear family usually positioning the family in their archetypal categories. I don't think anyone who watches Running on Empty would think that Judd Hirsch is one of the film's leads. But Christine Lahti was nominated for Best Actress (Drama) at the Globes and won the LAFCA. It's been ages since I've seen the film but I'm struggling to think of Lahti's story in the film besides trying to keep her home together in such an unusual situation.

Anyway, I think it's obvious that River Phoenix is the film's lead but would he get nominated in that category? My gut is probably not but when I look at the Best Actor lineup for 1988 it doesn't exactly look bulletproof to me. Hackman and Hoffman, sure. My understanding is that Tom Hanks was a solid bet for Big. My understanding of the rest of the race is that Edward James Olmos wasn't a big surprise. Max von Sydow was probably more of one. The race was largely William Hurt (The Accidental Tourist), Forest Whitaker (Bird), Tom Hulce (Dominick and Eugene), Jeremy Irons (Dead Ringers), and Michael Keaton (Clean and Sober). I'm still not clear how The Accidental Tourist got in but William Hurt didn't. The strongest thing that Phoenix and Running on Empty had going for them that these other films didn't is unlike all those films aside from The Accidental Tourist, it was in the race. It didn't translate to the nomination haul that it could have (love more insight into that) but it was seen and respected. Sadly, I think this lineup is probably too formidable for a young actor like River Phoenix to overcome.

That would open up two possible slots in this category and ye gods, I have no idea what would filI them. The three major critics groups backed Guinness and Stockwell, with Landau and Tim Robbins (Bull Durham) as their runners-up. The Golden Globes nominated Lou Diamond Phillips (Stand and Deliver), Neil Patrick Harris (Clara's Heart), and Raul Julia (Moon over Parador). Phillips makes sense as a nominee. Clara's Heart seems like a Globe love affair. I've never really heard of Moon over Parador but oof, it was a bomb. With that in mind, I wonder if Tim Robbins had a chance for Bull Durham after all.

Best Supporting Actor:
Alec Guinness, Little Dorris
Martin Landau, Tucker: A Man and His Dreams
Lou Diamond Philips, Stand and Deliver
Tim Robbins, Bull Durham
Dean Stockwell, Married to the Mob
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”