MovieChat Forums > Affliction (1999) Discussion > James Coburn..Oscar for what?

James Coburn..Oscar for what?


Dont get me wrong James Coburn is a great actor and will always be a legend in the film industry but why did they give him the oscar for this movie? His character didnt even show up till 45 mins into the movie...and from then he barely was in any parts. I could only find a couple scenes where his acting was good but not oscar worthy. I'm glad he finally received an oscar before he died, no matter how or what he got it from. I watch this movie all the time on cable...and I dont know. Its pretty boring, the plot is really too simple and kinda flaky. Oh well...RIP James Coburn!!

reply

[deleted]

Playing a drunk convincingly is the toughest role for an actor. Yes, we've seen Coburn do it before and, yes, it can be boring to watch a drunk stumble around, but it is terrific acting if it is believable. James Coburn was able to pull it off in sustained scenes. I believe he deserved his Oscar win.

Remember the people voting for Oscars are actors and directors who *know* how difficult it is to portray a drunk.

reply

Lol wish someone would give me an actor for acting like i'm drunk. You would think the academy would look down on being portraying crazy abusive drunk people in movies. I cant think of any actor/actress who won the best actor award being drunk and crazy in a movie.

reply

"I cant think of any actor/actress who won the best actor award being drunk and crazy in a movie"

Jack Lemmon was nominated for best actor for "Days of Wine and Roses". Ray Milland won for "The Lost Weekend".

www.what-a-character.com

reply

Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas also.

Playing drunk is an actor's game to lose. It's hard to do it convincingly without being a caricature. There was a lot more than just "mean drunk" to Coburn's performance. He didn't show up until 45 minutes in? That's why he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. And with things like this, with a nomination so late in an actor's career, it's often the Academy's way of recognizing an entire body of work. But the performance has to be good to even get to that point. Coburn was really good in Affliction, it didn't hurt his chances that he was also James Coburn, you know?

reply

I thought Coburn's performance was great! He was of the most convincing fathers-from-hell I've ever seen on screen. Definitely Oscar-worthy. As was Nolte's. He could have won the Best Actor award.

Yes, it's very funny that someone puts an argument such as "He didn't show up until 45 minutes in" as a reason why someone shouldn't win an award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role! Maybe because these days there is a widespread practice to nominate people who play one of the main roles as "supporting" actors, only because they were not famous enough at that moment (most glaring examples: Kevin Spacey in Usual Suspects; Samuel L.Jackson nominated for "supporting role" in Pulp Fiction while John Travolta was nominated for best actor in "lead role"; Kate Winslet nominated for "supporting role" in Sense and Sensibility, while Emma Thompson was nominated for "the lead role", etc.) As a result, some people seem to have forgotten what a supporting role is in the first place.




better sorry than safe

reply

Thank you, Ivana, for making some sense! I agree completely. Coburn played one of the best a-holes in recent screen history, in my opinion.

reply

He was incredible in this movie. It's one of my favorites. However, the Academy probably gave him an Oscar more for Lifetime Achievement than anything else and his great performance here, considering his late age at the time, gave them the perfect excuse.

reply

Lee Marvin won an Oscar for CAT BALLOU for playing a drunk.

Dudley Moore was nominated for ARTHUR for playing a drunk.

Jack Nicholson was crazy, but not drunk in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.

Peter Finch was crazy in NETWORK and won an Oscar.

Joanne Woodward in THREE FACES OF EVE was crazy, but not drunk.

Thomas Mitchell was a drunk doctor in STAGECOACH and won an Oscar.

Vivien Leigh was crazy but not drunk in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE.

I'd say both Elizabeth Taylor and Sandy Dennis were both drunk in WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, both won Oscars.

It seems that playing drunk and crazy are ways for actors to win Oscars.

reply

Coburn was great in this movie, but Nolte was just as good perhaps even better,probably should have won the Oscar!

reply

Great movie and great acting,Coburn was great Nolte was just as good or maybe even better,he probably should have won the Oscar!

P.S. Don't know if its true or not, but I heard Nolte really did have a bad tooth while filming.

reply

I hear you brother... and may i add that i think this movie sucks a royal ass! I like Nick Nolte and Coburn but come on, how badly does one script have to be to make 2 great actors overact that much?!?! For eks. when Nick´s caracter hits his girl after the girl attacks him and she and his girlfriend drive away, Coburns caracter starts to talk about how proud he is, that finally he´s a man and that he loves him... why didn´t they just make him wear a sign saying he´s a drunken male chauvinist who likes to beat up children??


And yeah to the one that said that the Academy never awards people who play crazy´s or drunks... if a well established actor plays a drunk, a hooker, retarded person or a crazy man he will get nominated at least.

reply

what does "oscar worthy" even mean?

you nail it in your post..."I'm glad he finally received an oscar before he died, no matter how or what he got it from"

you realize thats the problem with those awards and why they have no integrity.


reply

If you ever lived with or were a alcholic this movie is so realistic its chilling. Alcholics see the world in black and white anestitied to any true feelings. Coburns role was so uncanny it remined me of my own father growing up and his sickness of a bent brain. Down our street and one block over was his father sitting at a bar crying in own shot glass. Two ships in the night pickled to reality. Two stunning actors playing roles they might know something about.

reply

I'd be curious to find out the ages of those who don't "get" this movie. Perhaps one needs a bit more "life experience" to understand. Coburn's character is so pivotal because much of what Nolte is comes from his emotional conflicts with his father. One brother escaped and the other can't get away. An absolutely riveting film!

reply

'If you ever lived with or were a alcholic this movie is so realistic its chilling. Alcholics see the world in black and white anestitied to any true feelings. Coburns role was so uncanny it remined me of my own father growing up and his sickness of a bent brain. Down our street and one block over was his father sitting at a bar crying in own shot glass. Two ships in the night pickled to reality. Two stunning actors playing roles they might know something about'.

When I saw this movie in 1997, I felt the same way. Having been raised in a family that contains plenty of boozehounds, some of them violent, Coburn's performance seemed frighteningly real to me, and some of the scenes of the family gathering, with Coburn becoming increasingly drunk and anti-social, were so recognisable that it almost hurt to watch them. I also saw some of my own behaviour in Nolte's performance (and my dad's behaviour too), and the theme of how this type of behaviour is passed down from generation to generation really struck home.

The scene in which Coburn says 'I know you' to Nolte, after Nolte has hit his daughter, was also immediately recognisable: it's Coburn saying, 'You've hated me and loved me, and you're in the process of becoming me, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it: it's inevitable'. I've experienced similar moments with my own father, when I've seen him express a slight sense of pride or achievement when I've sided with him on a topic that, in my youth, we might have argued about, or when I've done some macho nonsense that at the back of my mind I know I really shouldn't have done, like lash out at something in anger or bully someone out of frustration.

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

reply

Having known several alcoholics, I related to this movie alot. Probably why I like it so much. I have an ex girl who's older brother could have been the inspiration for Wade. Poor guy had such rotten luck and was patronized and treated like a fool all his life no matter what he tried to achieve. Never learned to stand up for himself and turned to booze to medicate his soul. He showed up at PTA and town meetings drunk. He even had a shoot out with the repo man one day over his car and that made the news. I later found out from my ex, that their father who died when they were children, was a a serious hardcore alcoholic who intimidated the family. Whenever I see this movie, I feel empathy for that family.

reply

He deserved it. His performance was haunting. One of the best and most memorable performances I've ever seen by any actor.

reply

Oddly, I find myself agreeing with most of the positions here.

The Academy is a joke, and Coburn got it for his body of work and age. However it was most defintely a quality performance. I mean really think about how you would bring that role to life if someone handed you a script. Also the movie was hauntingly realistic, I can so clearly see my father and grandfather reflected in it, but all together just lame.

The movie probably would have need quite a bit of help to make it riveting. Coburn just needed another scene or two to have fully pulled it off.

reply

[deleted]

Coburn a dark presence in this movie who is so cold and nasty that it is a well deserved nomination but I wish Ed Harris won for The Truman Show. Sorry to say but it seems well deserving for Coburn especially since he had a short time in the movie

reply

I wanted to smash his face in every time he was on screen. He did a fantastic job, and that's coming from someone who didn't like this movie.

reply

The surprise isn't that Coburn won a well-deserved Oscar; the insult is that Nolte didn't win one, or that Schrader wasn't even nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

reply

This wasn't a great movie, but Coburn deserved his award. I wanted to kill that MFer myself... (the character not the late great Flynt)

reply

I thought it wasn't great, but that several of the actors (especially Nolte and Spacek) did great work in it. Clearly though for Coburn it was a lifetime achievement type deal. The character of the mean old drunken abusive dad is so cliche and this did not rise above the cliche.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

I agree with you that his acting was good, but not great. I knew Coburn had won the supporting oscar, but I didn't realize that Nolte had even been nominated. After watching the movie, I wondered how the hell they hadn't even nominated Nolte when he should have won.

Then I found out he was nominated, but I still think he should have won. I've seen all the other nominees in that category that year except Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters and although all of them were very good, Nolte was definitely the best.

Anyway, coming back to Coburn, as others have said, the performance was good and it was probably a lifetime achievement recognition.

Nolte outshone him all the way though.


reply