Past Oscar Mistakes

[VIETgrlTerifa]

I know many will disagree with me, but I thought Tomei was totally Oscar-worthy! I mean I felt it was comedic acting at it's best. Much better than what Johnny Depp does with that theme park ride character.

I would have given Tomei the Oscar for "In the Bedroom" as well.

Oscar mistakes?

Chocolat even being nominated for Best Picture...I mean over the likes of Wonderboys, Almost Famous, You Can Count on Me (well this didn't really have a chance)...c'mon.

Roberto Beignini winning Best Actor over the likes of Ian McKellen in "Gods and Monsters" and Nick Nolte in "Affliction" That Oscar was a great example of Miramax's genius in campaining (as was Chocolat even being nominated for Best Picture).

"Life is Beautiful" winning Best Foreign Film and being nominated for Best Picture. This awful movie that makes concentration camps look like some sort of themed vacation won over the wonder Braziallian "Central Station".

People complain that Gweneyth Paltrow winning over Cate Blanchett, but I think this race was really close and could have gone either way. My personal pick would have been Fernanda Montenegro for "Central Station". She gave the best performance that year. I also wouldn't have nominated Meryl Streep for "One True Thing". I love Meryl, but I would have given her nomination to Ally Sheedy for "High Art" that year.

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" not winning Best Picture. This movie was the best of the year IMO and the fact it lost to a conventional, badly presented (the visual effects were horrible, and the dialogue was beyond ridiculous) stupid movie like "Gladiator" is really an injustice. I would have been happy if "Traffic" won because at least that movie was deserving to be nominated for Best Picture, unlike "Gladiator" and "Chocolat".

I just want to say I hated "Moulin Rouge" so I don't agree that Nicole's hammy over the top performance there was robbed by Halle. IMO that year, the actress race was always between Halle Berry and Sissy Spacek. I gave my nod to Spacek.

Ang Lee not getting nominated for Best Director for "Sense and Sensibility"...but Mel Gibson was for his men in skirts with over the top masculinity epic???

A movie with one of the best acting and screenplays in 1997, "The Ice Storm", not getting any nominations while the movie with one of the worst acting and screenplay, Titanic getting 14 that same year?


EDITED TO ADD:

David Thelewis not getting nominated in 1993 for "Naked" is a big mistake. He gave one the best performances that year and won all kinds of critics awards for Best Actor, but he wasn't even nominated.

I'll think of more later.

[jenny12]

The last time I agreed with the Best Picture winner was when American Beauty won. If that movie lost that year...

Ordinary People over Raging Bull?

This was a "wha?" moment. Obviouisly the Academy Award members have a problem with Martin Scorcesse (sp?). Raging Bull was bold and brilliant, Ordinary People was pretty ordinary.

Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction?

Forest Gump was a lovely film but Pulp Fiction was ground-breaking. The dialouge, everything, so stylish.

Hoop Dreams wasn't even nominated for Best Documentary?

Anyone who has seen this film will know what I mean.

Titanic over LA Confidential?

Titanic was an amazing production. That's it. The story and dialouge did not match the epic ship.

English Patient over Fargo?

The English Patient was a fine film but I mean this in a similar vein as Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction. Very good over classic.

[Tonichelle]

don't get me started on that "movie" Titanic or that pathetic excuse for a director/screen-play writer James Cameron.

[Joesitz]

rgirl - My correction on the Tomei post is shown two posters above yours.

I knew there was a tale about the Palance presentation and I got confused with Sorvino and Tomei. Kasey brought up the Tomei and I looked it up. I suffer from Short Term memory

Joe

[equestrianguy]

Jenny12, You are sooo right about Pulp Fiction.. Yes, Forrest Gump was very heart warming, but Pulp Fiction was the first movie of its kind... Sameul Jackson and Uma Thurman both should have won supporting oscars for their roles.. Uma gave me CHILLS in the movie!................Peace

[Rgirl]

VIETgrlTerifa,
ITA with your whole post--almost, except that the race between Paltrow and Blanchett was close. But, ah, the great Fernanda Montenegro and "Central Station." To anybody who has never seen it, rent it. You'll never forget it. "Central Station" is one of a handful of films I bought on DVD. I'd buy more, but you know how it is with the bucks. Fortunately, most of the movies I like nobody else does so I get great deals on them on Ebay. Got Adrian Lyne's version of "Lolita" for a penny--plus $5.99 S&H, lol.

DAVID THEWLIS! In "Naked" and almost anything he's done. And don't get me started on the cold shoulder the Academy always gives the brilliant Mike Leigh. "Secrets and Lies" nominations were a miracle. But then that was the year everybody complained about the Academy nominating all these strange, depressing independent films. Sigh.

>>Roberto Beignini winning Best Actor over the likes of Ian McKellen in "Gods and Monsters" and Nick Nolte in "Affliction"<<

Others have brought this award up re Ian McKellen but you're the first to remember Nick Nolte's knock-out performance in "Affliction." IIRC, James Coburn won Best Supporting Actor--well deserved--but Nolte was phenomenal. Would have had a tough time choosing between McKellan and Nolte--apples and oranges roles--but Roberto Benigni? Yep, the Academy rewarded the Disney version of an Italian Jew in fascist Italy and the Disney Holocaust.

And not only Ally Sheedy in "High Art" for Best Actress but also Patricia Clarkson for Best Supporting. Virtually disappeared into her supporting role as the washed up former Fassbinder "star" junkie and Lucy's lover cum heroin buddy. Just the kind of movie the Academy loves--NOT, lol.

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" losing to "Gladiator"--Ptooey!

All the brouhaha over "Moulin Rouge," especially Nicole Kidman--Ptooey!

Ang Lee for all the times he and his films such as "The Ice Storm" and "The Wedding Banquet" have been overlooked--Ptooey!

Great post, VGT.


Jenny12 and Toni,
Yes, yes, yes. In some poll on an online film site I forget, "Titanic" was voted Worst Best Picture. And to win over the sublime "LA Confidential"--I say again, Ptooey!


Jenny12,
"The English Patient" over "Fargo." Oh, man, I would have agreed with this in a nanosecond until about two years ago. I ADORE "Fargo."own the DVD, have lovingly watched it countless times. But the more I see "The English Patient," the more I admire it. However, you are correct--still classic and relatively safe over groundbreaking. I think "English Patient" got a lot of votes for the mere fact that they were able to adapt that book. At least the Academy had the sense to recognize Frances McDormand. But of course they didn't have the same sense about Bill Macy. Argh.


Joe,
Sorry I missed your correction post. From the times of your post and mine, I would have been writing mine while you were posting yours. One of the disadvantages of not being able to remember where the hell I'd seen a link explaining why the Palance story was a false rumor. You know, short term memory loss. I think I have it too, but I can't remember
Rgirl

[Seonaid920]

I thought the nominations for Ethan Hawke and Denzel Washington for Training Day were a joke -- and that Denzel won was even a bigger one. It was a typical good cop/ bad cop movie -with one-note characters.

Charlize Theron robbed Naomi Watts last night. Her role was mostly won by the makeup artists and gaining weight.

LOTR's -- sorry but it wasn't THAT good. Entertaining enough, but one of the best movies ever? maybe for 13 year olds.

Lost in Translation - Bill Murray should have won, Scarlett should have been nominated.

Sophia Coppola - should have won best director
Peter Jackson - got the sentimental vote

Diane Keaton? Not a difficult role.

In the past -- Shakespeare in Love, totally overrated. Gwyneth?! she has lots of friends in hollywood to vote for her.

Mira Sorvino -- that movie and performance were nothing short of horrific

Nicole Kidman - totally overrated as an actress and her total lack of a southern accent in Cold Mountain (unless she was saying 'oh dear' or 'oh my') is evidence of that. She won an oscar for The Hours because of a fake nose. Julianne Moore, Renee and Diane Lane were far better.

[Johar]

I'm 35 and happen to find LOTR entertaining, more so than any other film in years. Jackson deserved it--he was in charge of making three films at once and overseeing thousands of crew, actors, makeup, etc. I doubt few other directors could've handled that for 16 months.

Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespheare In Love. To me it was a travesty.

[guinevere]

Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson winning for "As Good As It Gets". I don't care who they were up against - that was a terrible, sappy television movie that somehow made it on to the big screen. But it was a "prestige" film, much like "Cold Mountain" was this year - lots of big name talent involved, so it was given credit it didn't deserve. Thankfully, "Cold Mountain" did not fare as well this year at the Oscars!

ITA about Ally Sheedy and Patricia Clarkson in "High Art" - GREAT movie (except for the last 5 minutes), great acting. That was the first time I noticed Clarkson.

Sir Ian McKellen was definitely robbed for "Gods and Monsters"!

Michael Caine in "Cider House Rules" over both Jude Law in "Talented Mr Ripley" and Haley Joel Osment in "Sixth Sense". Snore. He did make a great acceptance speech, however.

guinevere

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Rgirl...I love all of your ptooeys!!! It's always a good thing to find good bargains, especially if the shipping and handling cost more than what you payed for the DVD itself.

How could I forget Patricia Clarkson in High Art? It seems Clarkson always gets the cold shoulder from the Academy...first for High Art, then for Far From Heaven. I wonder if Clarkson's persistence that she be considered a Lead actress for "The Station Agent" cost her the Oscar because many people believe she was much better in "Station Agent" than in "Pieces of April".
She might have been smart to do that though because "Station AGent" and "Pieces of April" might have split the vote and cost her a nomination for Supporting Actress.
Mark my words, Clarkson will get an Oscar sooner or later!

OT, but Clarkson actually is from the same part of New Orleans that I am from too. A movie theather in NEw Orleans showed "Pieces of April" for free during the week before the Oscars to celebrate the hometown girl getting her nomination. Anything to give Clarkson and that movie more recognition is fine by me.


I know you might lose some love for me Rgirl, but I really thought "Shakespeare in Love" was actually the best movie out of the nominees for Best Picture that year. The nominees were:

Elizabeth
Life is Beautiful
Saving Private Ryan
Shakespeare in Love
The Thin Red Line

I really think Shakespeare in Love had the best screenplay out of the five, and best acting overall. Elizabeth was good, but a bit overdramatic and soap opera like at times. Life is Beautiful was garbage. Saving Private Ryan peaked in the first 20 minutes then became the usual buddy war movie that had stereotypical soldiers playing into their roles. The Thin Red Line was great, but dragged in places.

My opinion is really unusual about "Shakespeare" is really unusual I know, but I really thought that movie was really well-written and honestly witty. Plus, I'm biased toward ensemble acting pieces (a la Gosford Park).

Even though I bad mouth Miramax sometimes, I do applaud it for doing one thing. In 2001, they got a movie that cost less than $500,000 to make and was able to have it get nominated for 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Despite all bad things Miramax does, this type of behavior makes me respect them again. That movie by the way was "In the Bedroom", one of the best movies ever.

[Michibanana]

It's funny, though. Even though Anna Paquin was the child star, it's Winona Ryder who ended up leading a life of crime, so to speak.

LOLOL ! Except for Winona Ryder was somewhat of a child star herself...she started in her early teens, IIRC. And ITA with whoever said that they could see Winona winning for Little Women. Admittedly, I haven't seen Jessica Lange's winning performance from Scent of a Woman. But Winona's performance in Little Women is one of the most real, subtle, multilayered, fully realized performances I've seen and one of my favorites of all time. Every time I watch it, I find something new and exciting about it, and I've probably seen it upwards of ten times or more. One of my biggest beefs about the Oscars is that, although they are voted on by supposed industry "experts," they often seem to favor style over substance, especially in the acting categories. I'm a student of acting/theater myself, and quite honestly, I find that the hysterical, in-your-face, let go type of performances that Oscar often awards are, especially for a good actor, some of the easiest to give. The layered, multifaceted performances a la Winona Ryder in Little Women are much more difficult. And by now it's an acting cliche that comedy is the most difficult to do, but Oscar never seems to realize that.

But seriously, I am still fuming that Sean Astin was not nominated for a supporting actor spot

ITA, big time! I knew it wasn't going to happen when he didn't get nominated for any of the other major awards, but I felt like he was totally robbed of a nomination. I understand that, in a movie that was truly an ensemble acting effort, in which the performances were uniformly strong, it's difficult to single actors out, but I though Astin gave the performance of the movie and of his career. I was really disappointed that nobody gave him the recognition he deserved. I would have liked to see New Line push more for their actors. They did after Fellowship, and it worked - Ian McKellin came away with a nomination. But I didn't really hear them campaigning at all seriously for their actors this year, and I think it was a shame.

Ang Lee not getting nominated for Best Director for "Sense and Sensibility"

I totally agree! Sense and Sensibility is a masterpiece of directing! No smoke and mirrors, no emotion-manipulating music, just real, honest, creative directing and shooting.

Charlize Theron robbed Naomi Watts last night. Her role was mostly won by the makeup artists and gaining weight.

Okay, I admit that I haven't seen either movie, but from what I've heard - from several people I really respect who have seen the movie - I disagree with this statement. Rodger Ebert called this one of the greatest performances in history. He's not the expert I'm talking about. My theater teacher, who is probably the person I most respect in the world of theater and who has impressive credentials and expertise, saw this movie and was blown away by Charlize's performance. He wasn't familiar with her at all as an actress. He had never seen any of her other movies and doesn't even know what she looks like in real life. But he said that her performance was incredible. He said that she embodied the character - and that the place you could see the character the most was in her eyes.

Peter Jackson - got the sentimental vote

No surprise - I disagree with this, too. I don't think any of the LOTR movies were flawless, but Peter Jackson's achievement in directing was unprecedented. No one has ever taken on a project this big, and the problems that he, as a director, had to solve were incredible. I know some people felt like these movies were all about special effects, but I personally think that's just a matter of opinion. To me, the thing that stood out the most about these films was the humanity of them, especially the third film. In ROTK, I was so caught up in the human element of the story, the odds that the characters were facing, the courage and sacrifice they had to demonstrate. I could really identify with it. It's hard for me to put into words why exactly I feel Jackson was deserving of this award, but I really believe that he is an amazing director and fully deserving of his Oscar. I think it would have been a travesty if he had come away without one. On the other hand, I think it's really hard to compare directing a movie like ROTK to a movie like Lost in Translation. They are completely different movies; the demands and challenges of the director are completely different. It's like (to use a sad, broken cliche) comparing apples and oranges.

[Seonaid920]

"I think it would have been a travesty if [peter jackson] had come away without [an oscar]"

Absolutely, me too, even though I would have voted for Sophia, I would have felt horrible for Peter Jackson if he hadn't won and I think everyone felt that way - that's what I mean by a sentimental vote. I know he did a tremendous job on the films but personally for me it wasn't an "oscar worthy" movie, but that is personal taste. It's the type of movie my brother in his mid thirties who'll never grow up (still a big video game/comic book fan) thinks is the best movie ever made (he was also a star was fanatic). I thought the first movie was the best of the 3. The latest installment had me checking my watch every 20 minutes. All of this years 'best movies' as a whole left me a bit dissatisfied but I found the subtleness of Lost in Translation refreshing.

I recommend seeing 21 grams. Monster was not very moving. I saw all these articles about the movie making the serial killer a sympathetic figure but I didn't feel sorry for her or cry once through the movie, perhaps its was the performance, or lack thereof in my opinion of Charlize that did that for me. Charlize's peformance was a lot of mimicking of the serial killer's habits, she wore false teeth, had her hair and skin messed up and eyebrows plucked so that she would look just like the serial killer, but the character evoked no emotion out of me at all, whereas Naomi Watt's character, also imperfect, did. While watching Monster I kept thinking of her as Charlize playing dress up, so I never really bought her as the serial killer.

[Rgirl]

VIETgrlTerifa,
I wouldn't love you one bit less for liking "Shakespeare in Love" over any of the other Best Picture nominated films that year. True, I thought Blanchett's performance in "Elizabeth" was far superior to Paltrow's in "SIL," but for me, none of the films nominated in '98 were Oscar worthy. Can't think of any nonnominated movies that year that grabbed me, but after 35 years of serious movie-watching, I definitely depend on lists.

I had great hopes for the return of Terence Malick, but ITA that "The Thin Red Line" had too many places that dragged. Plus the film never caught on with audiences, which were suckered in by Spielberg cheese yet again. I'll give SS props for the first 20 minutes, but after I'd seen the beginning once--eh.


Michibanana,
Jessica Lange wasn't in "Scent of a Woman." Are you thinking of the Oscar she won for "Blue Sky"?


Re Oscar's 2004
Peter Jackson won Best Director for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, not for "Return of the King" alone. I know, ROTK is what he was nominated for, but that's only because Jackson is the first person in Oscar history to have each part of the film trilogy he directed nominated for Best Picture and to be nominated himself for Best Director for LOTR parts 1 and 3. The Academy had no way to award Jackson a Best Director Oscar for LOTR triology as a whole, so they gave it to him for the final installment.

We've seen several trilogies in the last few years and they all tanked after the impact of the first film. "The Matrix" is the worst example--great start, abominable finish. We've also seen MANY films go ga-ga with CGI. For me, all the CGI-dependent films have been real yawners, except for LOTR. I was never a Tolkien fan nor a fan of knights, ladies, and elves-inspired fantasy. But what Jackson did with LOTR was make sure that the heart of the film was more impressive than the special effects.

Although I very much understand that it is just as difficult to direct an intimate drama, such as the great "In the Bedroom" by Todd Field--or "Lost in Translation" or "Mystic River"--as it is to direct an epic with 25,000 people. But Jackson directed the equivalent of nearly a nine-hour epic that maintained the emotional relationships among the characters. This year had several exceptionally deserving films and performances in the top categories, one of the richest years I've seen in a while. But it just so happened that this was LOTR's last year and it had to be rewarded. The Academy was blinded by James Cameron's use of CGI in the god-awful "Titanic"--worst Best Picture ever, IMO--but with LOTR, the Academy got it right.

BTW, the 76th AA's may have been predictable, but they got the winners right--Errol Morris for Best Documentary FINALLY (that alone blesses the Academy this year)--and everybody looked damn gorgeous. I mean, presenters such as Catherine Zeta-Jones and Angelina Jolie--my gawd! Renee Zellweger doing the classic Hollywood sideways gown walk down the stairs. Johnny Depp in a designer tux. Don't get me wrong, I love his vintage look, but when you're a nominee, go with the classic look. And how "awwwwww" was he with Keisha Castle-Hughes? I think the thing that made the show drag was not the predictability of the winners or the LOTR sweep, but the fact that Billy Crystal's time as host has past. Time to get somebody edgier. Robin Williams. Chris Rock. For a funny movie awards show, watch the Independent Spirit Awards. The AA's job is glamour and this year the Academy did a good job.
Rgirl

[Olenska]

I agree with the Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction argument.

As for my personal wuzrobbed, I can only think of one for now:
Tommy Lee Jones winning over Ralph Fiennes in 1994. (Jones for The Fugitive and Ralph for Schindler's List).

Also, I think Bill Murray should have won this year.

I also think that Lost in Translation should have won best movie. And LOTR sweep all the others (director, editing, sound, etc.), which it did, lol.

ETA: and if Tom Cruise ever wins an Oscar, kill me, please.

[Rgirl]

Forgot to add re somebody's comment that Denzel Washington should not have been nominated for "Training Day." For the performance itself, I agree, but for all the times Washington was robbed, it was a good enough performance to nominate so he could win a competitive Oscar. It was like Paul Newman winning for his relatively mediocre (for Newman) "Color of Money" raather than "Hud," "Cool Hand Luke," or especially "The Verdict."


Olenska,
Have you seen Tom Cruise in "Magnolia"? He didn't win that year but it was certainly an Oscar worthy performance. Cruise has more than enough money and big blockbusters now, thus I'd like to see him take some Independent chances like he did in "Magnolia." He's got the chops, he just keeps choosing parts and/or directors that allow Tom to keep doing the same role in different costumes. I also thought he was great in "Jerry Maguire," which is another thing I'd like to see him do more of--comedy.


One last thing to VIETgrlTerifa: I'll mark your words too that Patricia Clarkson will win an Oscar. Hopefully soon.
Rgirl