Academy Awards Snubs (1 Viewer)

[ZacharyTait]

Actually, 3 Westerns have won the big kahuna. Cimarron in 1931, Dances with Wolves in 1990, and Unforgiven in 1992.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Fair enough, although for me, Truth or Dare was no less impressive and no more impressive than Rattle and Hum or Blood Brothers or scores upon scores of other concert docs. I respect Madonna's music career a great deal - she's not exactly my favorite performer of all time, but her ability to adapt to the times or even set the tone for the times was no small thing. What I didn't like about Truth or Dare was a sort of celebration of Madonna's diva attitude towards the world -- i.e. trashing people after they left the room, especially people who only dropped in to tell her they enjoyed her show -- that doesn't make Madonna look empowered to me. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Gandhi indeed is a film about a great man, but it's definitely not a GREAT film about a great man. It's plodding, dull, and without nuance. Frankly, it's almost as much of a fantasy as ET, for it sure doesn't aspire to provide a three-dimensional portrait of Gandhi the man. Gandhi the legend and icon gets lots of screentime, but not Gandhi the human being.

Or maybe I just dislike the movie because it includes Daniel Day-Lewis as a racist street thug named... Colin.

 

[Steve Christou]

And there we have it in a nutshell...


I'm not a huge fan of either Gandhi or ET, Blade Runner was the best film that year, voice-over and all.

 

[william-scooter]

Charles Durning's nomination for best supporting actor in Mel Brooks' "To be or Not to Be" as the german col. was a snub to every actor in a supporting role in 1983. I am sure there are others like this that defy explanation, this one just sticks out in my head.. It was fun to watch just to see what clip they could possibly run when the nominees are announced to showcase the role. You could just as well have nominated Jerry Reed for his work in "Smokey and the Bandit". And this is not a snub against Durning, its just nominating him for this role seemed odd... He had to be very popular with his colleagues as he was also nominated for his work as the governor in "Best Little Whorehouse"

 

[Phil_L]

That was part of the film's beauty, I believe. It showed all her warts and faults, it didn't gloss over them or ignore them to preserve her public image. She acted poorly, and they didn't cut it from the final film. It showed me that she was human, capable of being vain, jealous and petty. She is rough and tough on stage, but vulnerable and flawed backstage. Just what I want in a doc, honesty. It was a brave step that deserved to be recognized.

I am not surprised it wasn't nominated, the Academy doesn't seem to like her all that much. She has written and performed several songs worthy of nomination (I'll Remember from With Honors, This Used to Be My Playground from a League of Their Own and Beautiful Stranger from austin Powers). Only the songs she hasn't written, and therefore was ineligible for the award, get nominated (You Must Love Me and Sooner or Later, both winners).

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Gandhi indeed is a film about a great man, but it's definitely not a GREAT film about a great man. It's plodding, dull, and without nuance."

I think it is an exceptionally well-made film, and have never felt the need to trash E.T. to praise Gandhi or trash Gandhi to praise E.T. They're both great, but if I had to vote for one over the other, Gandhi would easily get my vote.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I didn't "trash" Gandhi to praise ET - I criticized Gandhi because I don't think it's a very good movie. If ET had won, I'd stll think Gandhi suffered from all the flaws I mentioned...

 

[Seth Paxton]

Even if a majority of them had agreed with you at the time?

My point is that AT THE TIME they aren't saying "what ARE you thinking", so where do they get off critiquing your tastes from 10 years ago with their own tastes benefitting from 10 years of development?

I say fair play for all.

Not only is it about subjective tastes, but it is also about a time-specific set of subjective tastes. 2001 helps pave the way for future films becoming accepted, but in being at the vangard it found itself "before its time". It's such a common occurence that we have given it it's own cliche (ahead of its/his/her time).


We could revote the Oscars for films 10+ years old and find that in 20 years THOSE votes were suddenly also "wrong"...what were we thinking we might say, we had a 2nd chance and got it wrong again. Yet here those people would be now praising you for your wisdom.


I stand by my point that most of the view change stems from winners being forever the favorite and losers becoming permanent underdogs, perhaps even forgotten, which lends itself to those seeking intellectual elitism by aligning themselves with that hard to find work of overlooked genius because only idiots think a "pop" film like the Oscar winner was really great.

If everyone said day after day that Heat was the greatest film of 1995 it would be only natural for some people to start to say "well, not exactly...".

 

[Seth Paxton]

If I was a committee of one to pick the Oscar noms my list would have been:

ROTK
In America
City of God
Master and Commander
Finding Nemo (not in my top 5, but there is no mistaking its powerful reach to audiences via a quality approach)

American Splendor would be close to In America or City of God, but not quite Best Pix stuff to me.

I think the nominees chosen were pretty good though. It amazes me to hear the wide variety of opinions on some of these films though. M&C loved and hated, same with Mystic River and Cold Mountain.

Seabiscuit isn't so much hated and just not considered worthy. Considering the bias against animation being a Best Pix film I find the Seabiscuit nomination respectable.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

Bill Murray for Lost In Translation .. fucked over for Sean Penn

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I wasn't surprised when Paul Giamatti wasn't nommed, but I still thought it was unjust.

When roles/performances like his and films like 'American Splendor' can get the props they deserve, I'll take the Oscars more seriously.

I don't think it is a simple 'popularity contest', but it is far from perfect.

I'm not bitter, I just don't take it too seriously.

 

[chris rick]

Bill Murray for Lost In Translation .. fucked over for Sean Penn

Lost in Translation was not even Bill Murray's best work. He should have won for Rushmore a few years back. Penn is one of the greatest actors of his generation if not the best, and this performance was great. Even if you don't like the guy a whole hell of a lot as a person (which is sadly how many on the HTF and elsewhere feel), you judge the guy on his performance right? On the subject of Penn being an ***, did anyone else think his acceptance speech was pretty damn humble? Sorry but I'm sick of hearing people bad mouth Penn, the guy is and always be a great actor. His was the best performance of the year by an actor, Murray's was not even close.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Penn was more than deserving. I don't care about the man's political views, he was sensational in Mystic River. I don't ask to see an artist's voting record before looking at their work. The one has nothing to do with the other. I also appreciated his nod to Paul Giamatti and Nicholas Cage and other actors who did great work in 2004 and weren't nominated.

Johnny Depp will be back, it's just a matter of time, and isn't Bill Murray shooting another film with Wes Anderson right now? He may be back, too.

 

[ZacharyTait]

I'll be the first to say it:

Johnny Depp for Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.

Sean Penn was terrific, but I would rather watch Depp than Penn any day of the week. Without Depp, Pirates is just a derivative movie. With him, it is highly entertaining. Penn was just another cog in the well-oiled machine that is Mystic River.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Penn was just another cog in the well-oiled machine that is Mystic River."

That's one damn talented cog...

 

[Kevin Grey]

He will likely be a front-runner next year for Barrie , if for no other reason than as consolation for PotC (though I'm sure he will turn in a great performance).

 

[dpippel]

Me too, and I was glad to hear Sean Penn mention his name during his acceptance speech, which by the way I think was the epitome of class.

My #1 snub: Scarlett Johansson. She should have been nommed for Lost in Translation.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Neither of these is an Oscar "snub". As indicated in the opening post of this thread, an Oscar snub is deserving work that didn't even get a nomination. There was plenty of that this year, as there is every year, but Murray and Depp were not part of it.

M.

 

[Matt Gordon]

Another snub (according to some definitions) that I don't think has been mentioned (and this is why I stopped watching the Oscars for a few years): Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.


I remember watching the Oscars six years ago, when both Titanic and L.A. Confidential were nominated for Best Picture. Although I was rooting for Titanic at the time, I now think that L.A. Confidential (which I loved, too) was the better picture and is the one that I still choose to watch every now and then.