Ellen Burstyn's 14-second Emmy-nominated performance!

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:31pm

What a joke.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/09/tv.emmys.burstyn.ap/index.html

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:36pm

It's cool that they'll be able to show her performance in its entirety during the awards show, though.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:38pm

Why is anyone acting surprised at this? The nominating process for so many awards are ridiculous in the extreme. When shows are nominated for BEST at the Emmys, it's on the basis of an episode the show submits. One good show can snag your show the Best show of the year, regardless of the quality of the remaining episodes.
And, really, how is a 14 second performing leading to an Emmy nomination much different than a couple of Oscar winners with less than 10 minutes of stage time each?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:39pm

I love her, but this is ridiculous.

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that she was nommd years ago for playing Harris herself.

Bea Straight's performance in Network was longer than that!

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:40pm

Beatrix Strait's Oscar winning performance in Network was about two minutes or so.

William Hurt was nominated for Best Supporting Actor despite having only four or five minutes of screentime.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:40pm

I didn't know that an entrace fee had to be paid and that actors could submit themselves. I wonder if they offer group discounts?

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:44pm

And Judy Dench won for...what, 8 minutes?
Or was it 12?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:50pm

There are no small roles, only small actors.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:52pm

"And Judy Dench won for...what, 8 minutes?"

It was 8 minutes.

And I believe the reason they gave it to her was because they were embarrassed that Helen Hunt beat her out the year before when everyone knew that Judi Dench could act circles around Helen Hunt.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 2:56pm

I'm pretty sure Dench was around 7 minutes. Beatrice Straight's was five, I think. I know it's shorter than Dench's. Straight is the record-holder for shortest screen time.

I really DO think you can give an effective (and even Oscar-winning) performance in that amount of time. It is a "supporting" category, after all. I definitely don't think it should be judged with a stop watch. I remember seeing Dench as Elizabeth I, and thinking she would win for it. Clocks STOPPED when that woman was on screen. I literally held my breath, I was so in awe of her in that part. Talk about a royal presence!

Margaret Hamilton's iconic and legendary performance as The Wicked Witch of the West AND Miss Gulch in The Wizard of Oz amounts to only 12 minutes of total screen time.

And Michael Crawford made theatre history as the Phantom with just 20-odd minutes of on-stage work. Talk about making an IMPACT.

...But we're talking about 14 SECONDS HERE! That wasn't a performance, supporting or otherwise. It was a cameo!

Updated On: 8/9/06 at 02:56 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:00pm

Why are the Emmys early this year? Don't they usually happen a month later, in late September?

About Ellen Burstyns nomination, that's just ridiculous! How much emotional depth can you convey in just 14 seconds?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:10pm

"threadjack: gotham, the best actress award has gone to some undeserving nominees and the descent began with Helen Hunt."

I think the descent began before Helen Hunt. It's just that her win was a pit that Oscar fell into rather than just a bump in the road.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:14pm

I love Ellen Burstyn... and it's not her fault.

She didn't submit herself for award consideration, according to the article, so it's not as if she had anything to do with this.

...except being so well-liked that these (idiotic) voters decided to give her a performance nod, just for showing up to work that day and being Ellen Burstyn!

I'll bet SHE even laughed when they told her she got nominated.

I hope she WINS!!! That oughta wake everybody up.

Updated On: 8/9/06 at 03:14 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:18pm

If she wins, I bet her acceptance speech will be longer than the performance.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:18pm

the best work of my life was submitted for an emmy nomination by fox tv a number of years ago. i doubt anyone who voted saw it; it's all about the name. the grammys are the same thing. how else does Queen Latifa get a nod for best jazz vocal album? OY!

[vbplayer]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:36pm

"Why are the Emmys early this year? Don't they usually happen a month later, in late September?"

The Primetime Emmys generally air in mid-September, on the Sunday before the official start of the fall television season. They are currently seen in rotation among the four major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox). However, the 2006 Primetime Emmys (which will be seen on NBC) will air a few weeks early, on Sunday, August 27, 2006, in order to accommodate the Peacock network's coverage of Sunday Night NFL Football beginning in September.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:46pm

Not to thread-jack my own thread here...

…but as far has the "bad" Helen Hunt comments... one of my dearest "older" friends, who was a voting member of the Academy in the Acting branch for over 50 years, struggled a bit when she was deciding between Judi Dench's work in "Mrs. Brown" and Helen Hunt's in "As Good As It Gets."

She thought they were both excellent, powerful performances... and worthy of the award.

Finally, she told me she was going with Hunt. I asked her why. She (who had been a leading lady herself at Warner Bros. in the mid-'40s) said that since they were both great, it came down to "degree of difficulty." It's far more difficult to play an "ordinary person" such as a waitress with a sick son and give an outstanding performance than it is to play someone extraordinary like a grieving, widowed Queen Victoria. A lot of "wow" is built in to that part already. We know the character, and we already know her history. She "resonates" in advance for us, in other words. It's a showy role. But to do what Hunt did in AGAIG was not an easy job for an actress, nor a forgone conclusion that it would be a "noticed" role or performance.

I understood what she meant, and I still applaud her decision.

Updated On: 8/9/06 at 03:46 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:50pm

"And I believe the reason they gave it to her was because they were embarrassed that Helen Hunt beat her out the year before when everyone knew that Judi Dench could act circles around Helen Hunt."

To be fair, Mrs. Brown was written as a mostly two-dimensional character. Judi Dench was great and made the most of the part, but it was not what you would call a role with much range. Helen Hunt had a more solidly written character and she had to work against one of the biggest scene-stealers in Hollywood and absolutely held her own. I totally thought she deserved it that year. Yes, Judi Dench is a better actress, but she just didn't get the best role that year. An interesting role in an interesting film, but nothing more than that.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:56pm

Thanks, vbplayer!

best12bars, I have never understood why people knocked Helen Hunt's Oscar win. I thought she was marvelous and I rooted for her. On this forum, the typical answer is "well, she was up against four esteemed and prestigious British actresses" or something to that effect. What? The same thing was said about Marisa Tomei's win. Coincidentally, she was also nominated along with three Brits and one Australian.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 3:58pm

The best portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in recent memory was, for me, Cate Blanchett, who lost to the little ball of fluff that was Gwyneth Paltrow's performace in "Shakespeare in Love."

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 4:03pm

I thought Helen was great...never had a problem with her win...

Basinger on the other hand.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 4:37pm

Anthony Hopkins holds the record for shortest on screen time to win a Best Actor Academy Award with only a little over 16 minuts of screentime.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 4:39pm

To all you Helen Hunt lovers:

Any number of actresses could have played Hunt's role and given it more richness than she did. I agree with eyeluvbrdwy, some of Hunt's choices were sitcom choices. Very few actresses could have pulled off "Mrs. Brown."

Updated On: 8/9/06 at 04:39 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 4:40pm

I really DO think you can give an effective (and even Oscar-winning) performance in that amount of time. It is a "supporting" category, after all. I definitely don't think it should be judged with a stop watch.

I suppose I agree with that. Except in the case of the year Straight won, Piper Laurie was completely robbed of that Oscar! These days, I just don't care about awards.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/9/06 at 4:43pm

Was that the year Piper Laurie was nominated for CARRIE?