Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Heath Ledger Remembrance Forum
OSCAR TRIBUTE????
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: atz75 on February 04, 2008, 11:52:39 pm ---Heya Sheriff!
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. 100%. This is still me on the subject of BBM and the Oscars ---->
On one hand it would be nice if the Oscars awarded Heath something, posthumously. But, at this point, I agree that the Oscars have lost credibility (with me at least). And this goes beyond Brokeback... with the snub of BBM I've learned a lot about the Oscars' dubious track-record of snubbing first class films and people quite frequently.
So, after looking at this thread, I performed my little ritual when I find myself getting all upset about the Oscars. I went to imdb and did some rather cursory research on other major cinematic figures and films that have been snubbed by Oscar. Heath and Brokeback are in really good company (and that said, the total number of other non-Oscar wins for BBM is still jaw-droppingly impressive when you compare it to many historic films).
The best example of a ridiculous Oscar snub was Citizen Kane, which of course many people believe is the best film ever made. So, in this case, history has really proven Oscar wrong. In 1942 it was nominated for 9 Oscars. It only won one for Best Screenplay. It lost in the categories of Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Music/Score, Best Sound, and Best Director. The fact that it lost in the categories of cinematography and director is really, really laughable... since in almost all standard histories of film, Kane is cited as one of the best/ most innovative examples of both of those categories.
Here are several, somewhat random examples of other towering figures in film history snubbed by Oscar:
Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar.
Cary Grant never won an Oscar.
Lauren Bacall still has never won an Oscar.
I think these 4 examples are shocking. They've all been nominated, but none of these have won. These examples are reassuring to me because they prove without any doubt that a person or film can have a major, major impact of cinematic history without Oscars' recognition. And, in some sense, these snubs make Brokeback's 3 wins look very good.
I don't mean to be totally and completely negative about the Oscars. Sometimes they do get it right or make good gestures of recognition. But, the number of serious "misses" in Oscars' history really makes me wonder about the clout that this one, singular award ceremony holds.
--- End quote ---
Many have been disappointed about oscar winners over the years. Heath's is a notable one. But, we have to recognize that the voting is also subjective. for example, i personally see no acting reasons why Grant or Bacall should have risen to the top. Box office, yes; good movies, yes. But the oscars are usually awarded for other so-called "artistic" reasons, and sometimes to make up for a lifetime of work (John Wayne). And Grant did get an honorary oscar when all was said and done.
In Ledger's case, I felt he did a better job than Hoffman. Also felt BBM was a better film than Crash. But, again, hard to say who is right when it comes to subjectivity.
Actually more exemplory of 'wrong' wins is the historical precidence of how the awards are doled out. for example, ONLY five films in all of academy history won both best director and best screenplay but did not go on to win best film. What's worse is that in four of those five films, the actor won best actor.
This makes A Place in the Sun and BBM the only films in history to have won director and writing but not an acting award or best movie. Hmmmm.
Brown Eyes:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on February 05, 2008, 03:56:22 pm ---Many have been disappointed about oscar winners over the years. Heath's is a notable one. But, we have to recognize that the voting is also subjective. for example, i personally see no acting reasons why Grant or Bacall should have risen to the top. Box office, yes; good movies, yes. But the oscars are usually awarded for other so-called "artistic" reasons, and sometimes to make up for a lifetime of work (John Wayne). And Grant did get an honorary oscar when all was said and done.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I think Grant receiving the honorary Oscar is an example of the Oscars feeling guilty/ being embarassed over the long-running slight of Cary Grant. I wasn't counting the honorary Oscar before because it seems like a very different thing than winning a regulation Oscar in a normal category. I think Hitchcock may have received an honorary Oscar too... but I'm not sure.
I personally think Cary Grant not winning a regular Oscar is one of the great scandals in Hollywood honestly.
Can you imagine how different film history would be without Cary Grant? I've been a T.A. for two film courses and films with Cary Grant were always heavily represented in the syllabi. Especially North by Northwest (which of course was a double Oscar slight- Grant and Hitchcock).
Anyway, I was just thinking of big examples of Oscar slights off the top of my head last night... this wasn't meant to end up being a discussion (necessarily) of the merits of the examples given... I'm sure there are tons of other examples to be found with regards to Oscar snubs.
But yes, my general point here is that an actor or a film can have an enormous impact on film history without anything to do with the Oscars or any other fickle/politically driven awards show.
MaineWriter:
--- Quote from: atz75 on February 05, 2008, 04:12:39 pm ---But yes, my general point here is that an actor or a film can have an enormous impact on film history without anything to do with the Oscars or any other fickle/politically driven awards show.
--- End quote ---
And that's the key point. The process is completely subjective and probably in many cases, politically driven. It is pretty much an accepted fact that Crash won (and BBM didn't) because of a variety of behind the scenes campaigns that were waged. Keep in mind, too, that once a person is a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, they are a member for life and get all the voting privileges. Members openly admit that they haven't seen movies, but they vote for them; they haven't seen the performances of all the actors/actresses, but they vote anyway. And then you get into the categories where a member might not have any knowledge--and they vote on that too!
It only takes two minutes of Googling to find dozens of Academy "mistakes" like those you mentioned, Amanda. They have been making these mistakes since the inception of the Awards. Clearly, the Academy doesn't see these problems as mistakes, otherwise, you might assume they'd want to fix it, right? But since they aren't changing anything, they'll just keep on doing what they're doing, with the outcome that the Awards, overall, become less and less relevant to more and more people, including those in the industry.
This is why I have read many comments that the Guild Awards (Actors, Directors, Writers, etc) are more representative. Actors are voting for actors; directors vote for directors, etc. The results I have seen from these awards are more "satisfying" in that I feel like the proper winners are being selected.
L
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: MaineWriter on February 05, 2008, 04:27:27 pm ---Clearly, the Academy doesn't see these problems as mistakes, otherwise, you might assume they'd want to fix it, right?
--- End quote ---
I think they probably don't fix it because they can't change it. Like an umpire's bad call, there's not much you can do but grumble once the game is over.
One thing the Academy does do to "fix" mistakes, though, is to give those honorary Oscars to people who've never won awards, or give makeup Oscars for actors who should really have gotten them for some previous role.
It occurred to me that, on that basis, they might nominate Heath for the Joker. But as Mel pointed out, a posthumous award to an actor in a genre film -- a superhero one at that -- has a lot going against it.
Sheriff Roland:
I still believe that, based on the talk about Heath's performance as the Joker, he is likely to get nominated (and possibly win) on merit.
He's apparently given a Ennis like out of the ordinary, tour-de-force performance and because of that, and in spite of the fact that it's a genre film and character, I believe it is quite possible that he will be nominated. Why has virtually all the promotion of the movie, and the 'wow' comments been centered on the Joker? His outstanding performance.
Course this is all still just speculation, but I chose to believe.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version