|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 2:37:52 GMT
What I am getting at, is that I found it a much easier or contrived performance than what could have been delivered. Bates appeared to be just inciting her lines instead of being them, or in the moment. She apparently had some clashes with Caan, because she liked a lot of rehearsals and he didn't. It was more of a self-aware performance she gave. See, I like self-aware performances like that since it gives it some flavour, and clearly Bates was having fun with the role. That alone makes it one of the best antagonistic roles I’ve seen for a female. I should definitely watch Fatal Attraction though. james... I can't believe you haven't seen Fatal Attraction. Please get onto it soon my good man!
Bates did have flavor alright, it just left a bit of a sour note to my taste buds, after it was consumed. The execution was wavering. I think part of the issue is also, is that I like Bates's face and I think she would be a very nice lady to know. Annie Wilkes wouldn't be. Even though I didn't know of her before I saw this film, I guess I see what is too much of her own self in the role, rather than what she was portraying. In Dolores Claiborne, I saw Dolores, not Bates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Aug 18, 2019 10:24:02 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. TC,
I've never watched Dolores Claiborne. I admire Bates and I usually like the Stephen King movies I've seen. I've just been procrastinating for years because it didn't sound interesting to me. After reading the comments in this thread, I decided to give it a shot.
I just finished it and I'm absolutely blown away. The story is so enthralling and Bates lived up to my expectations. And I already knew Jennifer Jason-Leigh is also quite talented. I now understand what you meant by Annie Wilkes being sort of a caricature compared to Claiborne. So just a note of thanks for motivating me to watch this gem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 18, 2019 11:02:23 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. TC,
I've never watched Dolores Claiborne. I admire Bates and I usually like the Stephen King movies I've seen. I've just been procrastinating for years because it didn't sound interesting to me. After reading the comments in this thread, I decided to give it a shot.
I just finished it and I'm absolutely blown away. The story is so enthralling and Bates lived up to my expectations. And I already knew Jennifer Jason-Leigh is also quite talented. I now understand what you meant by Annie Wilkes being sort of a caricature compared to Claiborne. So just a note of thanks for motivating me to watch this gem. Thank you for your generous comments Sulla and pleased that my comments on DC has given it a positive boost and worked for your own perception of truth.
It is a knockout drama, one of the best from the 90's. Its strong theme and subject matter would have likely distracted or turned viewers away from it and its not typical or mainstream sensational King. I have read the novel of Dolores Claiborne about 5 times. It is written solely in the first person and Dolores is telling her tale without us hearing the interjections of others: we only read her responses to them. After the first few pages it is easy to get used too and King's skilled prose makes it work all miraculously. It is worth reading and also a little different in the telling. The film has fleshed out Selena.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Aug 18, 2019 16:21:46 GMT
TC,
I've never watched Dolores Claiborne. I admire Bates and I usually like the Stephen King movies I've seen. I've just been procrastinating for years because it didn't sound interesting to me. After reading the comments in this thread, I decided to give it a shot.
I just finished it and I'm absolutely blown away. The story is so enthralling and Bates lived up to my expectations. And I already knew Jennifer Jason-Leigh is also quite talented. I now understand what you meant by Annie Wilkes being sort of a caricature compared to Claiborne. So just a note of thanks for motivating me to watch this gem. Thank you for your generous comments Sulla and pleased that my comments on DC has given it a positive boost and worked for your own perception of truth.
It is a knockout drama, one of the best from the 90's. Its strong theme and subject matter would have likely distracted or turned viewers away from it and its not typical or mainstream sensational King. I have read the novel of Dolores Claiborne about 5 times. It is written solely in the first person and Dolores is telling her tale without us hearing the interjections of others: we only read her responses to them. After the first few pages it is easy to get used too and King's skilled prose makes it work all miraculously. It is worth reading and also a little different in the telling. The film has fleshed out Selena.
I didn't know the subject matter before watching it, I was just going on the strength of Bates' acting. Because you believe her performance in this is more Oscar-worthy than Misery is what really piqued my interest.
If I like a story on film, I know the book is usually better. At least that's been my experience with John Irving novels.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Aug 22, 2019 1:49:49 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. I thoroughly enjoyed Kathy Bates in "Misery" and it was a fun film. But I could hardly say that you could take her character seriously. "He didn't get out of the cockadoodie car!" Annie Wilkes is a realistic as Baby Jane Hudson. (though in the novel, Jane is chillingly realistic) I think the character comes very close - perhaps not quite - to being camp. I've never seen "The Grifters", Toasted Cheese. I don't even know much about that film, except that AJ was nominated for an Oscar. I did think she gave a sly, charged performance in "Prizzi's Honor" and , of course, got the Oscar for that. But, yes, Kathy was excellent in "Dolores Claiborne" a few years later. What a strong, gutsy character she was! I felt so bad for her when she goes to the bank to find out that her husband had wiped her clean of her savings. At first not seemingly such an intense, upsetting moment, but Kathy brought so much tough-minded sympathy to Dolores. I loved her to pieces. She tried so very hard to be a really good mother, and she really was, but hard knocks kept pushing her down. It's kind of hard to wrap one's head around her getting an Oscar for the fun, but totally over the top AW, and not even getting a nod for the much more layered and complex DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Aug 22, 2019 9:01:39 GMT
I thought her great in the part and really couldn't imagine anyone else doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Aug 23, 2019 1:02:07 GMT
Great book, great film and great lead performance from KB. All good really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honolulu on Oct 26, 2019 13:30:20 GMT
In my very humble opinion, Kathy's performance as Annie Wilks is one of the best performances from an American actor ever filmed. How do you gauge this? That is a very bold comment to make.
I am only considering her performance in terms of perhaps other similar roles played, that fact that it was deemed Oscar worthy for that specific year and I have just commented to another poster about one of her competition's performances which I feel was technically more deserving.
I say that because the role is very hard to pull off. If done incorrectly, Annie would have come off as a campy female villain. Kathy was able to take the character and make her like a real person you might actually met in real life. Kathy was also able to fly into those mood swings perfectly. Just think about it for a moment. Well...clearly you have thought about her performance. But I'm asking you to think how difficult playing Annie Wilks. Think how Kathy read that script and then figured out how to approach the pivotal scene where Annie confronts her favorite author for killing off her favorite character of her favorite book series. The film doesn't show parts of Paul Sheldon's Misery book series like the novel does. Stephen King wrote Misery like a novel within a novel. There are lots of pages of the character Paul Sheldon's Misery novel scattered with the book. I felt Misery was a boring romance novel. Most of it, I skimmed over to get to the main story. Therefore, it really becomes evident that Annie Wilks was really nuts to be that obsessed with that Misery character anyway, at least it was to me. But I think that was Stephen King's overall point about Annie Wilks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honolulu on Oct 26, 2019 22:11:47 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. You're just repeating what most of what other people have said. It still doesn't change my opinion about her performance. I was simply explaining my reasons since I was asked. Also, I hated that movie Delores Claiborne. I thought it was a stupid long drawn out melodrama and the characters weren't memorable. I'm not going to tear apart the film or the actors and directors. All I'll say is that I am not a fan of that film at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 27, 2019 0:28:57 GMT
How do you gauge this? That is a very bold comment to make.
I am only considering her performance in terms of perhaps other similar roles played, that fact that it was deemed Oscar worthy for that specific year and I have just commented to another poster about one of her competition's performances which I feel was technically more deserving.
I say that because the role is very hard to pull off. If done incorrectly, Annie would have come off as a campy female villain. Kathy was able to take the character and make her like a real person you might actually met in real life. Kathy was also able to fly into those mood swings perfectly. Just think about it for a moment. Well...clearly you have thought about her performance. But I'm asking you to think how difficult playing Annie Wilks. Think how Kathy read that script and then figured out how to approach the pivotal scene where Annie confronts her favorite author for killing off her favorite character of her favorite book series. The film doesn't show parts of Paul Sheldon's Misery book series like the novel does. Stephen King wrote Misery like a novel within a novel. There are lots of pages of the character Paul Sheldon's Misery novel scattered with the book. I felt Misery was a boring romance novel. Most of it, I skimmed over to get to the main story. Therefore, it really becomes evident that Annie Wilks was really nuts to be that obsessed with that Misery character anyway, at least it was to me. But I think that was Stephen King's overall point about Annie Wilks. That is my whole point, she wasn't.
I have read the book twice, I didn't mind the Misery story parts with the broken keys. I didn't skip through them, because I thought there may have been some connection with the Misery novels and King's story itself. Didn't find any, just a bit of a gimmick, but it was still ok to read, although perhaps not quite relevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 27, 2019 0:33:28 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. It still doesn't change my opinion about her performance. I was simply explaining my reasons since I was asked. Also, I hated that movie Delores Claiborne. I thought it was a stupid long drawn out melodrama and the characters weren't memorable. I'm not going to tear apart the film or the actors and directors. All I'll say is that I am not a fan of that film at all. This is my original OP, so how can I be repeating my first post? This was the opening thread. Have you even read through it properly?
Misery takes an easier approach to its story filmic wise than Dolores Claiborne. Misery is not quite as layered, nor nuanced and that is my whole point regarding the differences in Bates's performances as well. I can't preach to the un-converted either, but one can still account for another's lack of taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honolulu on Oct 27, 2019 3:36:17 GMT
You're just repeating what most of what other people have said. It still doesn't change my opinion about her performance. I was simply explaining my reasons since I was asked. Also, I hated that movie Delores Claiborne. I thought it was a stupid long drawn out melodrama and the characters weren't memorable. I'm not going to tear apart the film or the actors and directors. All I'll say is that I am not a fan of that film at all. This is my original OP, so how can I be repeating my first post? This was the opening thread. Have you even read through it properly?
Misery takes an easier approach to its story filmic wise than Dolores Claiborne. Misery is not quite as layered, nor nuanced and that is my whole point regarding the differences in Bates's performances as well. I can't preach to the un-converted either, but one can still account for another's lack of taste.
What I'm saying is that you started out with a criticism regarding Kathy Bates performance in Misery. Lots of other posters agreed with your assessment using almost the same words. The ones that disagreed with your criticism, you repeated yourself. I read maybe a couple of posters were influenced by your assessment of Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks. I'm sorry that your argument hasn't changed my opinion of her performance. My opinion doesn't rely on her Oscar win. I'm happy she won. She deserved it for that year. I'm basing my opinion on the level of acting skill Kathy displayed within that film compared to many performances from other actors in Hollywood, including the classic film era. I think when it comes to actors, my sensibilities are refined. Glenn Close didn't even have a nominated performance in the same year Kathy was nominated for her performance in Misery. Misery was in the 63rd Academy Awards ceremony. Fatal Attraction was in the 60th Academy Awards ceremony. In fact, Glenn Close has never had an Oscar winning performance. It's a shame too. I think Glenn Close is a wonderful actress. She's not the best, but I still enjoy the vast majority of her films. I have not seen any of her Broadway performances unfortunately. Alex Forrest is the type of psycho you'd see on the news or tv documentary series like Snapped. Not that hard to play, yet Glenn was brilliant at how she played that character. Annie Wilks could have came off as a caricature, yet Kathy made her feel multidimensional person. Kathy basically was that entire film that it felt like James Caan was a supporting character. There are several examples of female actors who've played psychotic women. Why did you chose Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rather than say Glenn Close nomination for Dangerous Liasons? There is also Sharon Stone's performance in Basic Instinct. And while we are on the subject about female actors playing pychotic women, who do you think gave the best and most memorable? Back to Delores Claiborne, I just wasn't as convinced as you were about Kathy Bates. It's not that I hated the character Delores. It's that I didn't care about her situation. I thought the whole plot was kind of dumb. There was no type of emotional connection to that character or any of the characters. Katy made me terrified of Annie Wilks though. More scared of Annie than what Stephen King wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 27, 2019 9:46:38 GMT
This is my original OP, so how can I be repeating my first post? This was the opening thread. Have you even read through it properly?
Misery takes an easier approach to its story filmic wise than Dolores Claiborne. Misery is not quite as layered, nor nuanced and that is my whole point regarding the differences in Bates's performances as well. I can't preach to the un-converted either, but one can still account for another's lack of taste.
What I'm saying is that you started out with a criticism regarding Kathy Bates performance in Misery. Lots of other posters agreed with your assessment using almost the same words. The ones that disagreed with your criticism, you repeated yourself. I read maybe a couple of posters were influenced by your assessment of Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks. I'm sorry that your argument hasn't changed my opinion of her performance. My opinion doesn't rely on her Oscar win. I'm happy she won. She deserved it for that year. I'm basing my opinion on the level of acting skill Kathy displayed within that film compared to many performances from other actors in Hollywood, including the classic film era. I think when it comes to actors, my sensibilities are refined. Glenn Close didn't even have a nominated performance in the same year Kathy was nominated for her performance in Misery. Misery was in the 63rd Academy Awards ceremony. Fatal Attraction was in the 60th Academy Awards ceremony. In fact, Glenn Close has never had an Oscar winning performance. It's a shame too. I think Glenn Close is a wonderful actress. She's not the best, but I still enjoy the vast majority of her films. I have not seen any of her Broadway performances unfortunately. Alex Forrest is the type of psycho you'd see on the news or tv documentary series like Snapped. Not that hard to play, yet Glenn was brilliant at how she played that character. Annie Wilks could have came off as a caricature, yet Kathy made her feel multidimensional person. Kathy basically was that entire film that it felt like James Caan was a supporting character. There are several examples of female actors who've played psychotic women. Why did you chose Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rather than say Glenn Close nomination for Dangerous Liasons? There is also Sharon Stone's performance in Basic Instinct. And while we are on the subject about female actors playing pychotic women, who do you think gave the best and most memorable? Back to Delores Claiborne, I just wasn't as convinced as you were about Kathy Bates. It's not that I hated the character Delores. It's that I didn't care about her situation. I thought the whole plot was kind of dumb. There was no type of emotional connection to that character or any of the characters. Katy made me terrified of Annie Wilks though. More scared of Annie than what Stephen King wrote. Of course I am going to defend my stance with what I stated and started. If people don't agree, and I am not asking them too, of course I am going to challenge that. What other argument is there? I feel you may have a bit of an issue with context.
What has Glenn Close not being nominated the year Bates was got to do with the point I made? I used her for an example as a classic screen psycho, which was only a few years earlier and has more in common with Bates's performance, than her performance in Dangerous Liaisons did, who was more of a scheming manipulator, than a disturbed psycho with serious disorders. Again, you are just proving my point about your lack of context and understanding. I found Close more believable in Fatal Attraction, compared to Bates in Misery, for reasons already stated.
That you like Bates in Misery is fine and what you connect with, but from a technical acting pov, I didn't find her convincing. And no, she wasn't multi-dimensional. It sounds like you are just parroting terms to make some point so as to come across as impressive, yet I find it hollow. You are also very late to the party to respond now after quite some time the thread got going and other discourse was engaged in.
I thought Dolores Claiborne was full of emotional impact and much of this was conveyed by Dolores's situation, both at home and with her employer. It is written all over her face and in her eyes. I think you have missed the boat, or is that ferry here. Perhaps you need to view again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 27, 2019 9:56:30 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. I thoroughly enjoyed Kathy Bates in "Misery" and it was a fun film. But I could hardly say that you could take her character seriously. "He didn't get out of the cockadoodie car!" Annie Wilkes is a realistic as Baby Jane Hudson. (though in the novel, Jane is chillingly realistic) I think the character comes very close - perhaps not quite - to being camp. I've never seen "The Grifters", Toasted Cheese. I don't even know much about that film, except that AJ was nominated for an Oscar. I did think she gave a sly, charged performance in "Prizzi's Honor" and , of course, got the Oscar for that. But, yes, Kathy was excellent in "Dolores Claiborne" a few years later. What a strong, gutsy character she was! I felt so bad for her when she goes to the bank to find out that her husband had wiped her clean of her savings. At first not seemingly such an intense, upsetting moment, but Kathy brought so much tough-minded sympathy to Dolores. I loved her to pieces. She tried so very hard to be a really good mother, and she really was, but hard knocks kept pushing her down. It's kind of hard to wrap one's head around her getting an Oscar for the fun, but totally over the top AW, and not even getting a nod for the much more layered and complex DC. Exactamundo Mr. Dirty! Yet some posters on here think it was the best thing since sliced bread for some reason. I don't want to undermine their enjoyment factor regarding her performance, and I like it too, it just don't feel it is and never will be a great psycho performance compared to other similar female psycho roles. It was too obvious and mannered to be brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honolulu on Oct 27, 2019 14:49:41 GMT
What I'm saying is that you started out with a criticism regarding Kathy Bates performance in Misery. Lots of other posters agreed with your assessment using almost the same words. The ones that disagreed with your criticism, you repeated yourself. I read maybe a couple of posters were influenced by your assessment of Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks. I'm sorry that your argument hasn't changed my opinion of her performance. My opinion doesn't rely on her Oscar win. I'm happy she won. She deserved it for that year. I'm basing my opinion on the level of acting skill Kathy displayed within that film compared to many performances from other actors in Hollywood, including the classic film era. I think when it comes to actors, my sensibilities are refined. Glenn Close didn't even have a nominated performance in the same year Kathy was nominated for her performance in Misery. Misery was in the 63rd Academy Awards ceremony. Fatal Attraction was in the 60th Academy Awards ceremony. In fact, Glenn Close has never had an Oscar winning performance. It's a shame too. I think Glenn Close is a wonderful actress. She's not the best, but I still enjoy the vast majority of her films. I have not seen any of her Broadway performances unfortunately. Alex Forrest is the type of psycho you'd see on the news or tv documentary series like Snapped. Not that hard to play, yet Glenn was brilliant at how she played that character. Annie Wilks could have came off as a caricature, yet Kathy made her feel multidimensional person. Kathy basically was that entire film that it felt like James Caan was a supporting character. There are several examples of female actors who've played psychotic women. Why did you chose Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rather than say Glenn Close nomination for Dangerous Liasons? There is also Sharon Stone's performance in Basic Instinct. And while we are on the subject about female actors playing pychotic women, who do you think gave the best and most memorable? Back to Delores Claiborne, I just wasn't as convinced as you were about Kathy Bates. It's not that I hated the character Delores. It's that I didn't care about her situation. I thought the whole plot was kind of dumb. There was no type of emotional connection to that character or any of the characters. Katy made me terrified of Annie Wilks though. More scared of Annie than what Stephen King wrote. Of course I am going to defend my stance with what I stated and started. If people don't agree, and I am not asking them too, of course I am going to challenge that. What other argument is there? I feel you may have a bit of an issue with context.
What has Glenn Close not being nominated the year Bates was got to do with the point I made? I used her for an example as a classic screen psycho, which was only a few years earlier and has more in common with Bates's performance, than her performance in Dangerous Liaisons did, who was more of a scheming manipulator, than a disturbed psycho with serious disorders. Again, you are just proving my point about your lack of context and understanding. I found Close more believable in Fatal Attraction, compared to Bates in Misery, for reasons already stated.
That you like Bates in Misery is fine and what you connect with, but from a technical acting pov, I didn't find her convincing. And no, she wasn't multi-dimensional. It sounds like you are just parroting terms to make some point so as to come across as impressive, yet I find it hollow. You are also very late to the party to respond now after quite some time the thread got going and other discourse was engaged in.
I thought Dolores Claiborne was full of emotional impact and much of this was conveyed by Dolores's situation, both at home and with her employer. It is written all over her face and in her eyes. I think you have missed the boat, or is that ferry here. Perhaps you need to view again.
I wasn't asking you to defend your stance. I'm not saying you're wrong for considering Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks a technically bad performance. I do not have an issue with your apparent lack of respect for the Academy Awards either. I simply gave you my opinion and you claimed that I made a bold statement. I don't think I made a bold statement especially since Kathy Bates was honored with the highest accolade for her work in Misery. Whatever method she used worked for that particular role. I have no idea how she approached the role of Dolores Claiborne. The point I'm making is that compared to other female actors in American cinema who have portrayed psychotic women, Kathy Bates performance as Annie Wilks was brilliant and made history. That's why I said what I did. I have no idea why you'd say that Marquise de Merteuil wasn't a psycho anyway. As far as I'm concerned, Marquise de Merteuil and her actions in the plot were psychotic. Basic Instinct was released a few years after Misery, why didn't you compare Sharon Stone and Kathy Bates? I think you just prefer actors that use a range of expression in the performance. That alone doesn't mean it superior. There were many nuisances to Annie Wilks. For most of the movie, her face displayed a range of emotions. I still do not understand why you favor Delores Claiborne more than Annie Wilks. Maybe it has nothing to do with Kathy Bates at all. Seems like you didn't like the character just like I didn't like Delores although I think most of the acting community would agree with me about Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks over Kathy Bates as Dolores Claiborne. Either way, Kathy Bates is such an amazing female actor. There are many like her of all races and ethnicities, but that isn't the scope of your topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 27, 2019 15:20:30 GMT
Of course I am going to defend my stance with what I stated and started. If people don't agree, and I am not asking them too, of course I am going to challenge that. What other argument is there? I feel you may have a bit of an issue with context.
What has Glenn Close not being nominated the year Bates was got to do with the point I made? I used her for an example as a classic screen psycho, which was only a few years earlier and has more in common with Bates's performance, than her performance in Dangerous Liaisons did, who was more of a scheming manipulator, than a disturbed psycho with serious disorders. Again, you are just proving my point about your lack of context and understanding. I found Close more believable in Fatal Attraction, compared to Bates in Misery, for reasons already stated.
That you like Bates in Misery is fine and what you connect with, but from a technical acting pov, I didn't find her convincing. And no, she wasn't multi-dimensional. It sounds like you are just parroting terms to make some point so as to come across as impressive, yet I find it hollow. You are also very late to the party to respond now after quite some time the thread got going and other discourse was engaged in.
I thought Dolores Claiborne was full of emotional impact and much of this was conveyed by Dolores's situation, both at home and with her employer. It is written all over her face and in her eyes. I think you have missed the boat, or is that ferry here. Perhaps you need to view again.
I wasn't asking you to defend your stance. I'm not saying you're wrong for considering Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks a technically bad performance. I do not have an issue with your apparent lack of respect for the Academy Awards either. I simply gave you my opinion and you claimed that I made a bold statement. I don't think I made a bold statement especially since Kathy Bates was honored with the highest accolade for actors in the US. The point I'm making is that compared to other female actors in American cinema who have portrayed psychotic women, Kathy Bates performance as Annie Wilks was brilliant and made history. That's why I said what I did. I have no idea why you'd say that Marquise de Merteuil wasn't a psycho anyway. As far as I'm concerned, Marquise de Merteuil and her actions in the plot were psychotic. Basic Instinct was released a few years after Misery, why didn't you compare Sharon Stone and Kathy Bates? I think you just prefer actors that use a range of expression in the performance. That alone doesn't mean it superior. There were many nuisances to Annie Wilks. For most of the movie, her face displayed a range of emotions. I still do not understand why you favor Delores Claiborne more than Annie Wilks. Maybe it has nothing to do with Kathy Bates at all. Seems like you didn't like the character just like I didn't like Delores although I think most of the acting community would agree with me about Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks over Kathy Bates as Dolores Claiborne. Either way, Kathy Bates is such an amazing female actor. There are many like her of all races and ethnicities, but that isn't the scope of your topic. I made comparisons to what I felt were more appropriate performances. The Marquise de Merteuil was not contemporary either, but a period piece and she didn't share the same psychotic traits like Alex Forrest and Annie Wilkes did. I would say that de Merteuil and Catherine Tramell had more in common, both being scheming, narcissistic seductresses. I also don't rate Stone's performance better than either of Close's just discussed, nor Bates in Misery. Context is key, please keep on the same page, otherwise it is a useless discussion.
I do not think that Bates gave a bad performance and I have made that very clear throughout the thread, because I found it flawed and I just don't feel it was Oscar worthy compared to Anjelica Huston who I thought should have won, nor do I feel she was as deserving as Close was in Fatal Attraction, who didn't win for her psycho bitch and I feel she should have. I also felt that Cann gave a more interesting and nuanced performance than Bates in Misery. You could read more layers and nuance into his facial expressions. This I have already mentioned.
There is no factual or solid evidence to prove that Bates gave one of the finest American performances ever, which is your claim. How did she make history? Winning a subjective Oscar doesn't prove this? Even Bates's performance in Dolores Claiborne, which I prefer to her performance in Misery, doesn't mean that I would boldly claim that it is the best American performance ever, as there are no absolutes.
You appear to making claims about something as though it is fact when it isn't. There are many other equations to throw into the mix for contention and I would pretty much guarantee you, if educated film scholars on acting were to dissect Bates's performance in Misery, compared to other similar performances, or other performances in general, she would not come anywhere near, nor come close to being considered the finest, brilliant American performance ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honolulu on Oct 27, 2019 19:47:49 GMT
I wasn't asking you to defend your stance. I'm not saying you're wrong for considering Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks a technically bad performance. I do not have an issue with your apparent lack of respect for the Academy Awards either. I simply gave you my opinion and you claimed that I made a bold statement. I don't think I made a bold statement especially since Kathy Bates was honored with the highest accolade for actors in the US. The point I'm making is that compared to other female actors in American cinema who have portrayed psychotic women, Kathy Bates performance as Annie Wilks was brilliant and made history. That's why I said what I did. I have no idea why you'd say that Marquise de Merteuil wasn't a psycho anyway. As far as I'm concerned, Marquise de Merteuil and her actions in the plot were psychotic. Basic Instinct was released a few years after Misery, why didn't you compare Sharon Stone and Kathy Bates? I think you just prefer actors that use a range of expression in the performance. That alone doesn't mean it superior. There were many nuisances to Annie Wilks. For most of the movie, her face displayed a range of emotions. I still do not understand why you favor Delores Claiborne more than Annie Wilks. Maybe it has nothing to do with Kathy Bates at all. Seems like you didn't like the character just like I didn't like Delores although I think most of the acting community would agree with me about Kathy Bates as Annie Wilks over Kathy Bates as Dolores Claiborne. Either way, Kathy Bates is such an amazing female actor. There are many like her of all races and ethnicities, but that isn't the scope of your topic. I made comparisons to what I felt were more appropriate performances. The Marquise de Merteuil was not contemporary either, but a period piece and she didn't share the same psychotic traits like Alex Forrest and Annie Wilkes did. I would say that de Merteuil and Catherine Tramell had more in common, both being scheming, narcissistic seductresses. I also don't rate Stone's performance better than either of Close's just discussed, nor Bates in Misery. Context is key, please keep on the same page, otherwise it is a useless discussion.
I do not think that Bates gave a bad performance and I have made that very clear throughout the thread, because I found it flawed and I just don't feel it was Oscar worthy compared to Anjelica Huston who I thought should have won, nor do I feel she was as deserving as Close was in Fatal Attraction, who didn't win for her psycho bitch and I feel she should have. I also felt that Cann gave a more interesting and nuanced performance than Bates in Misery. You could read more layers and nuance into his facial expressions. This I have already mentioned.
There is no factual or solid evidence to prove that Bates gave one of the finest American performances ever, which is your claim. How did she make history? Winning a subjective Oscar doesn't prove this? Even Bates's performance in Dolores Claiborne, which I prefer to her performance in Misery, doesn't mean that I would boldly claim that it is the best American performance ever, as there are no absolutes.
You appear to making claims about something as though it is fact when it isn't. There are many other equations to throw into the mix for contention and I would pretty much guarantee you, if educated film scholars on acting were to dissect Bates's performance in Misery, compared to other similar performances, or other performances in general, she would not come anywhere near, nor come close to being considered the finest, brilliant American performance ever.
Lol! Okay whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 27, 2019 22:22:11 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed Kathy Bates in "Misery" and it was a fun film. But I could hardly say that you could take her character seriously. "He didn't get out of the cockadoodie car!" Annie Wilkes is a realistic as Baby Jane Hudson. (though in the novel, Jane is chillingly realistic) I think the character comes very close - perhaps not quite - to being camp. I've never seen "The Grifters", Toasted Cheese. I don't even know much about that film, except that AJ was nominated for an Oscar. I did think she gave a sly, charged performance in "Prizzi's Honor" and , of course, got the Oscar for that. But, yes, Kathy was excellent in "Dolores Claiborne" a few years later. What a strong, gutsy character she was! I felt so bad for her when she goes to the bank to find out that her husband had wiped her clean of her savings. At first not seemingly such an intense, upsetting moment, but Kathy brought so much tough-minded sympathy to Dolores. I loved her to pieces. She tried so very hard to be a really good mother, and she really was, but hard knocks kept pushing her down. It's kind of hard to wrap one's head around her getting an Oscar for the fun, but totally over the top AW, and not even getting a nod for the much more layered and complex DC. Exactamundo Mr. Dirty! Yet some posters on here think it was the best thing since sliced bread for some reason. I don't want to undermine their enjoyment factor regarding her performance, and I like it too, it just don't feel it is and never will be a great psycho performance compared to other similar female psycho roles. It was too obvious and mannered to be brilliant. There is some kind of wink and nod complicity going on with people who claim that Bates gave an excellent performance in "Misery". Even from the get go, the character wasn't exactly scary. There was something pre-fab about the whole thing. Like the filmmakers knew ahead of time the direction the film & character could go in. Even the "infamous" hobbling scene was just a splash of horror. Even the Oscar win seemed pat. Of course, Bates did not give a bad performance. Maybe she knew what kind of performance would win her the Oscar. Can't say. Also, I think it should be taken into consideration that Rob Reiner directed the movie and he seems like he would be a crowd pleasing type director. There is no depth in the movie at all. It's a fun, attention-grabbing little crowd pleaser. Nothing more. The poster stating that Annie Wilkes was multi-dimensional, I just don't know. We must have seen two different movies. Annie Wilkes is about as one-dimensional as it gets. If there is anything engaging here, it is Kathy Bates' basic likability. But nothing scary at all. How can anybody be scared by a woman who circles the room, flaring her nostrils and snorting like a pig? Even her death scene was a caricature. Dolores Claiborne, on the other hand, has depth and poignancy, as a character and a movie. How could anybody NOT find her situation to be deeply sad and troubling? Everything Dolores did, she did her daughter - even risked her daughter hating her as a consequence. And Dolores had nobody on her side, except maybe half way Vera Donovan. And you could feel the toll that life has taken as a result. Bates was very, very good. And the scene at the bank was heartbreaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Oct 27, 2019 22:40:52 GMT
I thought she was brilliant. Okay, maybe the outbursts from her can be a little OTT but it works within the context of the movie. Stephen King’s stories are usually surreal even if they are meant to be grounded in reality. What is OTT? Thanx in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Oct 27, 2019 22:44:36 GMT
Little bit of Trivia. Did you know that the director Rob Reiner plays a cameo as the chopper pilot sitting next to the sheriff when they are on a search? Doing the Hitchcock thing...  |
|
