Bette's performance was definately worthy of an Oscar in 1979. Yes Sally Field would have been hard to beat, but I think Bette should have recieved the award, and that's hard for me to say because I really like Sally Field, but Bette was mesmerizing! She made me a fan of hers with The Rose.
McPearson
[deleted]
[deleted]
OF COURSE SHE DESERVED IT. SHE DESERVED IT for FOR THE BOYS too. She is an amazing actress. DEfinitely should have got it in 79' and 91'. Sally Field and Jodie Foster won instead. :(
shareCompletely, Bette not winning for this, Citizen Kane not winning for best picture and Stanley Kubrick never winning a best Director Oscar are the three biggest uncorrectable errors in the history of the Academy.
shareSally Field in what?
shareSally Field in NORMA RAE
McPearson
Yes... Sally Field for NORMA RAE and Jodie Foster for THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Both amazing performances but I still think Bette should have won (both years). Definitely in '79 though.
Jesse Taylor
"Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on both of you!" - Julianne Moore from Magnolia
[deleted]
I would have liked to have seen Bette win for THE ROSE also, but at the time, she was still considered somewhat of a rebel in Hollywood and they weren't ready to reward her for that. The SILENCE OF THE LAMBS oscar sweep of '91 was sort of pre-ordained and there was no way Bette was going to override that.
shareBut The Silence of the Lambs was a far better movie than Far the Boys, and subtle performances like those of Jodie Foster in that film and Adrien Brody (The Pianist) winning are few and far between. We need those kinds of wins to validate the Oscar when it usually goes to over-the-top, in-your-face kind (Melissa Leo, Heath Ledger, etc..)
shareMidler for THE ROSE-79'. Field's performance, while good, is not really that exceptional when you closely watch her technique. It is not really all that innate or deep. It was what her character represented and Field's own likable persona that would have won many over. Midler put her heart and soul into her a fully fledged, raw, real and pitiful character. It was showy, loud and obnoxious in parts; but she also covered a full spectrum of exposed emotions and for me personally, I found her to be knockout.
shareI agree totally that Bette was robbed of the oscar she was magnificent!!!
shareJust finished watching this film tonight......
Now that I've seen both "Norma Rae" and "The Rose" (both very good), I think Bette's performance was outstanding - all I could say at the end was WOW! You could tell that Bette put her emotional all into this role - she even looked like hell.
My 2 cents.....
Amy
Totally agree!!!! Bette was robbed--her performance was so devastating. The way that her face and body would seemingly scrunch down when dealing with her manager, who intimidated her--the fear that flowed from her face when threatened with a loved one bailing on her--the confidence when performing and feeling on top again--she just hits every note in this film!!
shareBette turned in an Oscar worthy performance here, but Bette was still a newcomer to Hollywood and still considered an outsider who had ruffled a lot of Hollywood feathers the wrong way. Sally Field was a well-liked actress who had already won all the other critics' awards that season so her winning the Oscar was a given.
shareSally Field was very good in Norma Rae, but her performance cannot compare to the emotional depth and power of Bette Midler's amazing work here. Bette should have won 1979's Best Actress Oscar for The Rose, one of the most powerful female performances of the decade.
shareIt's sad Bette didn't win, one of the Academys biggest mistakes!
shareFor that year it was definitely a toss-up, because both performances were very strong and Bette Midler probably didn't win because her performance depicted a self-destructive character, while Sally Field's 'Norma Rae' was a life affirming role. Come to think of it, The Academy Award voters seldom honor depressing substance abuser subjects, except in the case of Ray Milland's alcoholic, in Lost Weekend, and Nicholas Cage's hopeless drunk, in Leaving Las Vegas, with Oscars. As far as I can recall Elizabeth Taylor's shrewish alcoholic, in Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf, is the only female lush, who received an Oscar. Lee Marvin scored in the only comic turn as a drunken gunslinger and malevolent brother, in Cat Ballou.
shareI finally saw The Rose tonight after years of naturally assuming that Bette Midler's performance was deserving of the win. Well, my assumptions couldn't prepare me for how incredibly raw Midler was in this film. I've always considered Sally Field in Norma Rae as one of the great female performances, but what Bette Midler did here was transcend the label of a great, Oscar-worthy performance. I felt like I was intruding on the private agony of a tortured individual whose inner demons this film had only, could only skim the surface of.
I still think Field was worthy of the Oscar in her own right, even if it was more about the nobility of that character and all she stood for more than the complexity of the performance. Saying that, Field was still excellent, powerful, and sincere in the role. But on her own merits, Midler was completely robbed. It's a travesty, and she never got another meaty role like this, unlike Sally Field, whom I absolutely love (though so far I think her performance in Places in the Heart was merely the best of a forgettable lineup).
Frederic Forrest was also really good, which is no small feat standing in Bette's shadow. And the film as a whole is terribly underrated. I've always seen it get 2-star ratings like it's the worst movie ever to get major Oscar nominations for acting and editing. That is an outrage. This is a very strong, very affecting film. The screenplay isn't perfect and certain details are murky, but a film like this works better as a mood piece than a pseudo-documentary anyway.
Of course, 1979 may have been an all-time low for the Academy Awards. Norma Rae also won Best Song for the forgettable "It Goes Like It Goes"; I'm not sure why "The Rose" wasn't nominated after winning the Golden Globe, but at any rate, my vote for the most enduring tune is "The Rainbow Connection" from The Muppet Movie. Oh, but that's a children's movie, so they would never touch it. The Best Picture Kramer vs. Kramer was very good on its own terms, but nothing that special, next to bold and revolutionary nominees like Apocalypse Now and All That Jazz, which were also much more elaborate productions. Dustin Hoffman winning was far from a terrible outcome, as he was overdue and ripped off for years, but it's ironic and ridiculous that he finally won for his most simplistic role yet. Melvyn Douglas, not well remembered today, won his second Oscar for Being There, which I haven't seen, so I'm not sure how I feel about that win against, say, Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. At least Duvall would end up a winner, and Hoffman, Field, and Streep are all such excellent, consistent actors that they would win again.
Field was still excellent, powerful, and sincere in the role. But on her own merits, Midler was completely robbed.
________________
Field was good to occasionally excellent; but I wouldn't go as far as saying she was powerful or sincere. It was like she was trying to act the sincerity in parts and wasn't being all that genuine about what she was doing. I can't understand why director Martin Ritt, let her get away with the phoney and embarrassing; I can be a good wife, blah blah blah, kitchen scene with Beau Bridges.
Midler's emotions were much more real and as stated several times here, raw.
Hmm, I didn't have a problem with Field in those scenes. If anything, her character is remembered as this hero, but those scenes would go to show she was a flawed working-class character who was struggling to play the part. Like I said before, it's not the most amazing character stretch for an actress (even/especially for Field, after Sybil), but it's sensitive, layered, dialogue-heavy work. I think these are two polar-opposite performances and both were worthy. 1979 was jam-packed with good films.
shareI didn't have a problem with Field in those scenes.....those scenes would go to show she was a flawed working-class character who was struggling to play the part.....I think these are two polar-opposite performances and both were worthy.
______________
That is point I was making, in those scenes, she only appeared to be "playing" the part and not being real enough. I agree that the performance was still oscar® worthy, just not so much as Midler and due to the self-destructive nature of Midler's character, compared to the more inspiring qualities of Field's character, the academy usually opt for the least controversial. I think this is what gave Streep the edge in 'Sophie's Choice' over Jessica Lange in 'Frances'.....assuming that Lange was the runner up.
Midler's performance is very multi-layered. She never really topped the Rose even though she would have a successful film career later on.
It's interesting that Rose has a lot of Midler mannerisms and yet I never saw Bette on-screen. Rose is a fully realized character. Tragic but sympathetic, fun-loving but with a mean streak, popular but lonely. It's a magnificent performance.