1986: Cathy Tyson in "Mona Lisa"
Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 2:04PM
We're revisiting 1986 this month leading up to the next Supporting Actress Smackdown. As always Nick Taylor will suggest a few alternates to Oscar's ballot.
It’s been a while since I wrote about someone who had actual Oscar buzz, right? We can argue how Anna Magnani and Kimberly Elise should have contended in their years, but Cathy Tyson’s cryptic and involving turn in Mona Lisa definitely appears to have landed in the sixth spot of the 1986 Supporting Actress lineup. Tyson won LAFCA (tying with Dianne Wiest for Hannah and Her Sisters) and was first runner-up with New York. She scored Globe and BAFTA nominations, as well, before missing out with Oscar. Given the strength of her performance, the degree of precursor attention she received, the way her role fits in well-worn paths for ingenue recognition, and the ... um... quality of some of the actual nominees, I’m surprised Tyson didn’t make the cut.
Tyson plays Simone, a high-class sex worker. Her shadowy employer suddenly gives her George (Bob Hoskins), a hot-tempered ex-convict fresh out of jail, as her driver/bodyguard...
Simone isn’t happy to have this uncouth man foisted upon her to escort her from one client to the next. He, in turn, is upset at having to put up with a woman half his age and a head taller than him, with too many airs for a prostitute, let alone a Black prostitute. Simone being Black is a significant if rarely vocalized influence on how George reacts to her, and though it would be too much to say Mona Lisa is “about” race, it remains central to how Jordan has conceived her, and how Tyson and Hoskins play their relationship.
Writer/director Neil Jordan helps situate their first interaction from Simone’s point of view. She takes a minute to pause and size George up from the main stairwell of a very nice hotel while putting on a long, gray, semi-flattering coat, and this minute is as much an excuse for the audience to acquaint themselves with her sharp features, straight-backed posture, and asymmetrical hairdo. Next thing Simone knows, she’s dragging George by the arm and speed walking out of a nice hotel while the manager pesters them. George is entirely caught off guard by this skinny Black woman pulling him around and acting familiar with him, and can only meet her plea to “act like we know each other” by sputtering out “Well I don’t know you, do I?”. Tyson plays Simone's anger like a business partner dismayed at her coworker’s sloppiness, completely forgoing the “shrill hooker” routine a lazier actress might’ve settled for. We spend Mona Lisa’s first ten minutes learning how George is regarded as a menace by virtually everyone. As a result it's a bit thrilling to see this woman tear into him so openly, let alone someone as charismatic as Tyson. We can’t help wondering how long before George lashes back at her.
This confrontation happens the next day, when Simone is dismayed to see that George has used the money she gave him to buy nicer clothes on a leather jacket, a Hawaiian shirt, and a gold chain. She insults his taste and when he finally has enough he barks right back at her, stops the car in the middle of a busy street, and kicks her out. She looks affronted but also a bit panicked as she tries to get off the road, batting her purse at a passerby catcalling from his car. George watches all of this, and ashamedly goes back to pick her up. He apologizes and she brusquely accepts to be driven to her next client. Afterwards, they have their first pleasant conversation. Simone reflects on how her clients fall in love with their idea of her as a Black prostitute, and George responds that he thinks of her as a lady. He looks bowled over by the sight of her grin.
More than any other engine of its story, Mona Lisa is centrally premised on Simone’s relationship with George. What does she think of him, and how does he imagine her in turn? Are they purposely sending each other these signals? If so, why, and how are these signals being interpreted? What do they need each other for, beyond the parameters of their working relationship and personal companionship? Without transforming Simone into a sphinx, Tyson nevertheless makes these questions hard to answer while still depicting an active, shifting relationship to George, in direct response to an inner life we aren’t privileged to witness. There’s room for viewers to speculate what Tyson is thinking, and we understand that this corresponds to Simone allowing space for the men in her service to project their fascinations onto her thoughts and body, an action she either actively invites or passively permits. Jordan will occasionally shoot Simone from the rearview mirror of George’s car, emphasizing her status as a refracted, not-entirely-knowable figure, no matter the assertions either character makes about what they mean to each other.
The baseline for Tyson’s performance after Simone and George get on each other’s good sides is a tranquil, even placid expression, in tense contrast with her watchful eyes and melodically inflected voice. When Simone tells George he fancies her, we see she’s right but wonder when exactly she clocked this, and how much she has already surmised about him. She’s not unreadable, exactly, but Tyson makes it clear that Simone is showing only as much of herself as she wants to. Even in scenes wherein she shares details of her history, Tyson is able to negotiate Simone’s apparent emotional sincerity while leaving open the question of how of her expressions and movements are spontaneous gestures or for calculated effect.
When Simone talks about her work, Tyson plays it a mundane, lived-in key that suits Mona Lisa’s mixture of unsensational lives traversing a lurid, dangerous environment. After Hoskins’s revelatory work, she’s handily the film’s most inspired asset at carving out a vivid personality within and around a generic cliché. You occasionally get the sense that Tyson is working hard, maybe harder than she would need to in a better film, not to lean towards an eroticized, scheming portrait of black womanhood that Mona Lisa sometimes encourages. Her “still waters run deep” approach feels as much like a mechanism Simone has adapted as well as a course for Tyson to avoid Jordan’s more dubious pitfalls. Tyson fulfills the demands of her role as scripted, while injecting Simone with more mystery and nuance than other supporting roles in Mona Lisa suggest was demanded of her.
Tyson’s resourcefulness is made even more apparent in the final quarter of her film, where Jordan’s insistence on Simone’s ambiguity evaporates. George is blindsided by the new revelations, which betray every imageof Simone he’s built up in his head.
Tyson’s performance would probably play even better in Mona Lisa’s last act if the film didn’t seem unilaterally on George’s side by this point. When Simone finally gets the chance to take revenge on her employers, her violent desperation ultimately plays like a conceit of George’s story as he decides whether she’s worth his continued loyalty and fascination. Tyson gets a great last shot, helplessly looking around her hotel room as the camera zooms in claustrophobically on her face, but the film’s truncated finish strands the actress and the character in its final minutes. Not only that, it retroactively calls into question whether Mona Lisa’s distancing of Simone’s is reflective of George’s POV or if the film simply cannot imagine an inner life for her when he isn’t around.
You can see why BAFTA would categorize Tyson as a lead, rather than a supporting player, since the parts of Mona Lisa that don’t have her in it are far less memorable. Yet her structural significance is increasingly undermined by the predetermined beats Jordan assigns her. In a way, Tyson’s skill at handling Simone’s arc is even more remarkable, but it’s disappointing to wonder how much of the character’s humanity rests primarily on her shoulders. All of this, on top of the barely-missed Oscar nomination, gives her last minutes in Mona Lisa a sad afterglow. Still, it’s a disservice to Tyson's work to characterize it on these terms. Her performance is fantastic, matching Hoskins’s unbearably naked star turn every step of the way despite operating with an utterly dissimilar acting style. He's good enough that the film functions as a character study no matter what. But Mona Lisa truly comes alive when Tyson is beside him, giving Hoskins a real partner to play off and her film a reason for being. It's essential, film-rescuing work that speaks for itself.
1986, Bob Hoskins, Cathy Tyson, Neil Jordan
Reader Comments (24)
Would have been my runner up on an imaginary ballot (Weist is one of my all time favorite winners)
IMO the actual 1986 ballot is pretty strong. I love three of the five.
She’s my winner and this beautiful piece highlights exactly why.
Tyson has been shamefully underused by the UK film and TV industries ever since…
I love this movie and man, Cathy Tyson was severely overlooked as she just killed it as I felt for her throughout the entirety of that film.
I'll never understand this snub,she's my 86 runner up,nice piece as usual.
Could I request an Almost There also for 86 Julie Andrews in Duet for One,it's a hard to find film but it's JA'S best dramatic performance plus Rupert Everett's at his most dishy in it..
But how did Bob Hoskins not win?
That was a very good performance and she's better than 2 of the actual nominees (Harper and Laurie).
Maybe other strong candidates would be:
-Barbara Hershey (Hannah and her sisters)
-Judi Dench (A room with a view)
-Isabella Rossellini (Blue velvet)
Cafg: I'd lean on Rossellini being a leading role, maybe even THE Leading role, if there's only one (She IS "The Plot" in Blue Velvet, not Kyle MacLachlan's Jeffrey Beaumont), with Laura Dern as a Supporting role. But Dern would have been a GREAT Supporting nom.
@Peter - The 1986 ballot is pretty strong! I don’t get Harper but she and her film are very much the outliers of a really impressive group.
@kermit_the_frog - Thank you!! I almost made a comment on it in my piece but I agree, it’s sort of bizarre she’s not had more opportunities like this.
@thevoid99 - She makes it work! Love Hoskins in this tremendously, but the whole thing flags if Simone isn’t as interesting as Tyson makes her.
@markgordonuk - Thank you! I’m not the guy to ask for that but you’ve made me interested in seeking the movies out. Had no idea Rupert Everett was there too.
@Sam - It’s such a weird loss!
@Cafg and Volvagia - I think Hershey’s definitely a lead. Rossellini’s a borderline case, I might argue she’s lead and Dern’s supporting. But yeah, everyone feel free to pitch their favorites in this category. Could always use more suggestions.
Nick: On raw merit? Yeah, maybe. But, remember...Paul Newman. Oscar-less. Reprising the role that should have gotten him an Oscar the first time. On a pure career angle? I can see why that was so overwhelming.
Nick-I think ALL of the sister in Hannah and Her Sisters are leads. So I’d probably have put Weist in the actress category (Hershey would be there) and given supporting to Tyson. But this is my favorite Smith nomination and Mary Elizabeth M. is also terrific. I find Laurie’s nomination odd only because it’s a total two hander and while she has the third biggest role it’s actually not a showcase for her in any way. But she’s solid and given that they liked the movie, it makes sense that’s she’s there. Harper is terrible, that movie is so weird. I cannot even begin to explain how a movie starring three of my favs in ostensibly ideal roles could go so wrong.
This performance has been written about, but I’d humbly submit Joan Allen in Manhunter as a possible contender. It’s a small role, not really a showcase (it’s much larger in the book) but her whole vibe works beautifully with the tone in the movie. The fifth slot is trickier, there are a few jockeying for my ballot.
@Volvagia - You’re definitely right, and it probably helps that The Color of Money got four nominations while Hoskins was there by himself. But the raw merit bit is hard to overlook, and I wish they could’ve either given it to him earlier or waited til Nobody’s Fool.
@Peter - Still need to see Smith’s movie but I’d otherwise agree with your analysis of the catefory. Joan Allen is fantastic in Manhunter, and Jason Adams wrote beautifully on her performance a few years ago for his Horror Actressing series. Who else is in consideration for you?
Fun fact: She's Cicely's niece!
I love Cathy Tyson's work in this film. Wonder how her career would've gone if she'd gotten a nomination. Also, Hoskins is one of the saddest losses in Oscar history as far as I'm concerned. Really wish Newman had won for Hud, Cool Hand Luke, The Verdict or Nobody's Fool instead.
MJ - she is not Cicely's niece.
I was fortunate enough to have several long conversations with Ms. Tyson when she was performing in a play at the theatre I worked at. She was genuinely lovely and certainly loved to talk!
She certainly should have got the Oscar nomination for Mona Lisa.
I guess it was very exciting to watch the Oscar announcement back in the 80s because nothing was set in stone.
Had no idea there were live annoucements on TV in the eighties
The supporting actress performance of 1986 that knocked me sideways was Andrea Martin in Club Paradise, an underrated quasi-B movie. Well, at least Pauline Kael appreciated it.
One of my all-time favourite performances and it's hard to believe she was just 20 when she filmed Mona Lisa, but I can see why she was left out by AMPAS - unknown, the film wasn't recognised apart from Hoskins, and maybe there was some category confusion. I think she didn't even come sixth - Hershey was more likely to be ahead of her in the voting.
Nick-Jeannette Goldstein in Aliens! Everyone understandably loves Carrie Hehn and I think there might have been awards buzz for her. But Goldstein would be my submission.
I’d need to rewatch but Laura Dern in Blue Velvet might be there. Judi Dench’s role in Room is probably too small to qualify but it’s certainly her first great film performance and she’s hilarious (Smith won the leading actress Bafta and Dench won supporting).
Thanks for this, "Mona Lisa" was a revelation to me at the time, you have caught the spirit of the film, and why it was so emotionally interesting.
Cathy Tyson made a startling debut, it's a shame there wasn't an Oscar nomination for her.
@MJ and Luke - It really threw me how basically every review at the time referred to her as Cicely’s niece, especially since it wasn’t referenced in any biographies for them I could find. At least we can agree she’s stunning in Mona Lisa, and it makes me happy to hear she’s lovely in real life.
@Peggy Sue and Chip - That sounds like it would’ve been so exciting to watch! When did the Oscars first start televising the nominee announcements? I’m with Chip, I didn’t know they were doing that in the ‘80s.
@Amy Camus - Oh, I’ll keep an eye out for that! Love Andrea Martin, and the whole cast looks fun.
@Jeremy - That’s a fair argument, though I wonder how much Wiest was taking up all the oxygen for their film. Always threw me that Hannah only got two acting nominations.
@Peter - I *LOVE* Goldstein in Aliens. Feel like that could be a tricky write-up, but it’s certainly a performance and a casting decision worth discussing.
@LadyEdith - Thank you!
Thanks for this really interesting write-up. And it makes me want to watch Mona Lisa again.
Re: when did the Academy start broadcasting the nominations announcement: I recall reading somewhere that this year (1986) was the first year of them doing it in the "modern" style. Certainly the following year they did, because that's how I heard the announcement. But there must have been broadcasts in earlier years too. For example, we know there was in 1975 because there's the famous clip of Spielberg watching the announcement on TV and being disappointed not to get nominated. But I'm not sure if that was an Academy broadcast or a news programme.
Re: Hannah and Her Sisters and category placement, I guess this will come up again in the Smackdown. I think Caine and three three sisters were all campaigned as leads. (Allen doesn't campaign for himself, and so I imagine he didn't figure on the FYC ads.) I think that lead is right for them. Each of those five characters has at least one voiceover moment, whereas none of the other characters do. So, yes, those five all as lead and everyone else in support (which would have opened up a spot in Supporting Actor for Max von Sydow as Lee's misanthropic boyfriend). BAFTA nominated Allen, Caine and Farrow in lead and Hershey in support and didn't nominate Wiest at all (though they did nominate her the following year for Supporting Actress in Radio Days).
Yes to the Aliens actresses but were not really in the conversation but Goldstein's role is very unique,Henn is harder to judge is it good acting or good coaching,apparently Sigourney helped her a lot and was the rightful winner of 86's BA award,none of the others can quite compare even Turner.
I would overall best actress 1986 almost completely. There are things to admire in all of the performances but IMO only Weaver really had any business being there. I think Turner is almost heroic trying to pull Peggy Sue over the finish line and whatever degree the movie works is due solely because of Turner. But it's a horrible movie than gets worse and worse on each revisit and she is just hung up to dry. It's a compelling performance but there's only so much even the most resourceful actor can do and Turner's effort as an actor (as opposed to the character) is just too apparent for me. I so badly want to love that performance but the seams really show and it's in service to a movie that just isn't working with her.
Weaver aside, my best actress ballot would be completely different. And there were A LOT of good best actress candidates in 1986.
Luke & Nick - Oops, thanks for the clarification! I should do more research next time. At least that explains why she isn't mentioned in Cicely's memoir (still reading it). Glad to hear she's a genuinely lovely person.