Introducing... Supporting Actress Characters of 2002
Friday, June 5, 2020 at 7:00AM The next Supporting Actress Smackdown is just 12 days away. We're on fire this season, aren't we? HERE ARE THE PANELISTS that will be talking about 2002 but we also need your votes. We highly encourage you to rewatch the movies before voting (time can change perspective!). To vote simply email us with "2002" in the subject line by Monday June 15th and include your rating of each of the nominees on a scale of 1 (weak) to 5 (perfect) hearts...
- Kathy Bates, About Schmidt
- Queen Latifah, Chicago
- Julianne Moore, The Hours
- Meryl Streep, Adaptation
- Catherine Zeta-Jones, Chicago
For an extra bit of whistle-wetting fun, let's look at how each of the characters are introduced in the movies. NOTE: Please save comments about the performances themselves for the Smackdown event. For now we're talking about the art of introduction in storytelling. Is the filmmaker tipping his hat to a star's arrival (fairly common practice) or merely introducing a new character...
Keep the change, Joe
[no dialogue]
[Bandleader on the mic] The Onyx Club is proud to present Chicago's hottest dancing duo, jazz babes moving as one: The Kelly Sisters.
1 minute into Chicago... meet "Velma Kelly"
I had COMPLETELY forgotten the opening two minutes of Chicago. I thought it began with Renée watching CZJ perform "All That Jazz" but it begins with the band warming up and the stage manager looking for "The Kelly Sisters" -- they're supposed to be on stage! One minute in we get the first glimpse of Velma, just her legs exiting a cab and then she tears her own promotional poster to remove her sisters name (that's the only blurred image of her face to keep you waiting). For the next frantic minute we track her, never seeing her face as she rushes to get dressed and get on stage (and dispose of a murder weapon!). It's practically a superhero film entrance it so fetishes the act of getting in costume and preparing to do your superpower (in Velma's case, performing). TWO spotlights greet her on stage though she promises she can do this one alone. Boy can she. This is, in every conceivable way, a STAR entrance. There's lots of build up and then a riveting "lights on / start the show" moment when we finally see said stars face in a closeup which fully delivers, her eyes flicking open to sing. Entrance Scene: A+
đ” Come on babe, why don't we paint the town...
4½ minutes into The Hours... meet "Laura Brown"
Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) gets the opening scene, a 1941 suicide in Sussex, before we cross the ocean and glide 10 years forward to 1951 Los Angeles. A husband is bringing his wife flowers. Alas, she's asleep. This scene (well, it's more of a glimpse than a scene) shouldn't feel ominous -- and doesn't fully -- but there is the lingering ickiness that we just started with a suicide and its broad daylight outside so why is this woman asleep? It's boring to watch people sleep and this camera is on the move and immediately back to England. Entrance Scene: D
Orlean makes orchids so fascinating. Plus her musings on Florida and orchid poaching, Indians -- it's great sprawling New Yorker stuff."
[Writing] John LaRoche is a tall guy, skinny as a stick, pale eyed, slouched shouldered, sharply handsome despite the fact he's missing all his front teeth."
4½ and 6 minutes into Adaptation... meet "Susan Orlean"
It's fitting that in the extreme sweaty chaos of Adaptation's meta-storytelling -- the movie is continually restructuring itself -- Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) is introduced twice, in short succession. Once by being described over a copy of her book and then in her own act of description as we jump back in time three years with a dissolve from the cityscape to her at a desk writing. Nifty but it's worth noting that its only half of a traditional star entrance. Showing us Meryl's headshot before she acts would normally qualify as a full star entrance. But the star of this movie is its screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, both figuratively and literally. Entrance Scene: B+
"And now ladies and gentlemen, the keeper of the keys, the countess of the clink, the mistress of murderer's row, Matron Mama Morton."
17 minutes into Chicago... meet "Matron Mama Morton"
Queen Latifah gets a similar entrance to Catherine Zeta-Jones but hers is more sped up and tossed off, so we just gif'ed it for you above. We get a closeup of her ample bosom first (instead of legs as with Velma) followed by her shadow on the wall, and then door opening, dissolve, blow out, color filter, feather shake, and then Queen Latifah's gorgeous mug. And she begins to sing. To paraphrase the song, this entrance is a lot of tat for what she's got to give.
Entrance Scene: A- (but bonus points for giving the original Velma Kelly, Chita Rivera, that close up cameo to warn Roxie/us of Mama's entrance just before it happens. "Ever had Mama before?")
Warren, how grand to see you again!
77½ minutes into About Schmidt... meet "Roberta"
Yes, that's right. Alexander Payne makes us wait an entire feature's running time before Warren Schmidt (Jack Nicholson) even arrives in Colorado where the much-discussed wedding of his daughter is taking place. There's no filmmaking fanfare for Bates entrance. But Payne and his editors do know that we're waiting for this final act of the movie to begin so they take a beat on the door before it swings open to reveal "Roberta," the mother of the groom. After she welcomes the protagonist (no outrageous jokes, yet, just warmth), the door closes on us again. This is definitely more of a visual marker than a traditional star entrance. The filmmakers are saying "We've arrived in Act Three". Once inside the house, though, Bates will let loose to set the tone for the final act which falls under the sub-genre of Awkward Wedding Comedy. Entrance Scene: C+
We hope you enjoy revisiting these movies this week and we'll see you back here on Wednesday, June 17th for the full Supporting Actress Smackdown!
Reader Comments (60)
A rare lineup where I enjoyed ALL the movies and their performances!
Adaptation is my favorite of 2002 and I'd given it Oscars for film, director, best Actor, best supporting Actress, best supporting Actor and Screenplay,
Oh welll.... at least it won best supporting actor.
The Hours is also great and I massively enjoyed Chicago and About Schmidt.
The Chicago Girls both had the best entrance scenes, I agree. But the others are nice as well.
I liked Chicago okay when it came out, but I swear it gets better and better every time I watch it. Such a strong, smart, entertaining film. One of my favorite musicals of all time, and CZJ's performance also gets better every time I watch it.
Strong lineup. Zeta-Jones deserved the Oscar, but it could not have been more perfect casting. She was born to play Velma.
Moore deserved it as much though. Heart and soul of The Hours, rare example of Oscar bait that works on both intellectual and emotional level. That final scene with Streep devastated me.
Here's where Meryl should have got her 3rd Oscar and got it out of the way.
For me Streep was at ger best in Adaptation... Jones had great musical numbers, but acting... not so much
Streep should have been nominated for The Hours ( and won ). There was a mix up in the nominating ballots from what I remember.
Moore was fine in her role, but watching Streep react to Moore at the end was the devastating part for me.
It was a strong year for SA/ Bates was the weakest in the lineup IMO
CZJ: A+++++++++++, a human dynamo! She's completely electric here.
Who knew, when Chicago won the Best Picture Oscar, that movie musicals were not on their ascendancy, but on the precipice of a sharp decline? I can't think of another entry in the genre that holds up as well until five years later, with Hairspray.
A shame the year's actual Best Supporting Actress - Bebe Neuwirth in TADPOLE - didn't prove much of a contender.
Julianne Moore's D-rated entrance in "The Hours" is fair!
But I think that Laura Brown's introduction is a deliberate red herring. The passivity of her intro in the morning passages ââ while her husband fusses around the kitchen and Virginia/Clarissa (instantly portrayed as more active characters, getting ready to put in the work of writing/party planning) get out of bed and start their day ââ seems a deliberate contrast. It begs the question: Who is really on auto-pilot here?
The audience is being led to believe that she's not a decision-maker... more of a sponge, soaking up the words on the page and the monotonous domestic life around her. I think the D-entrance makes her A+ conclusion all the more powerful. She knew herself all along; it's the viewer that sells her short.
So excited for the 2002 smackdown and articles to come. After dabbling in Oscar watching in 2000/2001, 2002 is the year I got serious about awards and seeing every film possible!
I feel like we've been pickier about less serious versions of category fraud than CZJ committed in 2002. Her entrance only underscores this...
Also, Richard Gere got a Best Actor campaign (Globe + SAG nod) for a much more secondary role in the same movie.
Imagine thinking Velma Kelly (who opens and closes the movie, gets her own numbers, sings the show's theme, etc.) is the third most central character in Chicago, lol.
I'll be interested in the commentary because as far as I'm concerned 60% of the category belong in the leading category.
Chicago with each re-watch becomes a greater film experience. It being the last musical to claim the prize and last film with two supstantial female leads to win is unfortunately not shocking but deeply upsetting. The two women's entrances are iconic in the pop culture at this point and I'd glad the intro post was brought back.
I loved 3/4 of these film and the performances featured in those were spectacular. The 4th film and nominee wasn't as exciting as the competition.
I've missed this feature of the smackdown.
I like watching people sleep LOL The beginning of The Hours is fantastic.
Resident Streep agnostic adores Adaptation and her performance in it. Streep's least favorite word is edgy but Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze as a collaborating duo are just that.
If only Queen Latifah were positioned again as a nominee to win -- this would be the 2nd line up Bates is in with all Oscar winners. Streep already has three with 58th, 63rd, 81st lineups.
All of these women have spectacular moments in their films, but Catherine Zeta-Jones wins best entrance in a walk. If the conversation were to turn to best scene, however, now that would be a Battle Royale.
This just reminds me how fun Chicago is to watch. Love love love CZJ and Queen Latifah in it. Everyone in that film delivers.
Even Lucy Liu had a cameo, remember? haha.
I can hardly wait for this smackdown, I like all the actresses and their films. Women in Chicago are given fabulous entrances. But we are here for more than just that...
Solid group, but Patricia Clarkson was robbed of a nomination and a win.
I actually love all the nominees, but I wish Patricia Clarkson was given a nod. CZJ for the win though!
On a side note, 2002 has produced one of the worst Best Actresses winners of all time. i do not think Nicole Kidman deserved that win. I would love this site to do a smackdown on that category.
Meryl should've won that year though I'm with Raul on Patricia Clarkson. Plus, I would've vouched for Kathleen McDermott for Morvern Callar and Shirley Henderson for 24 Hour Party People. Viola Davis for both Solaris and Far from Heaven should've been nominated for either of those films.
Streep should have been nominated for Lead in The Hours (and won). To this day, I still cannot believe that Kidman won for this crap role - she's soooo much better in so many other movies. How all the attention went to Kidman and Moore (it's one of her worst performances too - and she was in Nine Months AND Body of Evidence!) when Collette and Streep are right there is beyond me.
Anyway, CZJ deserved this Oscar. None of the other 4 could do what she did. I would vote Streep a close second. Latifah is awesome in Chicago. But it's essentially one scene and song (albeit probably the best song in the whole movie). Bates is good in AS, but she's better in other movies.
I think it's a solid list but it does pain me still Pfeiffer was left out for her tonally on point devilish sad work in White Oleander,I also second the Clarkson nomination snub.
Meryl is totally winning this.
I would have nominated La Pfeiffer and the amazing Toni Collette in The Hours. Wow. The things she does in ONE SCENE:
CharlieG: Other than the rapturous glow given by Far From Heaven, I have no idea how Moore got the attention. Though, I DO have a pretty clear idea of how Kidman did: The Academy has a real person fetish something FIERCE. Still, not really a fan of The Hours. Or Daldry at all outside of Billy Elliot. And he cemented that with Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. Even just based on the source material ultimately chosen, this was an obvious bad idea from everyone involved. An adaptation of a 9/11 book by a prestige filmmaker? Good idea. But this one? When Don DeLillo's Falling Man (ridiculous no adaptations of him have actually made it across the finish line) would have been a WAY better starting point?
Streep's 13th nod is for Adaptation
Moore's 3rd nod is for The Hours
Bates' 3rd nod is for About Schmidt
Moore and Streep were category sisters prior for the 1999 Best Actress race
Bates and Streep were category sisters prior for the 1990 Best Actress race
Streep should have at least been nominated as Lead for The Hours. And I agree with Peggy Sue that Toni Collette does so MUCH in ONE scene in The Hours. What a performance!
For me the weakest is Latifah (very showy and funny, but nothing more). The other 4 nominees are great, but I would consider also:
-Miranda Richardson (Spider)
-Patricia Clarkson (Far from heaven)
-Toni Collete (About a boy)
-Susan Sarandon (Igby goes down)
-Michelle Pfeiffer (White Oleander)
But /3rtful who are perennials and who are pets? Can you give Bates less than four stars? We must know!
I never got Adaptation. Meryl is her usual brilliant self but Cage just annoyed the heck out of me. It was a really irritating performance and I don't know why he was nominated.
As for The Hours - pretty much the entire cast are excellent. Julian Moore, Nicole, Meryl, Ed...what great performances!
Never thought much about it but as I sent in my votes... is this the greatest line up for this category of all time?
Also, no one ever answers on this but why the hell has Latifah never been tapped as an Oscar host? She'd be amazing.
I have to rewatch Adaptation. At the moment my votes are:
Bates- 3
Latifah- 3
Jones- 4
Moore- 5
Imagine how amazing this would have been if Miranda Richardson had been nominated for Spider and you had to discuss her THREE introductions in that movie!!
1. Meryl
2. Catherine
3. Julianne
4. Latifah
5. Kathy
The only time Meryl Streep decided to make an interesting artistic film. Usually itâs just generic biopics and mediocre comedies. I wish sheâd challenge herself more.
The entire Kidman winning outcry can only be blamed/praised by The Hours producer Harvey Weinstein. Fiddling with double Oscar bait with The Hours & Chicago, he jimmied the system and pushed Supporting/now Lead Kidman up believing he had a better winner with âits her timeâ Kidman over the more-deserved, elbowed out Lead nominee, Meryl. (Oh, voters have already awarded her). Ditto, he was gunning for Lead/now Supporting CZJ/Chicago. Didnât want his Oscar lanes blocked-even though RZellweger and SHayek got slotted in Lead, his campaigning was on top horse Kidman. And JMoore and QLatifah getting more Oscar nomination greed wasnât going to move his chips off the CZJ horse. He mustâve figured Meryl is on her own with Adaptation, so sheâs Competition. Oh, to be a Miramax Oscar strategist back in the day...
I think Kidman detractors are forgetting how wildly praised her performance was back in the day, and that she was at the very PEAK of her stardom. Even aside from reviewers, most people I know who saw the film were really impressed with Kidman and considered her the film's MVP--including people who previously didn't think much of her. And Moore received rapturous reviews for Far From Heaven and it is easily one of her best performances. Both were excellent nominees, and I think Kidman's win has aged well.
I LOVE The Hours, but I disagree that Meryl was any kind of real threat to be nominated and win for that performance. That seems like revisionist history to me. She's good in it, for sure, but for an already somewhat heavy-handed film she lays it on a little too thick for my tastes. The "I seem to be becoming unraveled!!!" line reading is ... well, that's often cited as people's favorite moment of hers in the film but I find it several millimeters over over-the-top. Adaptation was her crowning jewel of a performance from that year--she was nominated in the right place for the right film.
I think this was a great slate of Supporting Actress nominees--one of the strongest ever, I think. I do think Michelle Pfeiffer should have landed a spot, though, and I would have kicked out Kathy Bates.
The herbal medication Robinson Buckler mailed to me along with the prescriptions cured me from herpes and i am Negative For More Info on how to get cured Contact Robinson Buckler now on EMAIL âŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ. Robinsonbuckler (@) yahoo. com_______________________________Thank you đđđ
I SO disagree with everything JJM said.
Of course the CHICAGO girls are great, but they have the benefit of being in a genre that is all about great entrances! Your writing here about Velmaâs entrance is exquisite, Nathaniel.
Having never seen ABOUT SCHMIDT, I am absolutely fascinated that Bates shows up so late. Iâve seen my fair share of an Act One supporting performance (Mahershala Ali in MOONLIGHT is most obvious), but I canât think of another âAct Threeâ kind of nomination.
Philip - Harvey Weinstein was hellbent on getting Britney Spears for the role that Lucy Liu played!
I so agree with DI.
I so agree with myself.
What a great year for Actresses. To me the double nominee should not be Jullianne Moore, but Isabelle Huppert and Meryl Streep
ACTRESS
Renee Zellweger- Chicago
Meryl Streep - The Hours
Diane Lane - Unfaithful
Julianne Moore - Far from Heaven
Isabelle Huppert - The Piano Teacher
followed by
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Secretary
Salma Hayek - Frida
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Michelle Pefiifer - White Oleander
Catherine Zeta Jones - Chicago
Meryl Streep - Adaptation
Isabelle Huppert - 8 Femmes
Nicole Kidman - The Hours
followed by
Miranda Richardson - Spider
Toni Collette - About a Boy
Maribel Verdu - Y Tu Mama Tambien
Moore is NOT supporting in The Hours but I love that performance so much. Depression is depicted a lot in film but I think hers is the one that rings truest to me. Her work affects me in a very powerful way.
Zellweger should have won Best Actress.
As far as the supporting Chicago actresses, Iâve never liked Zeta-Jones or Latifah as actresses. They both do the best of their careers in Chicago, but like Jennifer Hudson they get praise for the showmanship and singing. For acting alone they should never even come near an Oscar nomination. I rewatched West Side Story yesterday. How George Chakiris won an Oscar for 15 lines of badly overacted dialogue and a couple of singing lines baffle me to this day. Did he win for his dancing, or did they just think he was hot?
The Academy has shown too much love for second-rate acting performances in musicals. Chakiris, Zeta-Jones and Hudson are Oscar winners in acting categories. I just donât get it.
Zellweger was amazing in Chicago, though. Absolutely nailed it on every level, especially in the acting department. Rita Moreno in West Side Story, as well.
And donât get me started on Rami Malek winning an Oscar for lipsyncing and Taron Egerton not even being NOMINATED for singing the songs himself.
Unpopular but I agree with JJM
2002... oh my.
First, let me get this out of the way. Maribel VerdĂș should have won her THIRD Oscar (she should have 4 by now, mind you) for Y tu mamĂĄ tambiĂ©n as LEAD. She was no supporting, in my opinion.
On Supporting, it is one of the few instances that I think the AMPAS got it right... Zeta Jones is a force of nature in Chicago, and I am really happy they nominated Latifah also (who should have been nominated again, for Hairspray, if you ask me). Out of the quintet, the order would be...
1. Zeta Jones
2. Bates
3. Streep
4. Latifah
5. Moore (I think Toni Colette was WAAAAAY better in The Hours, and while I love Moore to death, her performance was cringe-worthy to my taste, in this particularly overrated film, saved by the cast)
If you are curious, Maribel VerdĂș's FOUR Oscar wins should have been - if any justice in the world... - these ones...
1991 - Best Supporting Actress, "Amantes" (Lovers)
1997 - Best Lead Actress, "La Buena Estrella" (Lucky Star)
2002 - Best Lead Actress, "Y tu mamå también"
2006 - Best Supporting Actress, "El Laberinto del Fauno" (Pan's Labyrinth)
... up to you if she should have been also nominated for Oscar winning Belle Epoque, 7 Mesas de Billar Francés (her first Goya, after so many nominations that it was becoming embarrassing), Blancanieves, Tetro or Los Girasoles Ciegos, to mention some of her better, awards-calibre performances. Probably the most underrated actress - awards wise - worldwide.