Please explain how Bowling for Columbine fails to meet the Academy criteria for documentaries, as quoted by AwSnappity. Show us how it even “skirts” the definition.
Exactly my feeling about “Forrest Gump” beating out “Pulp Fiction.”
Beautiful Mind was not about a retard, it was about a genius. He was unstable, not disabled.
I doubt Hollywood makes such distinctions. It’s all part of the tired old ‘triumph over personal adversity’ genre.
Yep… the movie is VERY clever and sometimes multiple viewings can reveal all of the fun, like peeling back an onion.
It’s worth noting that Caine did something somewhat akin to that: in his acceptance speech, he gave an eloquent nod to each of his fellow nominees, including Osment, and said that it was extremely fitting that they had changed “And the winner is …” to “And the award goes to …” because none of the other people up for that role were really losers. His speech made it clear that he had seen each of the other nominees’ pictures and thought very highly of each of their performances.
I remember thinking it was quite possibly the classiest acceptance speech I’ve ever heard.
Gamaliel:
Perhaps, but certainly it puts Crowe’s performance in Beautiful Mind in a different category from Hanks in Forrest Gump or Hoffman in Rain Man.
After reading this thread, I would like to point out something that annoys me:
Now, I’m not saying that Julia Roberts, Gwyneth Paltrow and other starlets deserved their OscarsTM, but saying that an actor who, after winning said award stars in crappy films should return their Oscar is just ridiculous. If the Academy feels that the best supporting actor of 1996 was Cuba Gooding Jr., they based it on his work in a 1996 movie, not on his future ones. Now, if he deserved the award at that point is another question entirely.
Also, what is a good movie? What is a great performance?
It’s whatever I say it is. Feel free to check with me if you’re unsure.
Just chiming in to say that I would pay good money to see that 
Just off the top o’ my head:
Last year’s Best Pic should have been Master and Commander–not that I have a problem with LOTR, but the first one might have been more deserving than the third.
Affleck and Damon should not have won a damn thing for Good Will Hunting script, which I found incredibly predictable and irritating.
No, it really doesn’t. You’re right that in terms of real human beings, it’s a big and important difference. As far as Hollywood movies are concerned, it’s very much in the same vein. A little bit less treacly, but still basically what Rubystreak said in the general sense.
RickJay, I haven’t seen Hurricane. Maybe I’ll look for it if you think he was that good. Anyway if it’s up to me, he’d have won the award for a great part in a great movie, and that’s what Malcolm X was.
Julia Roberts’s past roles have nothing to do with why she didn’t deserve her Oscar. It didn’t even have anything to do with her performance, which was good, and might have been a legit winner in a lot of other years. Just not in the same year as Ellen Burstyn’s performance in Requiem for a Dream, which is one of the best acting jobs ever done, IMO.
I cannot understand how anyone could have voted for Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas for either Best Picture or Best Director. I really can’t see how Lorraine Bracco lost Best Supporting Actress to Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost. What did she do in that role, other than be Whoopi Goldberg?
Really. Whoopi is one of a number of Hollywood “actors” who really only have one character that gets inserted into every role. Clint Eastwood is another of these non-actors; you can give him a badge and call him Dirty Harry, or give him a cowboy hat and call him The Man With No Name, but it’s basically the same guy.
Marley23:
That’s true regarding the movie, which would be an argument over the “Best Picture” award. I was arguing regarding the character, and the lead actors’ “Best Actor” awards.
I think Russell Crowe did a good job in A Beautiful Mind. I came into that movie with a lot of biases against it, which I still hold, but I can’t dis on Crowe’s performance. However, I have a policy of being officially disgusted when an actor gets an Oscar nomination or award for what is, essentially, a show-off part. Hanks in Gump, Crowe in Mind, Hoffman in Rainman… these were over-the-top performances, mannered to show how different the character is from “regular” people. Don’t you think that’s actually much easier than playing a “regular” person dealing with something extraordinary? IMO that’s much harder than what Crowe did, or Penn in I Am Sam (bleah), also nominated that year.
That year (2001), there were several nominations that ticked me off. I’ve already mentioned Crowe and Penn. As much as I admire Denzel Washington, he was playing a cartoon, another chew the scenery, ‘look Ma, I’m really acting!’ type role. I also am skeptical of biopics on general principle, but Will Smith was amazing as Muhammad Ali. Then again, he did have good make up going for him though, and a real person on which to model himself (as did Crowe).
As much as I was left cold by In the Bedroom, Tom Wilkinson had the toughest role of anyone nominated that year, and he was totally convincing to me. But I guess that’s not what the Academy voters look for. *In the Bedroom * was a rough movie, and Wilkinson’s character dwells in a moral grey zone that is disquieting (maybe that’s also why Ben Kingsley lost the Supporting Oscar to Jim Broadbent that year?). Thus, no Oscar for him. I think the Academy folks want a character to make them feel good, uplifted, and happy with themselves, as if nominating an actor playing a character with a disability somehow shows them to be enlightened and charitable towards the disabled, or something. I don’t quite get it myself.
Hurricane was a good movie, and Washington was great as always. However, I think it’s a dishonest film and that soured me on it retroactively. Right after seeing the film, I was so worked up about the injustice to Ruben Carter that I did some research, and came to the conclusion that he was, in fact, guilty. In any case, the situation is certainly not as it’s presented in the movie. Though this shouldn’t take anything away from Washington’s performance, the whole project is diminished in my eyes as a result.
I think that the makers of Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision (Best Documentary Feature, 1994) should have refused their Oscar, because even they know that Hoop Dreams is a far superior film. (Incidentally, Hoop Dreams’ Oscar snubs led to the changing of the rules and definitions for inclusion in the Documentary categories, IIRC.)
Also: I second whoever said Ben Affleck should give his Oscar back. Immediately. Take it back by force, if necessary. If he has one, then Kevin Smith should have at least been nominated for something (except the steaming pile of crap that is Jersey Girl.)
Despite the fact that I’ve already posted in this thread, and made my usual attack on the common practice giving out awards to actors who play the retarded or the mentally challenged…
SOMEBODY has to say this:
There’s practically no way to give out an award that everybody agrees on. I don’t always agree with the Oscar selections, or with Pulitzer Prize selections, or baseball MVP selections, but you know what? On the whole, the selections made are VERY rarely embarrassingly bad ones.
Would I have given the 1978 MVP award to Ron Guidry over Jim Rice? Yes. Was Jim Rice therefore a terrible choice? Not at all- he had a great season, and I don’t begrudge him the award.
Do I think there have been better novelists than John Steinbeck? Definitely- but his body of work is good enough that I tune out when someone grumbles that James Joyce or Theodore Dreiser or __ (your pick) was more deserving.
And while I’ve been a bit disappointed by some Oscar selections, you know what? I can’t think of any HORRIBLE films that have won Best Picture. Sure, there were years when better films (in my opinion) were overlooked, but I scoff at people who’ll claim that “Titanic” or “Oliver!” was the worst film ever made (even the people making such claims can’t possibly believe what they’re saying).
I liked “Saving Private Ryan” a lot better than “Shakespeare in Love,” but “SIL” was very clever, and I enjoyed it. So, I was disappointed by the Best Picture selection… for about 15 seconds, at which point I stopped thinking about it.
If you’re still outraged about that (or any other Oscar pick), feel free to create your own annual award and give it to anyone you like.
Since it’s been mentioned so much in this thread, I thought I’d ask here instead of starting a new thread: Is Shakespeare in Love in contemporary english? I have it on my Netflix queue and am curious as to whether or not I’m going to need Cliff’s Notes or something.
You should have no problem understanding it. I often find Shakespeare hard to follow, but had no problem following this movie. Some familarity with Romeo & Juliet probably helps though.