C'mon Hollywood: C'mon Oscars! Grow a pair!
Jan. 6, 2012
But is it just me, or are the awards this year a little, obvious? For evidence, look no further than the always boring Golden Globes. I know, I know- folks are only watching it to see Ricky Gervais take the piss out of Hollywood (something the Hollywood Foreign Press seems to be all too aware of). This year, there aren’t any real whoppers, like last year when ALICE IN WONDERLAND and THE TOURIST walked away with nominations, but it’s still a boring slate. How does Leonardo DiCaprio get nominated for the average J.EDGAR, but a guy like Michael Shannon gets ignored for TAKE SHELTER, or Demian Bichir for A BETTER LIFE. And why is Jessica Chastain raking up all these nominations for her goofy role in THE HELP, when she was probably the least memorable person in the film. This begs to be addressed, as it seems obvious campaigning and not merit is responsible for this- which is particularly shocking as Chastain actually deserves to be nominated in that category, but for two other films; TREE OF LIFE, and (especially) TAKE SHELTER.
Chastain’s not the only case where a performer seems to be getting recognized for the wrong film. How is it that the Globes listed Ryan Gosling as a nominee for both THE IDES OF MARCH and CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE, while overlooking the best performance he gave this year- DRIVE. Speaking of that film, it’s inevitable that DRIVE is going to get shut out of most major categories (except Albert Brooks, who seems a lock for a Best Supporting Actor nod), when it’s one of the best reviewed movies of the year. That said, I don’t think the Academy has the stones to nominate it for Best Picture or Best Director for Nicolas Winding Refn, even though it’s well-deserved.
Granted, the Globes are a joke- but a lot of these questionable choices are bound to be repeated at the Oscars, which is why I’m writing this article. Shouldn’t the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences ignore the heavy studio campaigning, and seek out the films and performers who truly deserve to be nominated? Take TYRANNOSAUR. Anyone who’s seen that film will tell you that two of the finest performances of the year came from Peter Mullan and Olivia Colman for that film. Will they be nominated? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. The dog from THE ARTIST has a better chance of getting nominated.
Even someone like Brad Pitt in MONEYBALL, while excellent, seems like a stretch for the Best Actor nomination he’s bound to get. I mean, the Oscar’s are supposed to represent the five BEST of the year. Does he really deserve a nomination more than Shannon in TAKE SHELTER? Or Gosling in DRIVE?
Another performer I desperately want to see nominated is Elizabeth Olsen for MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. Granted, the best actress race is tight this year (tighter than Best Actor actually), but she needs to be looked at. Carefully.
But, enough of my complaining. I turn the argument over to you dear reader. Who/what do you think is going to be overlooked by the academy this year? Make your case, and strikeback below!
| Extra Tidbit: | I think WARRIOR's a lost cause at this point, but I'd still like to see Nick Nolte get nominated. |
|---|
| Source: | JoBlo.com |
|---|
The first thing I thought when I saw this was
Oscars/Etc. in Today's World
In sports, there is a champion. In whatever sport it is, each team comes out at the beginning of every season with the same goal: To win the championship. And by the end of the season, every single team except for 1 didn't reach their goal. And make no mistake: That IS the goal. They make have star players or high attendance or get in the playoffs,
In sports, there is a champion. In whatever sport it is, each team comes out at the beginning of every season with the same goal: To win the championship. And by the end of the season, every single team except for 1 didn't reach their goal. And make no mistake: That IS the goal. They make have star players or high attendance or get in the playoffs, but there's only 1 unforgettable payoff: To win it all.
Films are not like that. I would say 5% of films being made (if that) going into a production thinking "Let's go out and make the Best Picture winner of the year." And because of that, films can sustain such longer success & relevance even if they don't win "major" awards.
I know I'm stating the obvious, but I think most powerful directors (Nolan, Fincher, Scorsese, etc.) or actors (Bale, Pitt, Downey, etc.) don't really care about the whole Oscar/awards circuit. Would they like an Oscar? Sure. Are they more interested in making films that will stand the test of time, and be remembered & watched 10-20 years down the road? Definitely. To me, THAT is the real award. And like history has shown, so many of these "Oscar-winning films" live & die during awards season, and never get touched again. Not all, but so many.
I remember reading a quote from Matt Damon saying that awards should be given out 10 years later, sort of like when MLB votes on the Hall of Fame (although they do it 5 years after someone retires). If you looked back at 2000, for instance, would people still vote "Gladiator" Best Picture over "Almost Famous," or "Requiem for a Dream?" Maybe, maybe not. But again, a shelf life is much more valuable than a statue these days.
Shame should win the acting oscars
While I don't agree with every nomination or win, I certainly just don't think it is worth bemoaning so much over. Looking at the last couple best pic winners, King's Speech was a movie that looked different from others and told a story that many generations could appreciate. Hurt Locker starred no name actors and took a unique perspective on a war movie. Slumdog
While I don't agree with every nomination or win, I certainly just don't think it is worth bemoaning so much over. Looking at the last couple best pic winners, King's Speech was a movie that looked different from others and told a story that many generations could appreciate. Hurt Locker starred no name actors and took a unique perspective on a war movie. Slumdog is an amazing movie from start to finish that again, had no "typically hyped" names attached to it.
While I think the whole spectacle of the award show is absurd and annoying, the only reason nominations are hyped or popular or expected to win is because of columns like this that say "this movie is expected to win." Or, maybe movies that get "hype" are liked by a lot of people. Crazy notion, I'm sure.
While you are at it, complain about a studio not spending enough money to get a movie like Warrior marketed better and in front of more people's eyes. Or maybe complain that not enough people like a niche movie like Drive. Or complain that a movie like Take Shelter is something that is completely unknown to anyone who doesn't visit JoBlo.com.
GLOBES, OSCARS ...
Imagine the shit fit the site will have if its beloved Drive or Warrior does not get a single nomination? Also for the love of God i hope Bridesmaids does not get a screenplay nom like EW is saying in it's current issue.
Imagine the shit fit the site will have if its beloved Drive or Warrior does not get a single nomination? Also for the love of God i hope Bridesmaids does not get a screenplay nom like EW is saying in it's current issue.
Should have had the Muppets hosting.
As for the nature of the awards, obviously I'm never gonna agree with every choice they make so there's no point in whining about that. I just hope that the week before the ceremony each winner isn't boringly obvious as usual.
THE IMPORTANT ONE
Honestly, there's enough awards out there that they really just don't seem to mean that much anymore. So forgive me if I show apathy towards whatever movie wins the Crisco-Trojanz Best Picture nomination.
Honestly, there's enough awards out there that they really just don't seem to mean that much anymore. So forgive me if I show apathy towards whatever movie wins the Crisco-Trojanz Best Picture nomination.
true
A safe bet is always...safe.
I used to love the surprises.
I used to love the surprises.
All awards are a joke aside from the ones you personally give
Well, I mean... it's really not. What's good is what an individual thinks is good, and vice versa with bad. I don't give a shit if they
Well, I mean... it's really not. What's good is what an individual thinks is good, and vice versa with bad. I don't give a shit if they say blahblahblah is the best picture of the year, because it's happened before and it's happened again where I disagree with it.
People don't NEED to agree with it though, they just NEED to realize that it's really not that important. It's just an overhyped, over-publicized opinion, no more right or wrong than your own. Your opinion on the best performance, best movie, best score, whatever is just as valid as 'the academy's' or whoever's opinion gets broadcast on national TV (which is the only real difference between theirs and your own)
the defining moment of the oscars in history for me was when eminem won the oscar for best song...that was a fucking tragedy...the moment my idol sold his soul. hes not had a good album since. just goes to
the defining moment of the oscars in history for me was when eminem won the oscar for best song...that was a fucking tragedy...the moment my idol sold his soul. hes not had a good album since. just goes to show the oscars will only award to the people who will serve them best in the future...sorry about spelling etc but im high
@bluemookie
joe nice to meet you.
just wanted to negate your comment. carry on
joe nice to meet you.
just wanted to negate your comment. carry on
But what the fuck to I know. I don't even watch these shows.
But what the fuck to I know. I don't even watch these shows.