Jack Lemmon, Glengarry Glen Ross.
Edward Norton, American History X.
So many deserving movies yet so few winners. Why doesn’t the Academy give awards according to specific categories instead of selecting a singular winner when it is clearly impossible to objectively compare performance and artistic merits between the non-related cinematic genres that comprise the vast creative spectra of themes displayed by the magical world of motion pictures?
Well, the academy members brains are all fucked up, that’s why. Anyhow, no use complaining…
Having exorcised from my mind the need for that little diatribe, I shall postulate the unfairly obviated performances that, on the strength of their exquisite display of artistic talent and histrionic ability, were evidently Oscar meriting and acclamation deserving renditions.
First of all, I agree with all of you who considered Edward Norton’s masterful performance in Primal Fear, Nathalie Portman’s brilliant portrayal of Mathilda in The Professional, and Jim Carrey’s precise characterization of Andy Kauffman as award winning material.
I also believe Nathalie Portman’s performance as Marty in Beautiful Girls, though brief, was brilliant in the way she captured the emotions and doubts inherent in the transition from adolescence to womanhood. The seven or so scenes in which she graced the screen with her charm and poise were both the emotional and transcendental centers of the story.
Also I must mention Harrison Ford’s performance as Indiana Jones. The supreme compliment I can give to his prodigious performance is that I cannot possibly visualize any other actor in the role of Indy. Ford is Indy, no discussion. He totally captured the essence of the character, his passion, his adventurous nature, his intellectual devotion, his weaknesses (remember the snakes), his Don Juanesque side and his witty sense of humor (the no ticket line after throwing the nazi officer off the Zeppelin stands out, of course).
Unfortunately for him there is a very well defined bias in the Academy against recognizing action roles as award deserving performances. Echoing what someone indirectly pointed out earlier on this thread (CnoteChris I believe), voters favor dramatic roles over less emotionally challenging portrayals.
Well, maybe I got it wrong after all these years of watching movies. Maybe, just maybe, actors are not supposed to faithfully convey the true personality of their characters; they should instead focus their efforts towards developing the emotionally conflicted, psychologically perturbed nature of their cinematic alter-egos, even at the risk of not offering an accurate portrayal of their “true” essence. At least, it appears, that is what they have to do if they aspire to bring home one of those little, yet highly coveted, golden statues.
This is so incredibly wrong, I don’t even know where to begin. Film score Oscars have always been for the instrumental underscore. Period. There was, for a while, an Oscar for musical score or adaptation, but this was a separate category and only counted for musicals with a single set of songwriters; this was the Oscar Prince won for. However, there has never been a score Oscar that went to “rock” music–only in the Song category, which is a completely different subject entirely.
There was some controversy because for a while, Disney films kept winning the score Oscar, and many suspected that though the nomination was technically for the underscore only, voters were choosing the films because they liked the songs. Even then, though, these were still musicals and not scores with assorted “pop” songs as the post implies.**
[/quote]
OK, yes, I should have clarified - I was thinking of scores with a “pop” sound, or the underscore to a “pop” score. I did know that there was a seperate category for “best song”.
I checked the Oscar listings for about the last 20 years, and I think I can clarify the kind of score I always knew would win over the standard “Classical” score. Bear in mind, this didn’t happen every year. Many years all 5 nominees were “Classical-sounding” scores. In such years, each score had an equal chance, IMO.
1978: “Midnight Express” won over Ennio Morricone’s excellent “Days of Heaven”. The music to “Midnight Express” got lots of attention, and had more of a “pop” sound. Morricone didn’t have a chance.
1980: “Fame”. Need I say more? “The Empire Strikes Back” (an excellent score, even though John Williams gets more than his share of Oscars) lost out.
1981: “Chariots of Fire”. This also got more popular attention. Alex North’s “Dragonslayer” didn’t have a snowball’s chance.
1986 “'Round Mindnight”. I have nothing against Herbie Hancock, but obviously he is more of a “name” in pop circles than Ennio Morricone, who wrote the exquisite “The Mission”. Morricone was robbed.
1987: “The Last Emperor”. I’m sure it was a great score - but it was no shock to me that it would win - David Byrne was one of the composers, and he is very well known. “The Untouchables” and “Empire of the Sun” (both excellent scores) had no chance.
1989, 1991, 1992, 1994: “The Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin”, and “The Lion King” all won, all over excellent Classical/orchestral scores. You do mention the “controversy” over these scores winning - and you are damned right. Each time a Disney score was nominated, all the other fine orchestral scores didn’t have a chance. I believe they have added a seperate category now for such soundtracks as these, because of the controversy.
One exception to all of this was in 1985, when John Barry’s “Out of Africa” won over “The Color Purple”. Could have knocked me over with a feather. It does happen, just not very often. And it isn’t like I don’t think the more “pop” sounding scores didn’t ever deserve to win, but the odds were so stacked in their favor, it wasn’t any fun watching the Oscars for film score. I (almost) always knew who would win.
Thanks for clarifying your previous post. Taking your specific examples:
In 1978, 1981, and 1987, the Score winners were all also Best Picture nominees (as opposed to the competition you list). This means that the films were also generally well-liked already, and had been seen more than probably some of those other films. Unfortunately, some voters vote for the movie they like as a whole, instead of the merits of each individual category. I would have to strongly disagree with your comment about Byrne–the score for TLE doesn’t even remotely resemble his Talking Heads work (plus he had 2 co-composers, including classical composer Ryuichi Sakamoto). As for Vangelis and Moroder, you have to admit that these scores were known by people who hadn’t even seen the movies–I would say this had less to do with their synthezier/“pop” nature and more with the fact that they had merged with the cultural mainstream. This is why I would argue 1985 was not that much of an exception–the most popular movie of the year won (and Purple’s score could hardly be considered very popular, despite Quincy Jones’ participation)
1980 was just another example of a score with a hit song winning. This has gone back a long way. *Born Free, Love is a Many Splendoured Thing, High Noon, * and The Way We Were all won Best Score largely on the popularity of their title songs (which also won the Oscar). Again, this goes to the familiarity factor.
1986 was perhaps the most controversial year because everybody thought Morricone had a lock. What happened was not that Hancock was more of a “name”; it was that a many of the jazz pieces in RM were standards not written by him. It is largely believed that voters voted for these pieces as much as for Hancock’s score, since they weren’t able to distinguish the two. The rules have been changed somewhat so that if the soundtrack has a lot of non-original material, the score can’t be considered for a nomination (this was why Michael Nyman’s The Piano was ineligible, for example). Personally, I’ve always believed this is why The Right Stuff and A Little Romance won the score Oscars–because many voters had no idea that in certain spots, they were listening to Holst and Vivaldi respectively, not the score itself.
As for the Disney winners, they did indeed change the categories briefly, and this stopped the Disney swell, even in years the films got nominations (Pocahontas being the last score winner). The irony is that the best scores for animated films of the 90s–Elfman’s Nightmare Before Christmas, Newman’s Toy Story, and Goldsmith’s Mulan–were all losers. A new controversy has arisen, now, however, because even though a category for muscial song score has been introduced, so few musicals are made that the Academy usually decides that there aren’t enough candidates in the category to merit the award (this happened last year when there were only 3 submissions: *Tarzan, South Park, * and Magnolia). Under Academy bylaws, if you’ve already submitted your film in one score category, you can’t resubmit it later in another, even if that first category is discontinued because there aren’t enough nominees.
I would argue that the two most daring choices in recent years for score were Grusin’s win for The Milagro Beanfield War and Corigliano’s The Red Violin from last year. Neither film had any other nomination and neither film were very popular at all. The fact that they still won over some heavy competition is testimony to the fact that the Academy did vote on the merits of the category, and not all these other variables that usually sway their opinion.
“Refund?!? Refund?!?”
Love Dooley in that movie - should have been nominated. By far the better biking movie from the 80’s.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I believe that “Midnight Express”, “Chariots of Fire” and “Fame” all had music on pop radio - which further promototed them to win the Oscar. People were listening to the songs on their popular radio stations… The other Oscar nominees had little chance against those odds.
I am not so sure about that. I think that name recognition does often make a difference. Everyone knows who David Byrne is. I think that helped. They were looking through a bunch of names of composers of scores that they didn’t really pay attention to… and here pops up a name of someone they recognize, and of whose music they like. I think it very well could have made a difference.
What’s the difference? They had singles out of the music from the films, the music from the films was playing on pop radio - so how can we ever distinguish whether they got the Oscar because they were well-known names, or that they had their music played on pop radio?
You might have a point there. That did shock me. It did not fit the pattern.
And popularity factor. All these songs played on the radio, right? Popular radio? Popular music, not Classical-sounding music, and people just felt more comfortable with it. My point exactly.
EXACTLY!!! So, perhaps you might be right about Hancock’s name not having a lot to do with it (but I am still not 100% convinced of that) but people did vote for music that they felt more comfortable with. Music that was more familiar, more “popular” (as in old jazz favorites) than the other Classical-sounding scores. They apparently did not listen to each score and distinguish each composer’s efforts.
EXACTLY! People do not always know what the hell they are listening to.
Yep, can’t win for losing! 
I think the four almost-in-a-row Disney wins proves my point in a compelling way. People were obviously NOT distinghuishing between the musical scores and the songs. Hence 4 wins for the Disney scores. The songs were popular, therefore the scores had more than a good chance of winning as well. Obviously.
But, there was no “popular” factor up against these scores the year they were nominated. Which is something I mentioned before - when all nominees are “Classical-sounding” composers, all have an equal chance, IMO. Which happened in these years. In the case of “Milagro Beanfield War”, Dave Grusin was up against the likes of John Williams, George Fenton, Maurice Jarre, and Hans Zimmer - no one there is exactly being played on pop radio - they are all mainstays of “Classical-sounding” film composing. Same with “Red Violin” - up against Thomas Newman, Williams, Rachel Portman, and Gabriel Yared - all who are mainstays of film composing (though I confess I haven’t heard much of Yared - maybe I’m out of touch.) I still firmly believe that if some score that got a lot of popular attention - like a Disney musical, or a “Fame” type of movie, or a movie with a big hit song that got played on the radio, “Milagro” and “Red Violin” would have had little chance. I see nothing in recent history to sway me from this belief. The pattern’s been pretty consistent for at least 20 years.
That should read:
I still firmly believe that if some other score was also nominated in these years, and it got a lot of popular attention (like a Disney musical, or a “Fame” type of movie, or a movie with a big hit song that got played on the radio) “Milagro” and “Red Violin” would have had little chance.
well, I am really learning a lot about classical music and its important role towards enhancing the movie watching experience. Keep it going guys!
I think Carter Burwell should win for almost every movie he’s ever scored. He’s one of the few (if the only) soundtrack composer currently working who can make beautiful, evocative music that supports and complements the action, rather than tries to rise above it and become something you have to get around in order to get to the movie. John Williams is the most egregious offender; I’m almost sure he’d tell you that his movies are really about the score, with the action supplied just to support his Wagner Lite. Danny Elfman, though he’s one of my favorites, is also frequently guilty of this, though luckily he usually does films that benefit from a bombastic score. More recently he’s made great strides in subtlety: Compare Batman, one of his first, with Anywhere But Here, one of his more recent. He’s still the obvious choice for movies like Darkman and Spiderman. I think his scores for Batman, Midnight Run, Anywhere But Here, and many others should have been nominated, and I think his score for Beetlejuice should have won. His style, ever since Batman, has been so influential that many of the old-schoolers (Goldsmith, Shore, et al) now have very distinct Elfmanisms in many of their scores.
** Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth) acted cirles around Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love), IMO. I didn’t think Gwyneth was convincing AT ALL as a man. But the Oscar voters always love a woman who can affect a good accent, which incidentally may explain why Richard Gere and Kevin Costner aren’t exactly rolling in awards.
I also thought ** The Sixth Sense ** should have won over Shakespeare in Love.
And while I’ll admit that I didn’t see Michael Caine in “Cider House Rules”, I think that ** Haley Joel Osment ** (Sixth Sense) did a superb job of raising the hairs on the back of my neck, while making me want to wrap my arms around him and protect him.
And who can forget the compelling short documentary **“The Wildest Show in the South: The Angola Prison Rodeo” **?
Talk about being ripped off! 
Edit to above: “Oscar votes love PEOPLE who can affect an accent.” There ain’t a soul alive who thinks either of these men are even remotely effiminate.
I’m gonna go with Annette Bening in “American Beauty”. Or maybe Haley Joel Osment from “The Sixth Sense”.
Sorry but I cannot agree that a movie with Bruce Willis in the staring role should ever get an Oscar nomination let alone win one. As for the “The Sixth Sense” it was interesting but slow at times.
I think we can all pretty much agree that there are a few fellows out there who while working are generally overlooked even thought they turn in consistantly good performances. Kevin Bacon, Johnny Depp, Sean Penn (Who messed up his career by marrying Madonna, what’s up with that? Tom Cruise married Nicole Kidman and she couldn’t fake an orgasm in my book. And we all know every woman can do that. But then she doesn’t have to she’s married to Tom Cruise! Ha!) Eric Stoltz is absolutely one of my favorite actors who does not get recognized. If you like “Tarantino type” films then rent “Killing Zoe”. Yucky! Then there was that little film he did called “Waterdance”. And he is by the way the kid with the messed up face in “Mask”.
I also happen to have this thing for Clancy Brown. He gets my top nomination for all time favorite villian in “Highlander” he’s “the Kurgan”. He’s a great character actor. We just watched him play a decent prison guard in the “Hurricane” as opposed to the asshole he played in “Shawshank Redemption”. He’s done my favorite “Frankenstein Monster” in that lousy Sting vehicle “The Bride”. The psycho in that Tom Berringer/Sidney Poiter movie, can’t remember the name.
Oh well…this thread has been fun.
Needs2know
Ah, Clancy Brown. A wholey unapprciated actor. He’s the single best part of “Bride,” where we have his and David Rappaports beautiful and moving sections, contrasted with the horrible Sting parts.Clancy has played more good cop and military roles - if you look at his IMDB credits, a good half of it is of that style. My personal favorite, besides “Shawshank,” is his Sergeant Zim in “Starship Troopers.” I especially love the part when he explains exactly why you need to know how to throw knives.
“Medic!”
How could I have forgotten “Starship Troppers” my son just rented it again a few weeks ago. I also didn’t forget that he’s part of “Buckaroo Bonzai’s” crew or that he was in that sci-fi series that flopped. I watch it on the Sci-Fi channel occasionally, can’t remember the name. I think he also had a very small part in that excellent HBO production with Val Kilmer, “The Man Who Broke a Thousand Chains”. I think he was the guy who did the actual crime at the beginning of the movie.
Needs2know
In the Best Song category, South Park was rooked. Granted, there were better songs to pick from than “Blame Canada”, but to Phil Collins, for God’s sake??? Something tells me SP was in there just to round out the category.
Robin
That would be “Earth 2.”
Damn Joe…you’re better than a great big dose of Ginko Biloba!
Needs
Anyone else see the Kids in the Hall skit where they made fun of this phenomenon? Their awards show played clips from the movies the actors were nominated for, and they were all handicapped.
I was not in the US when it came out, so I don’t know if it bombed or whatever, but I’m surprised that The Big Lebowski wasn’t nominated for anything. What a great movie.
Also, I remember wondering why The Joy Luck Club recieved no nominations (that I’m aware of). Another excellent movie, and a good choice for Best Adaption.
Mea culpa. My memory wasn’t playing fair with me when it came to recollecting who Judi Dench lost to. I just remembered that Dench losing out was a giant rip-off. I’ve only been posting to the boards for about a month and already I’ve made a bonehead mistake.
Although you may have liked Basinger in her award-winning performance, I do remember at the time being utterly surprised at her winning, and was expecting another actress to win (and again, my memory won’t let me remember who…can I blame it on the fact that I’m writing these words when the clock reads 12:06 a.m.?). Basinger was good in L.A. Confidential, but I honestly didn’t see anything special about her performance.