Oscar Nominations

There's a longer thread about this on the OT board.

Kate Winslet got the one nomination she greatly deserved. Two would've been two losses for her, which would've upset me almost as much as Julianne Moore losing out twice in 2003.

Jamie Foxx's supporting actor bid for Collateral was a total scam. If I were voting, he wouldn't have even made my top five for his impersonation of Ray Charles. Clint Eastwood's performance in Million Dollar Baby is nothing spectacular. One director nomination should've been enough. In a year this competitive, why did the Academy bother giving so many people more than one nomination????

I hate that Chris Rock and other people are issuing statements to the press along the lines of "I'm going to kill someone if Jamie Foxx doesn't win this award." If I were nominated for Best Lead Actor, I'd boycott the ceremony for that reason.

This is such an off-topic board discussion

---

I've said it before, and I will say it again: I think that "Kill Bill" has been unrightfully ignored for the past two years. Don't even get me started that Thurman and Carradine were snubbed for the best performances of their careers. Very few actresses have worked as hard as Thurman did in this role. Damn Miramax for not campaigning these films. Oh, well. Both films are on their way to being classics. That's something that "Finding Neverland", and several other nominees, will not achieve.

And, as I have also said before, Jamie Foxx should not have been nominated for "Collateral", and I will tell you why: The role of Max is the lead. Personally, that shows great disrespect to actors who gave brilliant supporting performances. And I'm not specifically referring to Carradine. I'm talking about Paul Bettany, Peter Sarsgaard, Liev Schreiber, Mark Wahlberg, Lucas Black, and even Colin Farrell. All of whom were more than worthy candidates for this category.

And why were "Ray" and "Neverland" nominated over such strong films as "Vol. 2", "Eternal "Sunshine...", "Collateral", "Dogville", "Kinsey", "Hotel Rwanda", "Garden State", etc.? Now, I am positive that the AMPAS doesn't screen their films. (deeeep breath)

I hate the Oscars.

PS - Does anyone else consider it scary that "Shark Tale" got a nomination?

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 10:16 AM

They nominated Foxx in both categories because it's quite obvious that he won't win best actor. Which he totally does NOT deserve and so to avoid an "outrage", he'll walk away with a trophy, nonetheless. Surely, you all don't think any of these nods/wins have anything to do with actual merit, do you? It's no different than the Tonys. It's a popularity contest, at best, disguised as some high prestige accolade. Pu-leeze. It's all about who has the most high powered *machine* behind them.

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 10:37 AM

The nominations were pretty fair this year, I think, except for the egregious non-inclusion of Paul Giamatti for Best Actor. It's ridiculous, especially since he's either won or been nominated for just about every Best Actor award this year EXCEPT the Oscar. It seems like every year the Academy has to try to surprise us, seemingly just to show that they're the Academy and can do whatever they want.

Furthermore, I don't think Alan Alda belongs on the list--his nomination should have gone (I think) either David Carradine (Kill Bill Vol. 2) or Liev Schreiber (The Manchurian Candidate). Kind of ironic that Alda and Schreiber will be working together this spring in "Glengarry Glenn Ross."

Oh, and Jamie Foxx getting TWO nominations? Give me a break. His performance in "Collateral" was competent, but nothing more. Wasn't his nomination for "Ray" enough?

That's right, Baritone. And that is what makes his "Collateral" nod even more puzzling.

And what the hell is Clint Eastwood doing on the Best Actor list, instead of Jeff Bridges, Giamatti, or Kevin Bacon?

Munk, a lot of people were expecting The Polar Express to be nominated over Shark Tale...

And I can't stand Quentin Tarantino or his race politics. It's bad enough that the racist and homophobic Pulp Fiction received all of those nominations. Then he bored the heck out of me with Jackie Brown -- which attempted to give Pam Grier (who gave a terrific performance) a chance to appear in a role far more respectful than the ones she assumed for the blaxploitation films, but was a failure even in its race politics due to the odious representations of African-American men. I don't know why Tarantino is this way but I'm glad that people see through him.

I think most of us have seen it....and I think most of us will disagree with you and say that this movie is not a masterpiece and that it deserved no more nominations than it actually got. If you think PHANTOM deserves to be nominated for best picture and best actress, then clearly you haven't seen the other movies this year. And if it's the 5th best movie you've seen in your entire life, I encourage you to see some of the best movies this year: ETERNAL SUNSHINE, SIDEWAYS, KINSEY, BAD EDUCATION, FINDING NEVERLAND, MARIA FULL OF GRACE, VERA DRAKE, and even the lesser movies - BEFORE SUNSET, KILL BILL 2, GARDEN STATE, etc. Phantom doesn't hold a candle to ANY of them.

---

Some thoughts...

1.) "Vera Drake" will be released a little more widely into theaters. It came and went very quickly, but it will be back for Staunton's and Leigh's nominations. Both "Closer" and "Ray" are gone from my city and those films will be visible for viewing again (I believe "Ray" is out on video in a few short weeks and "Closer" will be back for the Supporting Actor/Actress performances).

2.) Jaime Foxx receiving a nomination in both categories, in my mind, is a waste of a nomination for Best Supportig Actor. I believe Foxx will win Best Actor (Denzel Washington broke down some major doors in recent years for other talented African American actors as did Halle Berry) but he will lose the Best Supporting Actor race. Neither Holly Hunter nor Emma Thompson won Supporting oscars the years they received nominations. The Best Supporting Actor race will come down to a three way between Church, Owens, and Freeman. Foxx will not win both awards- they would NEVER let that happen. I would favor Owens, but Freeman could easily take it. I don't see "Sideways" pulling out wins for either Church or Madsen (in Supporting Actress).

3.) This is the year for "The Aviator." It's big, it's loud, it's historical, it's got big names and the Academy LOVES that. Plus, it's got Martin Scorcese at the helm and they are just itching to give him his due. As someone else mentioned, it's not necessarily the performance you give, rather the body of work...just look at Beatrice Straight's win for Network. She was in that film for 2 scenes and she took the Oscar for supporting actress. Instead of her work in that film (which I think was very, very good), they awarded her an Oscar for her body of acting work.

Personally, Tarantino is one of the greatest American filmmakers. The racist and homophobic "Pulp Fiction"? My best friend is gay, and he adores that movie.

As for David Carradine...

The way you tell a good actor from a great one is what they can do with the part is given to them, regardless of size. Bill could have been played over-the-top, or as a straight-on villain. But Carradine did something much more interesting: He made Bill a really cool guy. He wrapped his voice and acting talent around each line and created an altogether remarkable character. The final sequence with Thurman and Carradine is a master class in acting, and no one has convinced me otherwise.

It's actually not so bad that "Kill Bill" wasn't recognized by the AMPAS. It would have been great for it to happen, but "Kill Bill" will become a cult classic either way. That is something that very few films achieve, whether or not they get Oscar recognition. Lord knows that "Finding Neverland" won't stand the test of time.

On another note, here is a list of people and films that I felt deserved some Oscar recognition (some to a lesser extent than others):

"Mean Girls" - Though, it did get a WGA nod. IMHO, the most underrated comedy of the year
"Life Aquatic" - Disliked by some, loved by me
"Dogville" - I was deeply affected by this film
"Friday Night Lights" - A future sports classic
"Sky Captain..." - Visually, a masterpiece. The best example of pure fun that 2004 had to offer
"The Bourne Supremacy" - (A rare sequel that surpasses the original)
Gael Garcia Bernal, Bad Education
Liam Neeson, Kinsey (Never has a genius been so entertaining and charming)
Jeff Bridges, The Door in the Floor
Javier Bardem, The Sea Inside
Sean Penn, The Assassination of Richard Nixon (Much better here than he was in "Mystic River")
Kevin Bacon, The Woodsman
Uma Thurman, Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Paul Giamatti, Sideways (I can't believe he was snubbed)
David Carradine (Why, O why, didn't he get nominated?)
Julie Delpy, Before Sunset
Emile Hirsch, The Girl Next Door (Regardless of what you thought of the film, there is no denying that Hirsch is going to be a star)
Mark Wahlberg, I Heart Huckabees (what a pleasant surprise)
Bill Murray, The Life Aquatic (surpasses his turn in "Rushmore" by giving his most complex performance yet)
Christian Bale, The Machinist
Billy Crudup, Stage Beauty
Neve Campbell, When Will I Be Loved
Nicole Kidman, Birth
Paul Bettany, Dogville
Bryce Dallas Howard, The Village
Laura Dern, We Don't Live Here Anymore

Updated On: 1/25/05 at 02:57 PM

"Personally, Tarantino is one of the greatest American filmmakers. The racist and homophobic "Pulp Fiction"? My best friend is gay, and he adores that movie."

I hate this kind of logic. I'm a gay man, too, and I don't adore this racist and homophobic film. I have never heard the word "n*" used as gratuitously in a "great American film" as it is in Pulp Fiction, and what makes it all the more devastating is that Tarantino has white men using it to address a black man who just swallows it with indifference. There is absolutely no commentary in the film on racism... just plain old unadulterated racism. And how about that small "dead n*" they shoot to death toward the beginning of the film... you know, the guy we learn little about except that he's a small "dead n*" that they must hide?

Also, the whole scene where the guys rape the black man and then Bruce Willis comes along to save him by killing the homosexuals (or men engaged homosexuality)? Subtly racist (not that this matters much given the overt racism that's apparent in much of the rest of the film) and homophobic. Watch the film again and you'll see it.

It's not exactly a hidden truth. I sat in a room last year with thirty people all saying the exact. same. thing. And we screened and scrutinized clips from the film to support our claims.