Lange deserved the Oscar only because the scales were uneven - she got more screen-time, was painted very sympathetically, as many have said this was more of a lead role.
Also factoring into this was that Kim Stanley was nominated for 'Frances,' as well, making it even more obvious that Lange was going to walk off with the Supporting Actress Oscar. It was already obvious she was going to lose for Frances, but it would have been humiliating to also lose to either Stanley (who gave her the idea to do Tootsie) or Garr (who I do believe deserved it).
I feel for Lange because in any other year, Frances would have won her Best Actress. Actually, save for the gut wrenching "Choice" scene, and a few of the Auschwitz scenes, I find Streep's performance to be somewhat overrated. Not bad by any means, but not as spectacular as people say either. Lange seemed to have a real connection to the Frances character, and arguably should have won.
But, I sympathize more with Sigourney Weaver in 1988 - losing both Best Actress and Best Supporting that year, at least Lange won something.
reply
share