Gorillas in the Mist : Sigourney Weaver vs Jodie Foster

Sigourney gave her greatest performance ever.She totally deserve the Oscar.
Jodie Foster wasnt so good to win the Oscar.

If i was Sigourney i would suicite becouse she was nominated for two Oscars and she left without altough she won two Golden Globes.

Sigourney was tied with Jodie (and Shirley MacLaine) for the Best Actress Drama Globe that year (1988). That was a good year for women's roles. Jodie won because she had to endure being "raped" on a pinball machine. At the time, that was very controversial, and Jodie had to deal with emotional turmoil as a result. Gorillas in the Mist, meanwhile, was "just another biopic."

One of my favorite biopics because of Sigourney.

Biopics give Oscar to actors don't you think?

Yeah, but not much of a stretch. Sigourney Weaver hanging out with gorillas was basically Sigourney Weaver hanging out with gorillas.

But that doesn't mean I think Jodie Foster deserved the Oscar over Sigourney. Meryl Streep should have been the winner that year. At various points during A Cry in the Dark, I actually forgot I was watching Meryl Streep.

Sigourney did more than act. She had to learn how to live with gorillas. Learn their mannerisms and their trust. She did a special on animal planet recently and 20 years later after making the movie, she not only still knew the mannerisms of the gorillas but took 2 school children out in close proximity to their tribe.

Fossey took months to win these gorillas over. Sigorney goes back after all this time and just connects with them immediatedly.

As for winning an Oscar, Let me see another acteress go toe to toe consistantly with an animal that strong and ack on top of it.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. If you feel Sigourney should have won, that's fine. Jodie Foster WAS the winner. There's no changing that.

'Sigourney did more than act. She had to learn how to live with gorillas. Learn their mannerisms and their trust. She did a special on animal planet recently and 20 years later after making the movie, she not only still knew the mannerisms of the gorillas but took 2 school children out in close proximity to their tribe.'

But the Oscar goes to the acting itself, not learning how to live with gorillas. We could use that reasoning about anybody then

I saw that special. I was amazed that 20 years later she still could interact with the gorillas like she made the movie yesterday and that they excepted her so willingly. That she could take the two students with her shows many changes must have been made in the protection of the gorillas. Back in the days of heavy poaching the gorillas would have been less then accepting to say the least.

I think (hope) your post is a bit . 'Gorillas in the Mist' was not just another biopic. It wasn't just about Diane Fossey's life and death but that of the gorillas especially Digit. Jodie being raped hurt less than the killings of the gorillas.

---

The world forgetting, by the world forgot
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

---

I too feel that Sigourney deserved the Oscar. Jodie was amazing in The Accused, and that rape scene on the pinball machine is one of the most hard hitting scenes ever put on film.

But I think Sigourney portrayed excellence of that quality more often in Gorillas in the Mist than Jodie did in The Accused.

Sigourney Weaver should have won. I am a fan of Jodie Foster but in The Accused I found her to be a little phoney. Something about her performance just didn't seem real to me. It seemed like I could "see" her acting. It was still a good performance, but I liked Weaver's better.

And while Meryl Streep is a great actress, enough already. It's almost become a joke how praised she is. She's not God.

I think the reason Jodie Foster was given the Oscar is because date rape was an important topic in the 1980's that they wanted to draw attention to it, even though Foster's performance itself was rather average.

Bottom line is that Sigourney Weaver still received an Oscar nomination for this role (as well as 2 others during her career), and so that still puts her in a category that 99% of actresses never reach.

even though Foster's performance itself was rather average.
_______________
The film she starred in was average; however, I didn't find anything average about her performance. I don't recall seeing anything quite like her portrayal around that timebearing in mind I was only 21. Foster made so much out of so little and the most subtle or slightest movements or inflection, revealed a thousand things across her face.

Weaver had a more showy role in a more polished and epic style film. She was very good..as were all the other nominees for 88'. Don't confuse the quality of film, against the quality of the actors performance and the skill in which is was delivered. This can be deceiving, considering the strong competition that Weaver was up against . It would have been a difficult year to single out and I like to think, that the voters that casted for Foster, were likely basing it on her nuanced and skilled portrayal.

I think Sigourney deserved the Oscar but Jodie won it fair and square. it's rare nowadays to have so many great actresses in such great parts vying for an Oscar. Those were the days.

Biopics were not always a sure win as they are now though. Just ask Angela Bassett.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

I agree so much with what you said though i still support Sigourney. :)

Cause its international!!!