Did Cher deserve her Oscar for Moonstruck? - Moonstruck (1988) Discussion

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78509) 7 years ago

Yes

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

I loved the movie and both her and Cage's performances in it. (Also some great supporting performances.)

But in my opinion Glenn Close deserved it. She was phenomenal.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

No. But because it was CHER, it was the popular thing to do. She won none of the other film society awards. Her transformation was only her looks, not some nuanced change of personality.. Sally Kirkland likely gave the best performance in an under-seen film.

reply

[–] [email protected] (6244) 5 years ago

I thought she deserved it. If an actress deserves an Oscar depending on how very entertaining and fun to watch she was, then Cher deserved it.

And she did a great job. The script was rather lighthearted, but Cher gave a very nuanced performance.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

Yes, the ones who are taken in by Cher as the veiled- mass manipulator that she is (read: phony), think she, by all means, deserved it. And I think Cher thinks so also. The same as when she made that ugh-face when her name was not announced for Silkwood (she hardly deserved to be nominated for that one-note performance in Silkwood). There was no significant overt transformation by her in Moonstruck.

If the Oscar was for the most entertaining and fun, then we would have to discount and re-evaluate every Oscar that has ever been won or lost (including the entertaining Oscar-less Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz). Cher is far from "very" nuanced; Ellen Burstyn (or Lucille Ball) is very nuanced, not Cher.

reply

[–] [email protected] (6244) 5 years ago

I guess I am taken in by phony mass manipulators then! I'd take Cher any day over the current crop of annoying vocalists that plague the airwaves including the "gag me" Lady Gaga and a bunch of others who are so insipid that I can't even recall their names.

I did not mean to suggest that the Oscar always goes go to the most "entertaining and fun to watch" performance. Far from it most of the time. If it did, then Dustin Hoffman would have won for "Tootsie".

It's a largely political, popularity or sympathy vote. How else can one explain Meryl Streep's endless nominations and wins for characters with foreign accents? Or Elizabeth Taylor's win for Butterfield 8 just because she almost died from pneumonia? Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf was a far better performance.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

I don't know if you think she deserved it because you personally have been taken-in, or think she actually deserved it for other reasons.(you said "entertaining" as a major factor). I never commented on her singing, only her acting. Ironically, I am one of those who does not find Hoffman fun and entertaining in Tootsie (people think there is always something funny about a man in a dress, and the rest)

reply

[–] [email protected] (6244) 5 years ago

Funny thing is I never thought of Cher as a really "great" performer. i used to have a debate with a friend of mine who thought she was super talented and I thought she was only passable as a singer. But she seemed to have a talent for picking good songs (or maybe it was her manager).
I probably just enjoyed "Moonstruck" so much that I give the credit to Cher. The rest of the cast is superb. Nicolas cage was wonderful. And you just can't go wrong with Vincent Gardenia and Olympia Dukakis.

"Tootsie" is another film I enjoy so much because of its talented and funny cast. Bill Murray made me laugh with every line he uttered. Sydney Pollack as Michael's long suffering agent is a hilarious. The rest of the cast is almost as funny. Ironically, Dustin Hoffman plays the least funny character in it.

That's just one of those Oscar "moments" that sticks in my craw. I'm sure a lot of people thought Ben Kingsley richly deserved it that year for Gandhi. He was excellent. But I thought an actor with an Indian background who actually resembled Gandhi wasn't too big of a stretch!

In contrast, I was of the opinion that Dorothy Michaels was a lot harder role to pull off.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

This is what I mean: your friend who thinks she's "super-talented". When a celebrity is well-liked in general, I think it's natural for the fan to be more subjective about their talent. The tricky thing about Cher is that her singing-charisma, her sound, is different than how good her technique is. I liked Cher's 70's songs/vocals..( like finding Suzanne Somers engaging and funny, even though she may not be a great comic talent). Charisma vs. talent.

With Hoffman, I don't know if he pulled it off , since I already "know" it's Hoffman --a man--in the role. With an unknown, I could be more objective. The audience goes along with the premise, but does he really look like a woman? If you were to meet a Dorothy Michaels in everyday life, I don't know.

I stand neutral on Kingsley, but if you omitted the Indian-resemblance/background factors, what about Kingsley's acting in itself?

reply

[–] [email protected] (6244) 5 years ago

ProductionNow- Oh I think Ben Kingsley is an excellent actor. It's not his fault that he won for the type of movie Oscar voters go for, i.e., the super serious, "important" movie. ha! The Academy seems to want to be considered deep and serious. They rarely go for the lighthearted films.

If the voting was thrown open to the public, I'd be one of those who went for the purely entertaining movies like Moonstruck, Tootsie or Poltergeist, though that's a completely different genre. They are what I call "popcorn" movies, just pure entertainment.

I guess that all makes me sound shallow. But it goes back to a word coined by Nick at Night years ago to promote their line-up. The shows had "rewatchability".

The movies I cited are ones that I can watch over and over. Something like Gandhi which is so ponderous and serious, well, I've seen it once and have no desire to watch it again.

Or a movie like Sophie's Choice which was excellent but so doggone depressing that it was years before I could bring myself to watch it again.

Yes, Dustin Hoffman is not too believable as a woman. You just have to suspend your disbelief. For me the entertaining parts are moments like when his agent George says, "Michael I BEGGED you to get some therapy." or his roommate Jeff advises him, "Don't play hard to get."

It's amusing to see "Dorothy" charm all those men and Michael wanting to "kick the arrogant a@@" of that director. It was a lesson for him about the shoe being on the other foot. He treated women like crap and sex objects for years and now he was getting a taste of his own medicine.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

It doesn't make you sound shallow (Judy Holiday's win would be an example).
I confess: I haven't seen Ghandi, and why I stand neutral about Kingsley

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Absolutely. She's a fine actress and I loved her performance in Moonstruck.

For those who consider her a "passable" actress I'd suggest watching Tea With Mussolini. Not only does she hold her own against the likes of Judi Dench, Maggie Smith and Joan Plowright, she gives the strongest, most emotionally expressive performance in the entire film.

Not to mention her breathtaking performance in Mask.

She's the real deal.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

There is no absolutely, since it's not great or adequate. It can be called "good". And her Mask performance was not consistent (and forced at times)

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Well I disagree I found nothing forced about her performance in Mask. Also, I'm not sure if it's for you to say there is no absolute when the OP was asking for personal opinions and I personally believe she absolutely deserved her Oscar.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

I said, at times.
For example, the crying-scene with writing Rocky a letter was wooden, and not believable. With her scene with the school principal, she was good, but the punctuation of "Look...don't jerk me around" was self-conscious and cliche-sounding (provocative, yes), unlike most of her lines in that scene.

It was only her 2nd film (well, she made two in the 60's), and it may have been too soon in order for her to give it full potential. Best to spend less time arguing with Bog, in case that would have made a difference. She did not absolutely anything; she was expecting a nom, and you are adamant for a win. You're looking at sensation, while I'm looking at technique.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Well yes, she's a firecracker and I can imagine a nightmare to work with if you got on the wrong side of her. I remember George Miller saying something to the effect that he would rather work with a recalcitrant pig than work with Cher again, not the most glowing endorsement from a director.

Fact is I've loved her in almost everything I've seen her in. When you compare her film work to that of someone like Madonna, who is probably her closest contemporary in terms of mega-famous singer / actresses, you see a similar amount of charisma and screen presence from both, but Cher backs it up with a true understanding of the craft of acting and is natural where Madonna is wooden, warm where Madonna is cool and aloof, and able to make you accept her as the character she is playing while you are always acutely aware you are watching Madonna being Madonna in her films.

Not sure I understand your last sentence though I'm sorry.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Ah I see. Yeah, perhaps you are being more analytical than I, and I won't deny the fact that I think Cher is a fantastic performer. It's hardly an unconditional love though, I haven't been bewitched by everything she's done (especially in music) and I'm not the sort of fan that will support her out of blind devotion.

Never thought of her as a phony though.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

Hey, I don't discriminate; I thought Jane Fonda's win for Coming Home deserved 4th place.

So, you saw what I deleted, ok. The phoniness is promoting oneself as down to earth and liberal, and taking pride in being nice---but only when it suits and advances oneself. You don't need to show how "cool" you are; you just are. Susan Sarandon had some negative things to say, aside from George Miller. And getting what's her name, her co-star from Mermaids, fired because she didn't approve of her looks is not nice either (especially now that she had to quit acting due to mental-illness/schizophrenia)

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Stop it you're ruining Cher for me!!

Oh look for sure, there's a certain amount of disconnect from reality for all people who have her level of fame, and like I said before I think she would be in no way opposed to playing the diva to get what she wants. It probably somewhat accounts for her lasting 50 years in the entertainment industry though, advancing herself where she can in a male-dominated industry, you can't really blame her for being tough and calculating. I think she's genuine with her liberal ideals though. Who says you can't be a lefty AND a bitch, right?

Really though, I'm not saying my opinion that she deserved her Oscar is the last word, no matter how closely you study technique there's always an amount of subjectivity and personal opinion in these arguments. I just don't see her win in the same WTF league as say Marisa Tomei beating Judy Davis.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I do know that Cher and Susan Sarandon are great friends though and that Sarandon was her main support when she was sparring with Miller on Eastwick. I think what you're referring to was one misinterpreted comment Sarandon made about Cher leaving filming early because she had a hard time being in scenes not about her, which she said she admired anyway! They sorted it.

I had to look up the Mermaids story and while I feel for Emily Lloyd, Cher is right, they look nothing like mother and daughter. I don't think you can really put the blame on Cher's shoulders for her career demise though, since she worked steadily for another decade before she quit acting. Apparently she was often a nightmare on her other films and was also fired from Husbands and Wives and Tank Girl, so yeah, lots of issues there the poor thing.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

I meant "liberal" more in a personal way with my last comment, not politically. A lot of people play diva to get what they want, but do not get a free pass for doing it, and not necessarily in relation to it being a male-dominated industry; she's not competing with men for roles. Many women perceive men as a threat or a symbol of intimidation, when another woman in authority would treat them the same way.

Susan Sarandon quoted that Cher would control scenes so the camera emphasized her, and that Susan showed up for work to find out that their roles had been switched to her surprise, supposedly at Cher's request. I didn't know they are good friends.

With Emily Lloyd, I wasn't implying that Cher helped end her career, but the fact that she lost out on a role --after already being hired by the director/ producer, since it could had been at least one more opportunity until her incurable illness took over her life. But it doesn't matter if Cher was right about Lloyd's looks; it was abusive to play boss to serve her whims, and at others' expense.

There was a time when Cher was relying on the humility and generosity of others to give her a chance in the business. It's a nice sentiment to give back, and do the same for others (and I don't mean by writing a check to charity for money that you will never miss). That goes for anyone. But if I did not like Cher to some extent, I would not have seen her films.

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

I'd have gone with Holly Hunter for her career-best in Broadcast News. Cher was perfectly pleasant in a likeable film but - like Ginger Rogers/Grace Kelly/Gwyneth Paltrow/Jennifer Lawrence/Emma Stone and others over the years - she defeated more critically hailed/heavyweight performances because she was the flavour of the month star.

Please don't take that as a knock on Cher, whom I genuinely like, both on and offscreen.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You raise an interesting point, I do wonder if Cher's Oscar win is often regarded as unworthy because it was for a performance in a light romantic comedy, therefore somehow less serious or "heavyweight" and less worthy of praise to some people.

I do agree Hunter was wonderful in Broadcast News, the same could be said for Glenn Close and Meryl Streep. I'll be honest I have never seen Anna so I can't really comment on Sally Kirkland.

But stacking up Cher's performance against those other ladies, I struggle to see why her win is still such an upset to some, other than perhaps because a year later she was straddling a canon on an aircraft hanger wearing a strip of gaffer tape. That's not how we like our grand dames of the cinema to behave, maybe.

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

I haven't seen Kirkland either - by all accounts her performance is excellent (although her campaigning for the Oscar was one of the more notoriously shameless cases, according to reports I have read).

Cher's win has never upset me as such and I do feel that 'lighter' performances should be given fair consideration. There are certainly quite a number of comic/romantic performances which I would have liked to have seen honoured over the years. I do honestly feel, however, that Cher's perfectly appealing, enjoyable turn here does not show or require the range that Hunter's does - HH's Jane Craig is funny, sad, smart, barbed and neurotic, often within the same scene - and the Oscar should have been hers. A great acting performance over a great display of star quality.

But it's all subjective and there are never any right or wrong opinions - and Cher's win (it was, I believe, the first Oscars show I ever watched - albeit in a next evening, edited highlights format) was certainly an unforgettable moment. And it was the '80s, after all!

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

The other film societies divided the wins between Hunter/Kirkland.
Kirkland's "shameless" expression when Cher's name was announced is worth mentioning

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

Haha yes Kirkland’s reaction is priceless.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

For an even bigger upset/ controversy, the 1973 lead actress-win is the classic..

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

Yes, while Glenda Jackson was one of the great actresses of the era, her win for A Touch of Class, even in a weak year, is unexplainable. Such a shoddy excuse for a comedy.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

yet, that presents a couple of questions:
I have not seen ATOC, but it actually received good reviews. However, this would give us the opportunity to prove that comedy roles that are judged as less worthy should be as important as dramatic ones.

So, with that, how was her acting? There has to be a reason for her win. Unfortunately we can't poll the voters to ask why. Also, it's important to know how close the votes came, which I never see other posters comment on (in general). If, say, Jackson won by 2 votes over Joanne Woodward (the recipient of 2 film society awards) that year, isn't it basically a tie?

Viewers seem to feel that Burstyn deserved it, yet I can see why she didn't: the type of film where nobody in the cast would win (like Psycho), and perhaps the voters judging her to be very strong and intense, but pushing.

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

It's many years since I saw A Touch of Class but from memory it is a pretty lame film, the sort of wink-wink '70s sex comedy that was instantly dated. It was a pretty big hit, I believe and I guess the reviews must have been respectable at least for it to elbow its way onto the Best Picture list over The Last Detail, Paper Moon and other more enduring films.

I have nothing against comic roles winning Oscars but I do think that - with obvious exceptions - comedy often ages more poorly than other genres of film, which is why some of those which have won over the years are now looked down upon as lesser winners.

It must have been the late 80s or early 90s when I watched A Touch of Class and I wouldn't be surprised if it is close to unwatchable today.

I was not even of walking age at the time but from what I understand Woodward was the favourite for the Oscar - but had the handicap of a film that few people saw. Burstyn was, of course, has the advantage of a film which was a phenomenon but, as you say, wasn't the sort of movie that wins Oscars for acting (and her leading status was questionable - Jason Miller had at least as much screen time and arguably a more central role).

Voting rules called for an exact tie - a single vote advantage would be declared the overall winner. This caused a famous situation a few years earlier when Katharine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand tied for Best Actress. It was pointed out that, as Streisand presumably voted for herself while Hepburn NEVER cast a vote for the Oscars, Hepburn would otherwise have been the outright winner.

I believe things were different in the early years - when Wallace Beery and Fredric March tied for Best Actor, one of the two actors (March, I believe) actually received a few votes more than the other, from what I have heard.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

Yes, I hear the rules were different in the early years. In my opinion, if you win by one vote, it detracts from the win. It's a win, but not a WIN.

I loved Burstyn in her role, and can watch The Exorcist many times over just for her, yet upon closer look, I wonder about a couple of scenes/moments where her acting could be questioned on a technical level vs. a distressed mother. She did not receive any precusor awards.

ATOC being nominated, but not The Last Detail, Paper Moon does surprise me, though (if that's what you meant)

So, aside from the film itself, did Jackson make something difficult look easy, or have a challenging role, or many levels in her acting? Something?

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

Well like I said I'm going on distant memory but she is certainly the best thing about the film, and I guess at the time it must have seemed something of a change of pace after her back-to-back superb but very straight-faced work in Women in Love and Sunday, Bloody Sunday. That, coupled with her immense respect as an actress and the thin competition, allowed her to squeak through. But I don't think there was anything challenging at all - it was at best a mediocre sitcom with vaguely suggestive humour and an actress of Jackson's calibre could have played the role in her sleep.

Interestingly, I just came across this quote from Jackson in the New York Times on that year's Oscars, which she watched from home:

“I felt ashamed of myself for watching,” Glenda Jackson said the other day, speaking of the Academy Award ceremonies. “No one should have a chance to see so much desire, so much need for a prize, and so much pain when was not given.”

Here's the article - https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/13/archives/at-the-movies-an-oscar-winner-reflects-on-the-academy-awards.html

We will never know the voting totals, a closely guarded secret. It would be fascinating to see them for many years, or even just to know who finished in second place. I am fairly sure that this must have been a very narrow victory.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

I never considered it a weak year for Best Actress. As I mentioned, ATOC was not considered mediocre; it just didn't suit your taste.

reply