What's new

On second thought, Russell Crowe should have gotten that Oscar. Simply incredible! (1 Viewer)

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
After now having the great pleasure of finally seeing A Beautiful Mind, I have to say that Russell Crowe SHOULD have gotten it instead of Denzel Washington. Not saying that Denzel wasn't great, he was incredible in Training Day, but he can't even begin to touch what Russell Crowe did here. His performance as John Nash, the incredibly brilliant, but mentally disturbed mathematician knocked my socks off!
Film after film, he's proving to be one of the great one's of our time, right along with Tom Hanks IMO.
It almost seems as if the Academy frowns upon recreations of real people in films. Denzel Washington should have gotten his first Best Actor Oscar for Malcolm X but didn't. Jim Carrey should have gotten it for Man on the Moon but wasn't even nominated. Almost as if they have the attitude that all the actor is doing is impersonating another person so big deal they don't deserve it. That's just ridiculous if that's the case.
About the film though, I found it very intriguing that this man was one of the most brilliant minds of all time and changed the way we percieve game theory and economics, but was also, as pointed out by Roger Ebert, a man who for a time could be seen walking the campus nervously smoking and muttering to himself. I found it rather inspiring that he was able to overcome his handicap by process of simple problem solving. He, along with his loving and supportive wife played by Oscar winner Jennifer Connelly, recocnized what was happening in his mind, and found a rather simple solution to it and was able to function academically once again. Reason, consequence, solution. Others with this illness unfortunatly are not so fortunate.
Not saying that it was easy for him to overcome this illness, I can't even begin to grasp the nature or sevearity of what he went through for years. I'm simply saying that he took what he knew and understood as fact, that everything has a pattern, and consequently, a solution, and was able to apply it, and find his way back to sanity.
In closing, I must say that I feel that Russell Crowe was so robbed of this Oscar. It's a real shame the the Academy failed to recognize a performance of this calibre. I mean if he didn't get it for THIS performance, he never will! :frowning:
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
It was a figure of speech. I mean just how good does an actor's performance need to be before he/she get recognized for it by the Academy?
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,884
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
John,
Those type of things have been happening for many years in the Academy going back to the beginning of the awards. Case in point, in 1967, a certain actor recognized at this year's awards starred in three films that year. He gave brillant performances in the lead role for all three of the 1967 released films, but you know what? He wasn't even nominated for any of those performances. Take a look at those three films.
  • In the Heat of the Night
  • Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
  • To Sir With Love
Thus, the nature of the beast! Shit happens and the Academy keeps rolling along.
Crawdaddy
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,884
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
John,
I gave up on the Academy a long time ago! Tom Hanks should have won a third AA for "Saving Private Ryan", but that's just another example of spreading the wealth around.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
In other words, the Academy doesn't know what the hell they're doing! :) I'm figuring that out one year at a time, give me a few more let downs like this one, and i'll probably be joining you in your opinion.
And yes indeed, Tom should have won one for 'SPR'. I'm of the opinion that if Tom Hanks or anyone for that matter gives the best performance year after year, give him/her the Oscar as many times as he/she deserves to win it! Who cares if they've already won it twice, give it to them a third, forth, fifth, as many times as they deserve to have it!
While we're on the subject, I find it absolutly stupifying that the Academy voters use vhs copies of the nominated films to view!?!? :confused: If your a member of the Academy, you should be REQUIRED to see the films in either a theater, or a private screening room!
 

Lou Sytsma

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
6,103
Real Name
Lou Sytsma
Hmmm - after watching this last night for the first time - I don't understand why this movie won any awards period.

The movie came off like one of those old disease of the week TV movies.
 

Steve Clark

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Messages
283
John, I could not agree with you more. Not only was Crowe robbed with A Beautiful Mind, he was also robbed with his performance in The Insider. When incuding The Gladiator, how many actors out there today could have performed this acting Trifecta in such a compelling way in three straight years? I also agree it has always been this way with the Academy. Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman and Henry Fonda didn't necessarily win their Oscars for their best acting roles.
 

Danny R

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 23, 2000
Messages
871
. I mean just how good does an actor's performance need to be before he/she get recognized for it by the Academy?

You are suffering the delusion that the Oscars are actually decided based on one's skill and performance, when in reality they are a popularity/political award.
 

Mike Broadman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
4,950
At least we all have to admit that these things are very subjective.

Crowe's performance did not do it for me as much as it did for some others. He had his moments, but he played up the "I'm such a weird guy" angle a bit much throughout the movie. It was like Forrest Gump Does Calculus.

Washington was good, but his role was arguable less demanding than Crowe's, so it's tough to compare. I do agree that Washington was brilliant in X, though.
 

Butch C

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 13, 2001
Messages
281
THE ACCADEMY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL THERE DOING... BECAUSE THEY DONT AGREE WITH ME.
hahahahahahahahahhahahhahah ohhhhh hahahahah
 

Patrick G

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 3, 2000
Messages
267
I was also pissed that Crowe didn't win for what was easily the best performance of the year, and in my opinion, one of the best performances of ANY year. I really thought Denzel should have thanked Russell for winning last year. After all, that was the only reason Denzel was holding the Oscar this year.
 

Mitty

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 13, 1999
Messages
886
After all, that was the only reason Denzel was holding the Oscar this year.
Well, that and the fact that he (Denzel) didn't win a decade or so ago for Malcolm X. Not to mention that Crowe's Oscar for Gladiator was really to make up for the fact that he didn't win for The Insider the year before.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget Russell Crowe's antics at the BAFTA awards...
My head is spinning.
Anyway, the Academy's batting average for awarding actors for the wrong performance would make Ted Williams envious. Does your brain automatically think 'Scent of a Woman' when Al Pacino's name is mentioned? Or how about Henry Fonda's legendary performance in...On Golden Pond? Paul Newman as Fast Eddie Felson in 'The...Color of Money?' Etc.
 

Patrick G

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 3, 2000
Messages
267
He didn't win a decade ago for Malcolm X because Al Pacino deserved to win. Maybe not for Scent of a Woman, but definitely for The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon, for which he was nominated, but didn't win.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
quote...
"...in reality they are popularity/political award."
I'm starting to believe that too, and it really sucks. :frowning:
quote...
"...these actors being robbed of an Oscar is almost becoming a weekly issue with you John."
Pure nonsense!
I havn't said anyone was robbed of an Oscar in at least a couple of weeks! :D
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
At least we all have to admit that these things are very subjective.
Thank god Mike and Butch came in with those posts, so that I didn't have to.
Spreading the wealth around is not a bad thing first of all. I mean Crowe got his after being missing on Insider, and Denzel got his after missing on X.
However, if you guys want we can just give it to Hanks and Crowe every year.
Keep this in mind, people ALSO complain when the same actor or actress gets nominated year after year.
And also for everyone thinking robbery there is someone like Lou thinking "what's the big deal".
SUBJECTIVE is NOT political. Spreading it around is not political, it's trying to be nice and give everyone some recognition for their good efforts. And voting, a popularity contest by its very nature, will always pull toward the mainstream a bit. In fact, I have been very happy that most years the average filmgoer thinks the Oscars are some artsy pick rather than the best film. That tells me it's not a total sell-out forgetting about the artistic side of film...that would be the Blockbuster Awards. ;)
Any of us can look at anyone's actions and either be pessimistically suspicious or optimistically understanding.
But once you choose your outlook, all evidence will seem to back up your stance.
In regards to this specific case, I think I would have voted for Crowe, but have no problem with Denzel winning. I sort of like that "entertainment" films are not lost in the shuffle because I think they still require great talent to make them play so well (think Ford in Raiders, along with SS direction).
So while I thought Gladiator was a non-Oscar calliber pop film, I did think Crowe was excellent and worthy of the win. Denzel carried TD in much the same way Crowe carried Gladiator, IMO. That should count for something. It's also what paid off for Roberts last year even though Burstyn did more in a smaller role.
It doesn't hurt if you are everything a film is about and people really enjoy the film. Naturally you are going to stick in their minds.
Just like getting a very emotional part is a big benefit. But isn't it perhaps tougher to make a subtle part great, or an entertaining part shine as serious acting, than it is to ball and cry over your son/husband/mom/wife dying of cancer or something?
Denzel dominated the screen with a colorful performance, Crowe played it a bit closer to the vest yet had the "I'm crazy" thing to lean on to also. In the end for me it was almost a pick 'em so I would have been satisfied with either winner, and I suspect the voting was close as it was.
 

Quentin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
2,670
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Quentin H
It really IS all subjective.

I happen to be someone who was NOT impressed by Crowe's performance in ABM. I thought it was too much. I thought he acted the infirmity (with all his twitches and mumbling and baggy clothes) rather than digging deep and finding the character. I don't necessarily blame this all on Crowe...I think the script and Howard have a lot to do with it. But, I didn't even think the performance was worthy of a nom.

However, I DID think he was robbed for "The Insider". That is a sublime performance that does the opposite of what I just described. Incredible.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Forum statistics

Threads
357,065
Messages
5,129,916
Members
144,283
Latest member
Nielmb
Recent bookmarks
1
Top