Just saw the film and I can't understand all the buzz about Cher's performance. In no way I'm saying it was a bad performance, because it wasn't, and I actually never saw Cher in it but a character named Dolly, she was very believable. And while she handed herself well with the other actors, I don't see anything else Oscar-worthy in it.
I guess it must be one of those Oscar nominations for a 'natural' performance.
[deleted]
So amazing I was thinking about the same thing. For the most part she was just sitting or just being around. It was really a waste to cast big talent like Cher to play such a minor role in it. I mean what they paid Cher couldn't be a small pay check.
shareI saw this film when it came out, and I had just turned 13. I didn't know what a big deal it was that Cher was in it. I cared more that the Disney boy (Kurt Russell) had "all grown up".
When I saw this film something about Dolly resonated with me. She was someone that had a little of all of us. She was a free being, but still cared about her friends. I can't put it into words, but I thought she was an unbelievable actress. This was a once-in-a-lifetime performance and Cher managed to let it rip.
I'm not a fan of her's at all, and never saw her in another film or TV show that I felt was outstanding. Yet when it comes to Silkwood there are two things I remember: Dolly's friendship and Karen singing Amazing Grace.
DeeDee
I agree with the OP, I've only seen a few of Cher's acting performances and I think her role in Silkwood was one of her best. B/c it was completely different from anything she's ever done. But at the same time, her presence was a bit distracting. Whenever she was onscreen all I could think of was "Cher" not "Dolly."
"Homer: I'm not a praying man but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
For me, she was so good because she DID make me forget she was 'Cher'. Of course, I still 'knew' it was her in the back of my mind, but I really could get into who her character was, and she was so natural, so wonderful, I immediately warmed to the character and to the actress. For me, in this performance, she really proved her skill as an actress... Thought she was a wonderful complement to Streep too
shareI second that RainyNightHouse - Cher is that actress, that can take you to the character immediately.
shareWhat's special is it didn't scream "I am a special performance". It was just one of those natural performances that allow you to get lost in the movie because it seems completely real and not at all ACTING. Those type of performances should get appreciated more IMO>
"I'm f'ing busy-or vice versa" -Dorothy Parker
[deleted]
[deleted]
'What's special is it didn't scream "I am a special performance". It was just one of those natural performances that allow you to get lost in the movie because it seems completely real and not at all ACTING'
---------------------
You make it sound like that's unique; it's what any competent actor does. Lindsey Wagner is also very real, but won't get the praise Cher will because she's not "Cher". Is that fair in general?
Her performance was wonderful and so moving because it was natural. I knew it was Cher but never once did she take me out of the movie. She was believable in every scene.
shareI agree,OP
I think it's the Farrah Fawcett thing--receiving rave reviews for The Burning Bed when she was not extraordinary,with people being surprised that Farrah wasn't poor. I suppose it's because she played a lesbian, wore little make-up and directed a few lines of anger(which she does in every movie) at Streep
And "naturalness" is what any competent actor does,whether it's Cher or Cheryl Ladd. Popularity counts for a lot.
[deleted]
I think this is the best performance Cher has given. It wasn't a showy or center stage performance and Cher did give us some layers and subtleties. There is just as much expressed in her face, than what she delivers in her line readings. Another actress could have been just as impressive and I do feel much of the accolades Cher received at the time, was due to the then "daring" role, of playing a lesbian......and Cher of all people. Her crying scene on the porch with Streep, may not be perceived as that convincing; but when people are upset, they can be perceived as a parody regardless, so who's to say that it wasn't 'genuine' here.
Cher had a top notch director to guide her, 2 big name stars along for the ride and an excellent support\peripheral cast. I find Cher' performance believable and the first time I viewed the film on vhs, I was bored and had anticipated a showy role from Cher; but that was only my immature, deluded teenage mindset.
I'm fine with Oscar nominations for 'natural' performances if the performance rings true, which this one does.
What defines an Oscar worthy performance for you?
What defines an Oscar worthy performance for you?
______________
I find SILKWOOD, to be Streep's most natural, believable "accented" performance.....Bridges Madison-95' next, although I rate OOA-85' slightly higher and not to forget 'Heartburn'-86', in which I feel this is as close to the real live Streep as a genuine human being. I also find this to be my favorite Cher performance. The "real" qualities, they imbued into their characters, make them Oscar® worthy for me.
It would all depend on the film and the character and the manner in which it is portrayed. Sometimes, I may like the more showy aspects of a performance; but if that is balanced with other subtle layered qualities, then I would consider them Oscar® worthy. As much as I enjoy watching MOONSTRUCK-87 and Cher is entertaining to watch, I don't care much for her win—not that nuanced and overall a light performance—considering the high standard quality performances, that the other nominees gave. I placed her last. She was much better here, in SILKWOOD.
I love Bette Midler in THE ROSE-79 and while it was a loud and even obnoxious performance, she was stripped bare, down to raw emotions and was real, believable and understood her character. This was worthy of an Oscar® and more innate and in the moment, than what Miss Field gave us in NORMA RAE, who won for that same year. I also rate Jessica Lange for FRANCES-82, over Streep for SOPHIE'S CHOICE. Both gave award worthy performances, I just feel that Lange was more raw, real and therefore more believable, than the more heady technical qualities, that Streep showcased in her performance.
I need to get my hands on BORN YESTERDAY-50 and see Judy Holliday's winning performance, due to 1950 being a very strong year for leading ladies.
Cher turned me off with the face she made when Linda Hunt won. Who does that..yes, I know, an "honest" person. This was her first major film, and she makes a face because she didnt' win? I watched the telecast live. I doubt she was even the 1st runner-up! She bites off more than she can chew with crying scenes; it's fake-tears. Cher always had too much self-confidence, if you ask me; being owed something.
'I need to get my hands on BORN YESTERDAY-50 and see Judy Holliday's winning performance, due to 1950 being a very strong year for leading ladies.'
-------------
You read my mind, literally.
Cher turned me off with the face she made when Linda Hunt won...... Cher always had too much self-confidence, if you ask me; being owed something.
________________
I had the notion that Cher was the favorite, after winning the globe. It appears that Hunt, won plenty more pre-oscar awards, so it's not surprising she won. Cher may have felt that she was deserving. I haven't seen Hunt's film, so can't comment if it was deserved.
You read my mind, literally. Literally.
________________
I scouted you tube; but couldn't locate a full uploaded version of BORN YESTERDAY. Of the 2 top contenders, Davis and Swanson, I prefer Davis. I also prefer Baxter over Swanson. I also need to see Eleanor Parker in CAGED. Have you seen?
Davis use to always say she deserved to win for this year and 1962. Very modest of her.
Yes, I have seen CAGED a few times back when they used to play older films on TV-- great acting from Parker, who likely would had won in a different year
Davis use to always say she deserved to win for this year and 1962. Very modest of her.
_______________
I haven't seen either of Davis's Oscar® winning roles and I suppose it is unfortunate, that 2 of her most revered roles, (that I have seen), she lost. Davis was contending in what is now considered two of the strongest line ups of leading ladies: 50' & 62'. After seeing Davis in a few interviews on you tube, she did appear to have a cheeky, mocking and even self-depreciating wit. I suppose she was right to a certain degree, as she did deserve to win; but so did the other contenders, by the sounds of it.
But who comes out and says "With all due respect to the wonderful Anne Bancroft, she has more time acting her role on the stage prior to the film" (1962, Miracle Worker) The most important thing is the finished product, not who had more time with it.
shareThe most important thing is the finished product, not who had more time with it.
_______________
I feel that Bancroft had the edge, by default of her character being inspiring, as opposed to the darker edges, of her fellow nominees. Davis did have a point, in that Bancroft had had familiarity with her role, whereas Davis's role was 'straight from the hip'. That said, she thought she was deserving, because she likely felt she was entitled and that she lost out in 1950, for a film and performance that was an instant classic and grew in reputation quickly. It must have been a feeling, of it being owed to her. This is nothing new though, with these narcissistic, privileged, Hollywood film stars. I don't want to diss too much on Davis, as she was one of a kind.
Ironically, like Bancroft, Judy Holliday also won in a strong year, and against Davis, after doing it on the stage. Nancy Kelly didn't win, though, after repeating her stage role (The Bad Seed)
share.....Judy Holliday also won in a strong year, and against Davis, after doing it on the stage.
_________________
Thanks for the trivia on Holliday, BORN YESTERDAY. I wasn't aware she was repeating a stage performance—not that this should really mean much, in terms of quality. I suppose I can empathise with Davis's sour grapes to a certain degree, as her performances were pure screen and you could also say it is ironic in the sense, that Davis's Margo Channing was a stage actress, as was Jane Hudson.
Both Holliday and Bancoft won Tony's, then the Oscar for the film--and both times, in the years that Davis complained about. Though, Davis cited 1962 as the year that she more deserved it. However, we also Hepburn nominated in 1962 for a strong role ,that netted her at least one pre-Oscar award.
Here is the massive problem, that I rarely hear people talk about:
We don't know how close the votes come for a given win. If the votes come within a very small margin, that lessens the meaning and the praise for the win, at least in my mind. Yes, if a swimmer wins by one 1/2 second, he is still the winner, but acting is different.
....Davis cited 1962 as the year that she more deserved it...... we also Hepburn nominated in 1962 for a strong role ,that netted her at least one pre-Oscar award.
_________________
Since I haven't seen all the nominated actress performances for 50 and 62, I can't make a personal, informed judgement on her cite. Of the 10 nominated performances, I have seen 5 of them for these two different years. I would give Davis the cake for sheer enjoyment and replay value for her acting.
We don't know how close the votes come for a given win. If the votes come within a very small margin, that lessens the meaning and the praise for the win, at least in my mind.
_____________________
That is why they are not going to make them public—it would start to lose it's meaning altogether—and I sometimes have my doubts about the voting process and is the recipient of the award, the ACTUAL winner?
I have recently been engaged in discussion, about Don Ameche's 'undeserved' support nomination and win for COCOON-85', when there were more impressive and layered performances from his co-stars in the same film. Also his competition was stronger. It was concluded that it was given as a career achievement award. If this was the case, then most eligible voters would have had to have been 'mindfully' casting their vote for Ameche, as a career achievement vote too. This doesn't ring quite true or appear that feasible to my mind, as this sounds like they would have had to conspire with each other. Surely, there would be more integrity from the acting branch, that are casting votes.
'I have recently been engaged in discussion, about Don Ameche's 'undeserved' support nomination and win for COCOON-85','
-----------------
..yeah, I noticed!
(just kidding)
I am hoping some actor does what Pia Zadora does in Lonely Lady when the character she plays gets her Oscar. That would be sobering.
My take on Bancroft's win could be that as a newcomer, and not an actress like Davis that everyone was used to seeing give excellent performance, they were even more impressed. A case of a newcomer having an edge, which is usually a drawback. Also, a case of what Bancroft did looking easier that it was; it may have been easier to do what Davis did on a technical level (at least for Davis)
When I watched All About Eve I remember being mad at Davis not taking the Oscar home. But... when I watched Born Yesterday I sort of understood Holiday's win. She plays the role of a dumb blonde excellently, with a perfect comedic timing and makes her character very endearing and multilayered. So Im not that angry now that she did not win, even if Davis' character is a screen legend nowadays. I think though that having Anne Baxter on the same category split the vote too, which damaged Davis' chances of a win.
As for her wins, I havent seen Jezebel, but her Oscar for Dangerous I'd say was a wrong choice. She did much better performances than on that film.
[deleted]
As well as winning the Globe, Silkwood had more nominations than the films Close, Woodward, and Irving were nominated for, so it's likely she was runner-up, or third.
share[deleted]