Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979
File 009
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979 - File 009. 1979-04. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. February 26, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/gcam/item/2581/show/2568.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(1979-04). Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979 - File 009. Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM) Digital Archive. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/gcam/item/2581/show/2568

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979 - File 009, 1979-04, Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM) Digital Archive, University of Houston Libraries, accessed February 26, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/gcam/item/2581/show/2568.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979
Contributor
  • Murray, John
Publisher Gay Community Services
Date April 1979
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
Place
  • Austin, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 5962538
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries Special Collections
  • LGBT Research Collection
  • Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM) Digital Archive
Rights No Copyright - United States
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 009
Transcript 8 april 1979 GAY AUSTIN vol. 3, no. 7 CIVCC CITY CINEMA by Bob Prewitt The only thing certain about the 51st Annual Acedemy Awards, to be televised April 9, is that Jason Robards will not win a third consecutive Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Robards, who pocketed awards for his performances in All the President's Men (1976) and Julia (1977) has not been nominated this year, which suits me just fine. Last year he "spoiled" what would have been an otherwise perfect scorecard for me. I correctly predicted the winners in all the major categories (Best Picture, Director, and performances) — except Supporting Actor, for which I chose the redoubtable Alec Guinness. Oh well. Considering the number of surprises the Academy provides each year, I guess I should be satisfied with five out of six. This year, choosing winners seems even more precarious. In almost every category there are legitimate reasons for picking a number of nominees to win. No single film would seem to be a clear favorite, though very typically one movie will end up bagging most of the major awards. Still, look for at least one minor upset, and perhaps a major one or two. There are too many intangible, factors at work to expect otherwise. Frankly, I'll be quite happy if I pick three of the top six categories correctly this year. Best Supporting Actor. The biggest surprise here is the incomprehensible omission of veteran character actor Robert Morley, who marvelously redefined gluttony in Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? It appears that the film's overall mediocrity spoiled his chances. Had he been nominated, my choice would have been much more difficult. As it is, the prediction isn't all that nerve-racking. Richard Farnsworth gave an affecting performance in Comes A Horseman, but the film was ignored by the public, and he stands little chance. Two of the nominees mentioned most often, Bruce Dcrn (Coming Home) and Christopher Walken (The Deer Hunter) will in my estimation walk away from the Dorothy Chandler pavilion empty-handed. Dem is a competent actor, and yes, it's true he's not received enough attention for his work. In this film his portrayal of the volatile Vietnam veteran left behind by life in America was quite engaging. But it's a performance too similar to others he's given in the past (did anyone see Black Sunday1?), and one grows weary of repetition, obscure or otherwise. Dem will receive a healthy vote, many for sentimental reasons, but it shouldn't carry him over. Walken, on the other hand, has had no trouble with publicity, and he hasn't been working in films that long. All his interviews and photo essays had me geared for the supporting performance of the year. It's true Walken is good in The Deer Hunter, but frankly I was more impressed by John Savage, and my gut feeling is the Academy will not let hype completely guide their vote. Jack Warden was wonderful as the L.A. Rams trainer in Heaven Can Wait. It's a tribute of no small stature that Warden upstaged his funny, bumbling co-star, Charles Grodin, with a nomination. ( Grodin had received more pre- nomination publicity than had Warden.) Still, Warden's "light comedy" role undoubtedly will be overshadowed by the heavy duty performances he's forced to compete with. My pick to win, with little hesitation, is John Hurt (Midnight Express), the British actor who so overwhelmed with his subtle, yet devastating performance as the drug-riddled Max. The vote will be close, with Walken and Dern not far behind, but Hurt should pull it out, and it's an honor richly deserved. 705 RED RIVER 47P-0418 Best Supporting Actress. Probably the most difficult category to predict. Still, it's essentially a four-way race. Penelope Milford (Coming Home), as best I can remember, was all right, but I had totally forgotten her performance by the time nominations were released, and was surprised to see her name. Where is Kelly Bishop, so affecting as Jill Clayburgh's best friend in An Unmarried Woman'? Or even Diane Keaton for Interiors'? At any rate, I don't expect the Academy to remember Milford any better than I do, especially considering her competition. To pick the winner from the remaining four one might as well draw straws. Although it's certainly possible that Dyan Cannon (Heaven Can Wait) will win in an upset, I really can't choose her. The competition's too strong. However, should the Academy decide to give nearly every award in sight to the light, frothy comedy (which could very well happen, given the current "let's- not-deal-with-it" mood of the country), her chances would increase dramatically. Cannon is blessed with a marvlous gift for comedy and an exquisite sense of timing, but something tells me this just isn't her year. No doubt there will be others. That leaves three nominees, and my choice is based solely on intuition — not a bad criterion when the Oscars are the concern. All three women Maggie Smith (California Suite), Maureen Stapleton (Interiors), and Meryl Streep (The Deer Hunter) - are spectacular. Smith and Stapleton are in a similar position, having been nominated several times before (Smith won the Oscar for Best Actress in 1969 for The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie; Stapleton has never won in two supporting nominations). In fact, my choice was more difficult before I saw Streep's performance; both Smith and Stapleton are established veterans and Academy favorites. I had just about decided to go with Stapleton on a hunch when The Deer Hunter finally got to town, and mercifully forced my decision another direction: in a sizable surprise, Meryl Streep will win the award. It's not often that a nominee wins the first time around, but it's not unheard of, either (Diane Keaton did it just last year). And Streep's performance is absolutelyfascinating, one of the many marvels of The Deer Hunter. Still, a lot depends on how the membership reacts to The Deer Hunter as a whole; if it turns away from the Vietnam epic in other categories, it will probably turn away from Streep as well. I say this probably won't happen, but if it does, and Smith, Stapleton or Cannon win instead, I won't be upset in the least. Best Actress. Another tough one. Ellen Burstyn (Same Time, Next Year) nabbed the nomination I thought might go to Marybeth Hurt (Interiors) or Melanie Mayron (Girlfriends). Burstyn is quite good as Doris, one-half of the affectionate, if adulterous, pair of lovers originally created for the stage. And she is an Academy favorite of sorts, having won Best Actress in 1974 for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. But as a whole Same Time, Next Year is uneven, and with the strong performances of her peers, Burstyn has to be considered a long-shot. I really was not impressed with Jane Fonda in Coming Home, and do not expect her to win. Her portrayal was too bland, and at the same time too mannered and self-conscious. Also working against her, Coming Home was released early in the year, a very real factor indeed; the Academy, it has often been said, has a short memory. She could win a "sympathy award" for losing to Keaton last year, but that, too, seems unlikely. Once again the choice comes down to three: Geraldine Page (Interiors), Jill Clayburgh (An Unmarried Woman), and Ingrid Berman (Autumn Sonata). Page was brilliant in Interiors, and may have the most expressive face in movies today. She also has been nominated several times before. But her part was relatively small, and Interiors received mixed reviews; these could be crucial. Based purely on performance, I believe Clayburgh should win. She met the challenge of a large and demanding role, displaying a wide range of emotions with great power and control. But Bergman will win. As the distraught, emotionally impotent mother in "Sonata," she was wonderfully convincing, but this in itself would not be enough for her to win the Oscar over Clayburgh. The sheer force of sentimentality will make the difference, and I do not say this disparagingly. Bergman is one of the most magnetic, important stars in Hollywood history. If she wins, she will own four Oscars, more than any other performer. And since "Sonata" may in fact be Bergman's last major work, who could really blame the Academy? If she doesn't win, it will be a mild, and perhaps melancholy, surprise. Best Actor. I feel the least comfortable predicting here, because I haven't seen two of the films represented: The Buddy Holly Story (Gary Busey) and 77*? Boys from Brazil (Laurence Olivier). Still, I have some confidence. I have seen Busey before (in Straight Time, particularly), and know he is talented and powerful. Still, as a newcomer among the nominees his chances diminish significantly. Olivier's nomination was the one major surprise this year, and Brad Davis (Midnight Express) deserves an apology. I can't help but believe Olivier was honored for the ninth time out of respect for his long, illustrious career rather than for his performance in "Brazil" (both the film and Olivier have received mixed reviews). In either case he is no heir apparent to the Oscar. Continued on page 16.
File Name uhlib_5962538_v003_n007_008_ac.jpg