Best Actor Oscar 2002

Russell should have nailed that award but @!#$ does happen these days. If he'd taken the oscar this year instead of last for Gladiator (which he was awesome in - but at heart, was written as a very one dimensional role), the cherry would have been twice as sweet. Imagine that, three consecutive nominations and then on the final, falling ass-backward into Oscar Glory.

Oh well.

Who cares if he gets in a few biffs. Surely that doesn't draw away from his performance, which, lets face it, has raised the benchmark in the history of screen acting. He has every reason to demand respect. He is not paid twenty million a film to 'respect his elders' and be on his 'best behaviour'. He is paid to produce the exemplar final product - which there is no argument, he does.

But, on reflection, Brando did miss out on the Oscar for 'Streetcar.' So this isn't the first time that this has happenned.

Stay cool, everyone.

Silly of me, I always thought that Oscars (and other similar awards) were meant for excellence in acting , or whatever, excellence being the operative word.
Russell Crowe ACTING in Gladiator? you have to be joking.
Must admit that he did redeem himself in A Beautiful Mind tho. I am now prepared to admit that he can actually act. He was generally a damn sight better before the swelled head syndrome affected him

Thou puny elf-skinned boar-pig! (Nothing personal in this)

If the Oscars are indeed an indication of excellence in acting skills, please explain how Gwynneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love) beat Cate Blancett ( Elizabeth) to the little statue a few years back.
I would suggest it's a case of 'not what you know....' and the size of the campaign your studio can manage on your behalf.

I agree Kyla, although I have not yet seen either of the films with this years winning actors i am left wondering why Judy Dench in 'Iris' didn't win.

Thanks for the feedback Ms Davis.

But a bit of decorum please, remember where you are.

I'm sure Judi Dench doesn't go around insulting people who don't agree with her. (Nothing personal in this)

With apologies to Clark Gable, "frankly, my dears, who gives a damn?"

Kyla Winslet wrote:
-------------------------------
>>If the Oscars are indeed an indication of excellence in acting skills, please explain....


Hi Kyla

It's a popular misconception that awards like the Oscars correlate with excellence.

Any award system for the Arts judged by a relatively small committee (eg. the Board of the Academy) is only going to be representative of that small group's opinion, at that singular moment in time. Why one wins over another is more an arbitrary lottery than a true reflection of value. And why are some nominated in the first place, when some deserving others miss out on getting even that far? (Baz?)

By increasing the size of the judging panel, a more representative opinion can be found (eg People's Choice at the Logies) but that still doesn't guarantee awards are given for excellence; it rather indicates popularity, which is something quite different.

Often a production/artist of excellence will win the popular vote, which perpetuates the myth of correlation. But the popular production/artist doesn't always win, which creates misplaced controversy and outrage.

The larger the panel, the less likely it can consist entirely of "expert" judges, so we discredit its opinion. But the smaller the panel, the more we doubt that it's members are representative of our concept of "expert", and so we discredit its opinion anyway.

Who can really define "excellence" anyway, by means of concrete example? When the subject matter is entertainment, how do we make definitive value judgements? Who are the experts? Who can account for taste? It's all pretty vague and arbitrary.

People have criticised this year's Academy's for being overtly political, but really - when has it ever NOT been political?




I'd like to thank the Academy, Mum, Dad and my lawyer.

Cheers,
Craig

<8>-/====/-------

Small clarification: The entire 6000 membership of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) are entitled to vote on the Oscars not just the board. The only awards that are chosen only by the board are the Scientific and Technical Awards, Honorary Awards, Special Achievement Awards and other special honors.
Nominations are handled by the individual branches of AMPAS. The director branch chooses the nominees for the director category, writers choose the writer nominees, etc. Nominations for foreign language and documentary categories are made by large committees of members drawn from all branches. Best Picture nominations are determined by vote of the entire membership.

Dude Wheres My Car should have got an award....for something... huh?...anyone???? ;0)

Dickson Peter Ybanez wrote:
>
> Dude Wheres My Car should have got an award....for
> something... huh?...anyone???? ;0)

Weren't the Razzies designed for just such movies? 8-)

[%sig%]

Hi buddy!

I'm surprised to hear that your perception of the Oscar "process" is as if that is a comitee of scientists trying to give an award, which makes more sence I guess, than a bunch of people who are deeply influenced by politics and commercialism. Most of the members are American and all of them surely represent high society. That's why it doesn't surprise me that it took them so long to finally give an award to black actors. The jury that you are talking about is the same that spied to authorities and put famous actors on trial in the 60's and accused them for being communists, &tc. Art is the most relative and subjective of all human activities and it is likely to be more(subjective) brilliantly achieved by some guy born and raised in the jungle, than in Hollywood. As far as the awards for International movies are concerned, I bet that must be the ugliest process of all, for instance let me predict that after all the @!#$ happening between US and Arabs, they(Arabs) are never going to get an award, no matter how good their films are. Therefore I recommend that it would be better if those films were subject to the judgement of our own little worlds, instead of letting others judge for us.
As far as Russell Crowe is concerned, I would rather imagine him running a Kebap Shop than being an actor, although I have to admitt that I rarely change my opinion, as I did when I watched "A Beautiful Mind".

Cheerz
D

Brigida Desebrock wrote:
> Most of the members are American and all of them surely
> represent high society.

That's not surprising given that most (if not all) of the Academy members are millionaires.

> The jury that you are talking about is
> the same that spied to authorities and put famous actors on
> trial in the 60's and accused them for being communists, &tc.

The McCarthy hearings were in the early 50s which means that most of the people actively involved are either dead or extremely old (perhaps both =).

> Art is the most relative and subjective of all human
> activities

Truth is the most relative and subjective of all human activities.

> As far as the awards for
> International movies are concerned, I bet that must be the
> ugliest process of all, for instance let me predict that
> after all the @!#$ happening between US and Arabs,
> they(Arabs) are never going to get an award, no matter how
> good their films are.

Interesting theory. Have the Japanese ever won an Oscar? Kurosawa was give an honourary award but never won one (he was actually only nominated once).

> As far as Russell Crowe is concerned, I would rather
> imagine him running a Kebap Shop than being an actor,

Willing to tell him that to his face? =).

[%sig%]

Hi!

I enjoyed your comments and I would say that some of them stand, but I supect that the rest do..

Starting with the bottom line, I know that the sweetest fruit is out of reach, but unfortunately for many people that means comfort and millions of $, while I would say that the best comfort that "being seen and heard" gives you is the power of your voice, which in this case takes an enormously literal meaning, even if your voice has no rhetorical power and your ideas are the dullest of all. I would consider myself the luckiest person to see my voice powered by the media, but most of the Stars worldwide take it as a commodity, therefore they have got nothing to offer, unless you are very interested in the brand of their underwear. Sweet fruits are hard to reach because they are what all creatures, great and small are looking for, but a small creature doesn't grow any bigger when it reaches the fruit. I don't thing that getting there, will make me any greater, but only enjoy my greatness.

Second, you say that truth is the most subjective and relative of all activities. Personally, I have never considered truth an activity. Every activity in human life attempts to separate us from truth, as the only way to avoid chaos. What I call truth is going to a grocery store and taking whatever you want without paying, or taking away somebody's life and property without being punished. What we call perfection is in fect the greatest imperfection that we have achieved so far. In the scope of subjectivity, objectivity and therefore relativity, Arts and Science stand on opposite sides, and you must admitt, the latter is the only a tiny part of the truth that we are trying to embrace.The only point where Arts and Science collide is philosophy, or I would rather call it the right we have to remain "partly convinced". I would also name it "life" and the incapability of some peple to reach the abstract is why they never get one..

Cheez
Dritan

"Truth is the most relative and subjective of all human activities."

I disagree. I think truth exists it's just that we humans exist in a subjective reality and for the most part are incapable of distinguishing it.

And as for the theory about Japanese and Arabs not winning Oscars I wonder what the total ratio of American vs non-American winners is? Are people playing the racism card here?

Cheers
Nath

Nath wrote:
>
> And as for the theory about Japanese and Arabs not winning
> Oscars I wonder what the total ratio of American vs
> non-American winners is? Are people playing the racism card
> here?


I don't think you can really blame the Americans - it IS their awards. Somehow this notion of them being international & inter-racial has crept in, but they're not really. Why else would they distinguish a "foreign film" category?

The main reason the Japanese and Arabic filmmakers don't win Oscars is they don't make them in English.


Cheers
Craig

<8>-/=====/-------

But it's FUN blaming the Americans!

Cheers
Nath



Thou yeasty reeling-ripe bugbear!

crgwllms wrote:

> I don't think you can really blame the Americans - it IS
> their awards. Somehow this notion of them being international
> & inter-racial has crept in, but they're not really. Why else
> would they distinguish a "foreign film" category?

There is no foreign film category. There is, however, a foreign language category.

> The main reason the Japanese and Arabic filmmakers don't win
> Oscars is they don't make them in English.

For the mainstream awards, you're right, but how many Arabic or Japanese film-makers have nabbed the foreign language award?

[%sig%]

Perhaps the Americans are as challenged in their award-giving as they are challenged in their politics?

Auctor wrote:

> For the mainstream awards, you're right, but how many Arabic
> or Japanese film-makers have nabbed the foreign language award?

I get to answer my own question. The Japanese have won the foreign language award three times:
1951--Rashomon
1954--Gate of Hell
1955--Samurai: Legend of Musashi

The closest to an Arabic winner of the FL award is an Algerian film:
1969--Z

Not really Arabic at all.


Thou gleeking fly-bitten hedge-pig!

[%sig%]