Wednesday, 9 April 2025

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1986: Ray Liotta in Something Wild

Ray Liotta did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ray Sinclair in Something Wild. 

Something Wild follows a milquetoast banker Charlie (Jeff Daniels) who gets caught up in the world of a wild criminal woman Audrey (Melanie Griffith).

The first half of the film is a largely comedic film about Daniels and Griffith on their escapades together, as she pushes him out of his specific shell and into her nearly insane at times chaotic mania that involves petty larceny, uprooting Charlie’s seemingly stable existence and naturally along with some wild sex. All of this eventually leads to the pair going to Audrey’s high school reunion with Charlie as her husband, unfortunately this leads to the pair running into Audrey’s actual husband Ray which immediately makes the film change genres from a comedy towards a thriller. This was Ray Liotta’s partial breakout role and with obvious reason, as the moment Liotta comes on screen he begins to dominate the film. Although this is a case one ponders how it was to watch the film in 1986 given that Liotta came up known for his gangster tough guy roles rather than being newcomer in this film and how one would have responded, given we have a predisposition of an expectation with him even in a role that was before he became the Liotta we’d expect. As when Ray Sinclair first appears with a different woman and eager to get to know Audrey’s “new husband” Charlie, Liotta begins with a theoretical charm offensive as he is encouraging in everything he says to Charlie and naturally throws in a few Liotta laughs for good measure. Liotta as we know him of course makes you feel a little unease in this excessive friendliness being Liotta, however I think what Liotta does well is not play the character of Ray as overtly that he might’ve been in lesser hands. What Liotta does consistently here is elevate a potential type of the jealous ex-boyfriend, though we’ll eventually learn he is in fact Audrey’s ex-husband, and turn him into something a bit more real. As it would be easy enough to have played more so into just planning the intimidation of Charlie immediately, and while that is still playing in Liotta’s eyes that denotes a deeper calculation to his questions to Charlie, there’s a strange genuine interest in Liotta’s note as well. Liotta by doing so presents Ray as wanting to get to know this man his wife has replaced him with, not just in hate but in some attempt to determine the situation to himself. 

An element that he reveals further when finally alone for a moment Liotta switches on a dime when with Audrey. A moment that is great acting by Liotta because in the switch it isn’t an immediate obsession, rather you see vulnerability in Liotta performance as he asks for her to give him another chance. Liotta doesn’t play the moment as a villain rather a man genuinely trying to present himself in some reformed, albeit falsely, light to his wife. Pivotal in that desperation is the sense of the history of failings in Ray who is trying to be some better man in his delivery with that need presenting obsession with her but also specific personal insecurity of a longer relationship. A relationship that propels him not only to casually dump his current girlfriend, literally at a convenience store, but take off in some cockeyed scheme to, in his mind, win Audrey back. Liotta’s performance captures a particular kind of energy that presents an unwieldy quality for Ray. As much as Ray does have a plan to try to rid himself of Charlie, by even framing him, while also robbing a convenience store, the way Liotta maneuvers in these scenes is with much confidence but without much of a sense of an intellectual plan. Rather Liotta brings really even this joy of going with the flow, with highlights of intensity, where Liotta shows that the behaviors aren’t really anything new for Ray to begin with, yet there is the nagging sense of real jealousy and still that desperation that compels him in this particular endeavor of his. Liotta’s performance creates a new angle to a potentially old character through this approach and lets us into more so with his obsession which Liotta keeps fundamentally less melodramatic. As a moment where he is left behind by Charlie and Audrey, and a woman interested in Ray appears, his reaction to her is great work by Liotta, because if you’d watch this scene in isolation you wouldn’t suspect anything horrible will come of it because Liotta plays it with such genuine excitement as Ray sees a new opportunity to pursue the couple. In the moment what Liotta is playing though is the real excitement to see his wife again, now of course this is not a good thing given what Ray plans to do when he gets there, but what Liotta keeps alive is the fundamental truth that in Ray’s own broken way he does honestly love Audrey…or at least believes that he does. Something that leads to the climactic scene where director Jonathan Demme seemed to be cutting his teeth on going fully horror thriller, which he’d do so successfully with Silence of the Lambs, as Ray invades Charlie’s home and attacks them both. A scene that is pure horror and part of the reason why is that Liotta is playing a particular note of insanity where the fear from it is based on the uncertainty of the situation in Ray’s own mind. Throughout the scene Liotta is changing notes, which is not as a criticism rather praise because what Liotta does so well is showing the uncertainty of someone who doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing, however what that will be will not be a good thing. So we get moments of pure visceral intensity and weirdly casual moments, both which serve the same purpose as representing someone who has lost in a way that could lead to as much horror as a serial killer with intent. A sequence that builds to the finale where Charlie manages to stab Ray, a moment that is absolute brilliance for Liotta, because his reaction is still not as an overt villain but rather a man who let his worst nature get the best of him. As Liotta’s reaction is that of surprise, not even I can’t believe this weakling got the best of me sort of thing, but rather the surprise of a man who didn’t exactly know what he was doing to begin with, however getting killed by Charlie never crossed his mind. It’s a compelling and captivating near debut that immediately makes an impression, takes hold of the film and doesn't let go until he exits. 

71 comments:

Matt Mustin said...

Literally the second he comes intro frame the whole mood changes.

Robert MacFarlane said...

How weird it is that there’s three movies from 1986 where a leather jacket-wearing shithead beats up their girlfriend (well, maybe not girlfriend for Frank Booth).

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Looking back, how do you feel about 2024 as a year in film overall?

A said...

Louis: Are you going to review Selton Mello in I'm Still Here? If not, then your thoughts on him?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Would you say 1986 is one of the best years for film from the 80's?

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

And there's even Sid & Nancy as well.

Tony:

Neither a terrible year or a great year. Many disappointments, some just okay films, however some good ones, pretty good ones and a few great ones. I don't think it is a year that will be brought up as a great year of cinema by any means and many of the films, despite some being worthy of being remembered, will likely be mostly forgotten outside of certain "in the know" sphere.

A:

We'll see still.

Robert:

It's certainly a strong year with a great variety to choose you from in terms of the different genres represented and just the idiosyncratic nature of some of the best films of the year.

Harris Marlowe said...

A: I was wondering that too.

Louis: If you were in Eisenberg's shoes, which actor would you have cast instead of Culkin in A Real Pain?

Louis Morgan said...

Harris:

Well I don't think he was miscast so it was more a matter of pushing Culkin in a different direction than letting him play so much into his expected presence, it would've also helped if the script was a bit better.

But hey for an actual answer maybe get Elijah Wood that way one can make even more obvious comparisons to Everything is Illuminated.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on this film?

Calvin Law said...

Fantastic performance, and I kind of love the film too. I would give him a 5.

Matt Mustin said...

Finished The Good Place. Absolutely wonderful show.
Overall Cast ranking
1. Ted Danson (The performance of his career)
2. D'arcy Carden
3. William Jackson Harper
4. Kristen Bell
5. Marc Evan Jackson
6. Michael McKean (One episode but he's GREAT)
7. Maya Rudolph
8. Adam Scott
9. Jameela Jamil
10. Mike O'Malley
11. Kirby Howell-Baptiste
12. Maribeth Monroe
13. Paul Scheer
14. Jason Mantzoukas (Occasionally funny, mostly annoying)
15. Eugene Cordero
16. Manny Jacinto (A major blemish on the show cause he's a major character and the only joke with him is "Durrrrrrrr stoopid" and it gets old SO fast)
17. Mitch Narito (Same one joke as Jacinto, only somehow even less funny. The only saving grace is he's not in it much.)

Anonymous said...

Man, I kind of wanted a 5 for Liotta here, but alas.

Tim said...

I didn't particularly love this movie, but it had life and energy whenever this much missed man was on screen.


How do you think Liotta would have done in these roles?

Cal Hockley - Titanic
Cousin Marv - The Drop
Anton Chigurgh or Llewelyn Moss
Tom Doss - Hacksaw Rdige
Lt. Dan - Forrest Gump
John Du Pont
Det. Somerset (2010s version)

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on the 'Alleluia' motif from Ben-Hur.

Marcus said...

Louis: Is The Fly a 4.5 or 5 for you, or are you waiting to rewatch it.

Bryan L. said...

The Academy Awards will present a Best Stunts category starting in 2027.

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: FINALLLYYY. :)

Luke Higham said...

Wonder if Louis will add it to his wins page.

Anonymous said...

Luke, if he does then it'll be 14 wins for Mad Max: Fury Road.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Better late than never.
I also wonder if they're considering the addition of a Best Ensemble sometime soon, though I understand that actors are already highlighted and recognized enough in the ceremony as it is.

Michael McCarthy said...

Tahmeed: I think a solution to that could be to make it an award for Best Casting, that way we can celebrate casting directors who otherwise go unseen.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Indeed! A bit of shame it won't happen until AFTER the Mission Impossible films wrap up though.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the acting in this Seinfeld scene? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywFiNpSInlo

Luke Higham said...

Michael and Tahmeed: Best Casting is being awarded for the first time next year.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Luke and Michael: Glad to hear that :)

Harris Marlowe said...

Louis: What was your opinion of Jon Stewart and Billy Crystal as Oscar hosts?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Rating and thoughts on Connelly in Labyrinth?

Matt Mustin said...

Well, I guess Bowie's not getting a review

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Robert Eggers directing a sequel to Labyrinth.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: Who would you say are the most lopsided comedy duos, you know a duo where one comedian is infinitely more funnier than the other one?

Anonymous said...

Luke, he could make a far superior film yet the cult fanatics will probably despise it.

Luke Higham said...

Robert: What did you think of The Dark Crystal.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: Thoughts on Jim Carrey's Telly Savalas impression here? https://youtu.be/aJIGE9y2tvI?si=Bw3AAEs9NEuFvpGn

Robert MacFarlane said...

Luke: It’s okay. Some cool sets. Script is very ho-hum. Always find myself going “HMMMMMMMMM” ever since seeing it.

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the voice of Olivia Hussey.

J96 said...

Louis, have you seen “Sinners”? Thoughts?

Shaggy Rogers said...

So does that mean Bowie is just another name on Louis's list of rejected guests? Like Jean-Pierre Léaud and Youssef Chahine.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on the criticisms that Ray faced throughout his career (mostly from Indian film critics, I should preface) of glorifying poverty? I feel like anyone who ever accuses him of that has only seen Pather Panchali, and even in that film, I would say it's rather misguided.

Bryan L. said...

J96: Sinners hasn't come out yet.

Harris Marlowe said...

J96, amigo, are you trolling Louis at this point? His Letterboxd page has been pointed out to you several times before. You can keep track of everything he watches simply by clicking on the link. Why don't you just create an account and follow him?

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

Didn’t review because largely I just think it is fine with Liotta being the highlight.

Tim:

Hockley - (Just don’t see Liotta as “Old money” pompous type, and I feel he was probably too innately post-50’s to do that kind of period.)

Marv - (Ideal casting and would be a more high strung but also very effective desperation.)

Chigurh I don’t really see, though it might've been interesting to see him try. Would’ve been a better fit for Moss however.

His immediate New Jersey/New York manner does make me drift off from Tom Doss, though he certainly could bring the emotion.

Lt. Dan though I certainly could see particularly the wildeyed period.

Don’t see him as Du Pont at all, just not the right type…though probably would’ve been better than Carell.

Somerset seems less than perfect just because I never thought he embodied wisdom but certainly would have done well with aspects of the role.

Jonathan:

Just absolutely gorgeous use of choir mixed with the most gentle use of staccato strings behind that, something that is rendered as it sounds like a traditional hymnal in terms of its overall qualities however beefed up by Rozsa for full cinematic splendor particularly as the voices gang strength and counter and build on one another. A masterful portion of the score building up to essentially the church bells as a climatic celebration.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

A hilarious scene that honestly you could transport back to an old vaudevillian routine in a certain sense. Knight is outstanding in every portion of it, starting with his setting up the scheme with Kramer, then his initial testimony where he gives a horrendously bad performance in the best of ways, before when he takes over to crossexamine Kramer as though he is a dogged lawyer which is hilarious to start with through his misplaced leading the witness approach. Something that obviously goes wrong where Richards is the rare straight man, of sorts, through his baffled confused reactions, as Knight hilariously just builds and builds in his messy intensity before completely losing it.

Harris:

Stewart I thought was decent enough in bringing some snark but not too much snark. I don’t quite think he was legendary by any measure but was certainly amusing enough, even if I don’t think he ever had complete ease in that specific role.


Crystal very much feels the standard as the classical host style in the particular style of humor he brought that was easy going but was typically still funny. With some nice bits, I always enjoy checking out his song montages for the best picture winners as Crystal brought that old school song and dance man energy in a way that worked. Though he kind of is a standard for the host in terms of knowing how far to push the comedy in a way that was fitting to the ceremony.

Robert:

Connelly - 0(The rare lowest possible rating because this is one of those performances where there isn’t even basic competence. As she’s awkward every second of her performance with her stilted line delivery and “I don’t know where to stand” way of even moving about scenes. When she tries to emote it is only worse, and somehow she becomes more stilted that it does become comical…though not consistently enough to say this is Wiseau worthy. She’s a charisma vacuum here that is almost impressive how little she comes to life, except it's not because it is probably one of the reasons the film feels so long for me because she is so lifeless. She’s honestly high school play bad and I mean the absolute worst high school acting. Like the person who got cast last minute as a favor and just did her least amount to get through it.)

Luke:

Well Eggers can actually direct and write, so it is an interesting prospect since the “idea” of the film isn’t the problem.

RatedRStar:

I wouldn’t say there’s one that springs to mind where it is that obvious, only because the good ones I can think of where both are funny, and kind of essential to making it work.

Matt:

Was not aware of Savalas hocking players club cards, though personally I prefer Norm McDonald’s not technically accurate, but perfect in delivery impression about the first episode of Kojak.

8000’s:

Just a beautiful sensuous but also gentle voice.

Tahmeed:

Baffling as if you watch even just Pather Panchali you hardly think this is an ideal situation. I imagine though it might stem from the Ken Loach school of depicting poverty (sans Kes) where it is glorification unless you depict nearly every second of the poverty stricken person’s life as complete misery.

Harris Marlowe said...

Louis: You'll have to forgive my naivete, but if you've decided against reviewing Bowie, will you be giving thoughts after the results?

And on a totally unrelated note, what did you think of Steve Martin's hosting gigs, both the ones by himself and the one with Baldwin?

Louis Morgan said...

Harris:

Correct.

Martin by himself very much achieved something similar to Crystal, albeit a bit more biting however in a way that was largely effective. I didn't think his pairing with Baldwin worked much at all, and I get it was a It's Complicated cross promotion...but that was a bad cross promotion. Afterall if you're going to pair Martin with someone, Martin Short is the man to call, as I didn't think Martin had much chemistry with Baldwin on stage and Baldwin himself felt very stiff as a host.

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Have you ever given your Top 10/20 actors/actresses voices? Not necessarily those that are the most iconic or cinematic, but those that you just like the most? (whether they're pleasant, booming, etc.)

Matt Mustin said...

My two favourite jokes from Steve Martin's solo hosting gig were his summation of the Best Actor nominees ("but enough about me") and especially his joke after Michael Moore's speech.

J96 said...

Some people see early screenings.

J96 said...

Early reviews are out.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: That's certainly part of it, and an attitude I also despise. There's also the fact that similar to Tagore, Ray's work is held in much higher regard internationally than India, partly due to the language barrier that exists from most of their work being in Bangla.

Speaking of Ray, I'm definitely making Devi my recommendation for this year, and really hope you'll love Biswas and Chatterjee.

Bryan L. said...

Matt: Conan's "These are some of the names I was just called on the red carpet" from the Oscars reminded me of that Steve Martin joke haha.

Tony Kim said...

RIP Ted Kotcheff and Nicky Katt.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

I saw The Alamo from 2004. While I don't think it was technically bad, you subconsciously realize why audiences didn't care about it 20 years ago. Maybe watch Gettysburg instead.

Quaid: 3
Thornton: 4
Patric: 3.5
Wilson: 3.5
Echevarría: 3 (only now realized that he died in January, RIP)
Mollà: 3

Luke: So I guess you'll request Thornton?

Luke Higham said...

Yes.

Matt Mustin said...

Is anyone lead in The Alamo or is it an ensemble?

Luke Higham said...

Matt: Ensemble for me.

Louis Morgan said...

Quickly on the Amateur cast, 2.5 for Malek, who is playing a character with heavily alluded to autism, however that feels like a crutch for him and just leaves for a fairly unsubstantial performance that doesn't carry things successfully.

Everyone else is actually fine though held back by thin roles and basically 2.5 to 3. Standout being probably McCallany just for being an ideal fit for jerk brass roles, though I will give Stuhlbarg modest credit for being not bad in a role most actors would've gone 11 to in the wrong direction. Sadly though it is a horrible cliched role including a "we're not so different you and I" which leaves him not much to work with regardless.

Emi Grant:

I have not:

Elizabeth Hartman
Morgan Freeman
James Earl Jones
Donald Sutherland
Jeremy Irons
Jeffrey Wright
Sissy Spacek
Boris Karloff
Alan Rickman
Greta Garbo
Celia Johnson
George Sanders
Kathleen Turner
James Mason
Orson Welles
John Hurt
Nichol Williamson
Isabella Rossellini
Joan Greenwood
Jessie Buckley

Tahmeed:

Well I'm certainly looking forward to seeing that.

Harris Marlowe said...

Louis: What are your ratings for Cruise and Mastrantonio in Color of Money? Searched around, found bupkis.

And your thoughts on Rossellini and Buckley's voices?

Marcus said...

Louis: Have you watched any episodes of The Crown, or plan to check it out at some point?

Calvin Law said...

Louis: for a hypothetical 2020s version of The Sweet Hereafter, could you see Jeffrey Wright as Mitchell Stephens?

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on the cast of Black Bag?

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on the Eddington trailer.

J96 said...

Beat me to it.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys
Update on my Top 10 prediction of Louis' supporting actor in 1986:
1. Hopper
2. Day-Lewis
3. Berenger
4. Ruck (Yes, if Ferris didn't have any character development at least Cameron had that)
5. Goodman
6. Dafoe
7. Noonan
8. Caine (Hannah and Her Sisters)
9. Liotta
10. Cox

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the idea of a noir with Robert Mitchum and Dana Andrews.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on the City of New York vs Homer Simpson?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Is it safe to assume that if Tyrion just never showed up again after season 4 finale (might have narratively served the same purpose in the show as him being there), that Dinklage's performance up to that point would have been in your top 30 favorite TV performances?

Harris Marlowe said...

Thoughts on the trailer for The Roses?

Louis Morgan said...

Harris:

Cruise would be a 2.5. Mastrantonio, 3.5.

Rossellini manages to even top her mother’s voice with the specific combo of the Italian with Bergman’s accent to be a particularly beautiful blend.

Love Buckley voice that is a bit of a combo between regalness and casual even playful quality, something she can modulate so wonderfully well depending on the performance.

Marcus:

I have not, but again…theoretically interested.

Calvin:

Most definitely.

Lucas:

Fassbender - (Playing essentially, for the lack of a better word, sexy George Smiley who gets laid consistently and isn’t constantly cuckolded. Fassbender is doing a riff on the Killer however shifted slightly to let in just a bit of hints of warmth along with a more exact sincerity of the expectation that he actually knows what he is talking about. Fassbender using that cold calculation type delivery and incisive stare most effectively, and often with a certain straight man indifference that works wonderfully well in terms of balancing every scene he is in by being this direct understatement compared to everyone hiding something.)

Louis Morgan said...

Blanchett - (Get to do less because she needs to play an enigmatic note for much of the film though she certainly plays that note well and is cutting in her own way that matches Fassbender in the right way to allude to their mutual connection. When she finally gets to be herself, she certainly does shine in offering the Nora to Fassbender’s Nick, and brings the right sort of direct ferocity of matching Fassbender while showing the couple, truly as a power couple when they working fully in twine.)

Abela - (Just wonderfully horny for the lack of a better description. She plays that note so well in that she does find a comedic quality within her moments of being turned on by the spycraft she’s witnessing but never does it become just farce either. She makes it something very genuine, albeit amusing at the same time, by playing it as part of the essential thrill of being in the world. Balancing that though with the scene of emotional vulnerability of the frustrating moments of dealing with cloak and dagger that she makes as honest, though she does shine most with those aforementioned moments.)

Burke - (Brings a wonderful old fashioned character actor energy of just being the exasperated and venomous type, going between notes of ambition, infantile frustration and genuine wit with a particular ease in his performance. There’s never a moment where you don’t buy his weariness and how it defines him in his ability to be direct but also vulnerable in his own particular way of pretending not to care.)

Page - (I think his performance works in mostly just being very straightforward as the tough guy spy type and just playing below that constantly however just severe annoyance at everything that he is dealing with.)

Harris - (Like Page more straightforward however effective in playing between the notes of the no nonsense therapist along with the moments of a more quietly alluded to sexual desire which she balances in a convincing fashion.)

Brosnan - (Fine but just doesn’t get to do much other than be a bit pompous.)

Jonathan:

Well at least it is not Adam McKay, and the teaser itself looks *okay*,, certainly like those cast members, the vibe of festering social media wound centered around a single town has potential if done well but in Aster I do not trust.

Harris:

I mean it seems like Roach hasn’t gotten in the way of Richardon’s dialogue, I just hope he doesn’t screw it up timing wise, and obviously is doing his typical thing visually, or perhaps televisually would be more apt. But Cumberbatch and Colman doing biting Richardson lines at each other, is more than enough to have me interested. And while it is obviously keeping beats from the original I’m glad it seems like it is definitely doing some riffs. Though I will say less crazy about McKinnon and Samberg though they don’t look horrible they do look like they’re doing more generalized comedically broad. Contrasting that I did love the two seconds of Belinda Bromilow.

8000’s:

As a combo sure I can see Andrews as the straitlaced and Mitchum as the messy one in some kind of detective story.

Tahmeed:

Probably shame the series soured that up.

Anonymous:

An episode that shows sort of the lesser storytelling in terms of the setup just making the plot happen rather than being more fundamental to character. Having said that an episode that is great through the success of the gags, from Homer’s reference ridden past, to the boot removal service’s two voices, to the Downey Jr. musical, to Homer’s boot drive, to the pitch perfect ending of Homer’s final treatment by the city compared to the family’s joy.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: What are your updated thoughts on Cruise and Mastrantonio in The Color of Money?

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

Both performances for me are held back by the writing where there's just a few pieces missing. Cruise goes big and there's moments where that works such as "doom" and other ones where he does find that Cruise emotional range in some quieter scenes with Newman. But Cruise also repeats beats, particularly the jealousy or whiny moments so loudly it just becomes a bit much at times. Although I do think this is more so the writing which keeps Vincent fundamentally not quite there. As this guy who is from a rich family is dating the criminal girlfriend, there should be more than there is there and we just never get to it. Speaking of Mastrantonio has the confidence and even charisma in conveying the strength of her character but again why she is purposefully pestering Eddie with her sexuality and playing the games with Vincent just is missing a piece in terms of the writing. There just needs to be a bit more than there is to connect the parts though I think she realizes those parts largely effectively.