You know, every year when I think the Academy can’t suck anymore than it does by blowing off a great performance, they transcend themselves the following year.
How in the HÊLL can Richard Gere be bypassed for “Chicago” while John C. Reilly was nominated in the same category. Reilly was very moving in his portrayal, yes, but Gere was outstanding. And when a film gets thirteen nominations and Gere is ignored, that’s a slap in the face. For that matter, when Christopher Walken is nominated for his perfectly good, but not outstanding, work in “Catch Me If You Can” instead of Gere, it’s a kick in the crotch besides.
It was bad enough when the Academy ignored Jim Carrey in “The Truman Show” and then “Man in the Moon,” but this is truly bending over backwards.
PAD
• 
What still annoys me is how they can nominate a movie for Best Picture, and not the director… I mean, The Two Towers didn’t just spontaneously appear…
I know they reflect different nominating procedures (everyone nominates on BP but only directors can nominate in their category), but c’mon…
Hopefully after Return of the King we’ll see Jackson get SOME recognition…
I always give Peter Jackson a whup-whup for “Meet the Feebles”.
Don’t bloody count on it. The Academy pulled out all the stops to honor the mediocre “a Beautiful Mind” last year so they wouldn’t have to give any of the big awards to FoTR. This year they barely bothered to throw in the special effects awards. If it weren’t for virtually every critic on the face of the planet giving TTT a glowing review, they would have bypassed it completely.
Hopefully after Return of the King we’ll see Jackson get SOME recognition…
There’s a set of folks who’re thinking the same thing…basically that since Academy members know that he’ll be directing LOTR:ROK next year and have every reason to believe that it’ll be as well-done as the first two, that they’ve tended to overlook this second installment in the trilogy.
Focusing on the positive, at least Spirited Away got a nomination for feature-length animated movie. The lame nominees last year (after such a hue and cry about setting up the category in the first place) made me dubious as to whether or not they’d actually nominate Miyazaki for what’s almost surely the most innovative animated feature released in the U.S. in 2002…
for the record, gere was pushed for lead actor so the supporting nods have nothing to do with it. it was caine that took his nod.
A reason, I heard on the news, was that Richard Gere was pushing for lead actor rather then others if they had taken the role would have done supporting. The split between the two (lead vs. supporting) caused his name not be high enough.
They wanted Gere for best actor? Bad move. Reilly had nearly as much screen time.
PAD
I don’t know why anyone even cares WHAT those snobs to anymore. It is NOT like they are a body of actors most of us even care about anymore, let alone to ego-driven actors of today.
It is all a huge joke. Two years ago, I made a vow never to watch this award show again. This year they have only reinforced my thoughts.
Oddly, I just watched “Man on the Moon” last night. A very good performance by Carrey, and a good follow-up to “The Truman Show,” but not one that knocked my socks off. But the rest of the film didn’t do much for me.
Haven’t seen “Chicago” yet, but do agree about Walken in “Catch Me.” I would have preferred to see Bernard Hill get a nod for his work as Theoden, but apparently TTT had no actors in it. Anyway, Walken was also nominated for a Razzie (I forget for what). So there is a karmic balance, perhaps.
Anyway, Walken was also nominated for a Razzie (I forget for what).
I think it was for The Country Bears.
I loved Gere in Chicago. I’m not a big Gere fan normally so that’s saying a lot coming from me that I liked him in something.
I am disappointed that Jackson didn’t get a nomination for Two Towers and I would have loved a best picture nomination for Catch Me if You Can. I would have liked to have seen a bit more diversity in the nominations but hey…..that’s showbiz!
Jason J.
Ewan McGregor was overlooked, too, for “Moulin Rouge” last year. I blame a conspiracy against leading men in musicals.
I wish I could say that I was surprised whenever the nominees were announced, but such is not the case. Gere did a spectacular job and will be overlooked. This last year was a particularly good year in the moviehouse, so the competition was pretty heavy, which is actually a good thing, considering the number of years where the pickings were thin and the winners so painfully obvious.
Fantasy films have a long and glorious history of nominations for technical awards but few acting honors, which is unfortunate, but I sometimes wonder if the fans don’t take things a little personally. I recall an issue of STARLOG magazine with a lettercol filled to the brim with letters from disgruntled fanboys bellowing about the vast unfairness of The Empire Strikes Back‘s lack of a Best Picture nomination while honors were accorded to Raging Bull and Ordinary People. Don’t get me wrong … I am a fanboy, a rennie (Renaissance festival performer, to the uninitiated), and an unabashed lover of things fantastic. But sometimes we can be our own worst enemies.
I couldn’t believe that neither The Two Towers nor Road to Perdition got nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.
What utter bûllšhìŧ.
I wondered if one reason Gere wasn’t nominated was because people were bending over backward to avoid giving the pundits more hot air to blow over “liberal Hollywood.” I’m sure his remarks right after Sept. 11 are still circulating around the right wing circles.
Peter, what did you think about Carrey’s role in The Majestic? I thought the film was underrated, and a good modern exploration of the blacklist era.
Speaking of which … it really troubles me that Roman Polanski got any nominations. The Pianist may well be the best film of the year, but I’ve got a long-standing vow to never spend money to see a Polanski film as long as he’s alive and able to profit in any way.
If Polanski wins, the Academy should bring Elia Kazan back for a standing ovation, because what he did (naming names they already had, if I remember right) was nothing in comparison to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl and then fleeing the country to escape punishment (and, no doubt, rape some more).
My favorite thing about last year’s awards was that both of the two Actress Oscars went to women who will not only both play comic book characters this year, but also had both played comic book characters already.
That said, I loathe the Academy Awards. Millionaires giving each other pats on the back? Yeah, *that’s* worth four hours of my time.
Jason
I can’t believe that Road To Perdition only got nominated for technical awards. Or that Two Towers didn’t get nominated for best adapted screenplay.
Fazhoul
And I can’t believe Andrew Sarkis wasn’t nominated for his performance as Gollum.
Ummm, Road To was not nominated merely for technical awards. Paul Newman got a “best supporting actor” nom.
And it should be noted that the people who pick the nominees for Best Director are a subset of those who pick Best Picture (only the people from the Directors branch of the Academy are involved in the Best Director nomination, while everyone has a say in the Best Picture), so one should not expect those two lists to merge, even if one thought that the contribution of the director was in no way seperate from the whole of the film.
Heh, and I can predict this next year…
Whatever Pokemon (aka the glorified çøçk fight/animal abuse cartoon) movie comes out will win the Oscar…
Peter, I was hoping you’d follow up decrying Gere’s non-nomination by telling us whose place he should get – after all, there’s only five spots.
Personally, I’m not at all surprised that Gere wasn’t nominated. It’s rare enough that any musical performances get nods (Kelly, Astaire, and Garland received a grand total of two nominations for their musical work) and, frankly, Gere’s performance wasn’t that good. Yes, it was impressive that he learned to tap dance, but I found his nasal singing to be grating, and there are a dozen actors who could act Gere off the screen in the same role (Jerry Orbach will always be the definitive Billy Flynn, as far as I’m concerned).
What surprises me was that Zellweger got a nomination. She wasn’t that good, either, with a reedy singing voice and not much of a visible (to me) character arc.
Reilly was phenomenal, really understanding the character and the style, and Zeta-Jones wasn’t bad.
The ultimate point, though, is that anyone who looks at the Academy Awards as a barometer of what is actually good or bad in film is not getting the whole picture.
Explain that Frieda (what?) and Time Machine were up for makeup, but not TTT (or frankly any of the other makeup effect films this past year….heck XXX for the tattoos alone…
For me it’s hard to believe that Gangs of NY got a best picture nod over the far more deserving Far From Heaven. The Miramax publicity machine wins yet again.
The fact that Peter Jackson didn’t get nominated is mind-boggling. To be honest, the far and away best supporting perfomance by anyone in film this year was Andy Serkis as Gollum, CGI or not.
Also Maggie Gyllenhaal’s perfomance in Secretary was 100& more enjoyable than Hayek’s faux-Frida.
As for Richard Gere, I normally can’t stand him (or Renee Z. for that matter) but they both shone in Chicago. A tribute to the director as well as them.
Explain that Frieda (what?) and Time Machine were up for makeup, but not TTT (or frankly any of the other makeup effect films this past year….heck XXX for the tattoos alone…
Well, I’ll try, but I probably won’t be too convincing…
It may be the case that Two Towers was overlooked in a bit of middle-chapter-ism, because it didn’t have the impact of a bold innovation of the first installment, and it’s everyone knows there’s a third chapter coming, so folks probably reason, “Eh. We can celebrate Return of King next year, so we don’t have to do Two Towers this time.”
Alternately, it may be the case that a lot of the Two Towers character effects aren’t looked on as makeup effects but ore line other sorts of special effects. Academy members might look at Gollum, the Ents, and much of the orc hordes as an achievement of CGI more than of makeup.
As for Frida, Academy members do often seem to celebrate makeup that convincingly transforms a actor to resemble some other real-life character (Gandhi was nominated for Best Makeup, after all…) Certainly Salma Hayek’s transformation into Frida Kahlo was impressive in that regard.
Can’t talk about XXX, however, as I haven’t seen it…
It all boils down to this.
Nominees have the áršëš the “Academy” likes/wants to kiss.
I was outraged on both occasions when Jim Carrey was “forgotten”. But why am i never surprised everytime a Ron Howard movie is in the run? The Academy loves the taste of Richie’s butt.
I personally don’t give any weight to the Academy Awards. It’d be like an election where only politicians would vote.
I don’t know about the Time Machine, but Frida deserves it (judging from the posters and stills). Any makeup artist that can make me not want to immediately throw Salma Hayek on a bed and start makin’ sweet whoopie is working double-secret overtime.
Rob
I knew “A Beautiful Mind” was going to win before it even opened. It was a movie about someone overcoming adversity, from a director who is liked but hasn’t won yet. That it was allegedly about a real person certainly helped as well. The only real surprise was that Russell Crowe didn’t win also.
It really doesn’t matter. Not many people are going to claim “Oliver!” was a better movie than “The Graduate”, or “The Greatest Show on Earth” was better than “The Quiet Man”, or “How Green was my Valley” was better than “Citizen Kane”. History will judge which are the better movies and which shall fade into obscurity.
As for Gere, maybe the Academy was afraid he’d give another speech about Tibet if he won.
Academy members might look at Gollum, the Ents, and much of the orc hordes as an achievement of CGI more than of makeup.
That’s not even a question of “might.” That was an achievement of CGI more than makeup, and the Academy has rules about that sort of thing. It was the reason that John Carpenter’s The Thing didn’t get a makeup nod, despite the extensive prosthetics and the use of Rob Bottin … the makeup category requires that the makeup actually be applied to a person.
One of the continuing trends I’ve seen the Academy do is miss out on nominating an actor or actress for a phenomenal role, then try to make up for it by letting them win a statue for a later role that probably shouldn’t have been nominated for.
Like Denzel winning for Training Day when he should have gotten it for The Hurricane.
Gere will probably win later on in a role that’s just not as flashy but due to the Academy realizing their oversight.
They wanted Gere for best actor? Bad move. Reilly had nearly as much screen time.
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 02/11/2003 01:32 PM ET
Actually, lead and supporting actor nominations are based principally on whether the characters are germane to either the plot or the subplot, not necessarily screentime.
For example, Anthony Hopkins won for his 1991 portrayal of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs. Since his role was pivotal to the plot, he was nominated for a lead, even though his screen time was something like 22 minutes.
In contrast, Ordinary People (1980) dealt with a man (Donald Sutherland) struggling to comprehend the forces tearing his family apart. However, since that doesn’t make for dynamic viewing, the film was punched up with a subpolt that actually took up the majority of the screen time: the man’s son (Timothy Hutton, winner Best Supporting Actor) dealing with his suicidal tendancies and disattachment to life.
As always, this rule is not hard and fast (take a look at the variations of the Emmy nominations for the cast of Friends to see proof of that).
Regarding Gere’s situation, since I’ve yet to see Chicago, I can’t judge either the quality of his performance or the best classification of his role.
Actually, lead and supporting actor nominations are based principally on whether the characters are germane to either the plot or the subplot, not necessarily screentime.
I disagree. They’re based primarily on what is considered most likely to get a a nomination.
What still annoys me is how they can nominate a movie for Best Picture, and not the director.
This is a popular opinion, but I just don’t get it. They nominate five pictures and five directors. Isn’t it entirely possible for the 5th best picture overall to be only the 6th best directed?
Some rambling comments:
1) I just rented “The Master of Disguise” with Dana Carvey. *I want that two hours of my life back again!*
2) In regards to “Minority Report”, even though Colin Farrel was a real scene-stealer, I was impressed with the emotion that Tom Cruise put into the leading role. NOT that this is Oscar-worthy, but still…!
3) I have to take exception to the above comments, re.: Denzel Washington in “Training Day”. I too was disappointed that Russel Crowe didn’t get the Oscar, but I honestly thought that Washington deserved it as well.
Just to clear up some misperceptions:
There are NO Oscar rules about the difference between supporting roles and starring roles. The Oscar voters can vote an actor in either catagory, for whatever reason. While it would be nice to think that most voters do use the “plot or subplot” formula, they can use whatever criteria they want.
In the Emmies, the actors themselves decide which catagory they would like to be in. They can submit themselves as a lead or a supporting, and that’s the category they are in. (Or they may not submit themselves for consideration at all, and not be eligable for an Emmy that year…)
The Academy is full of šhìŧ.
Ice Age will likely win over Spirited Away, which shows that most of the mornons in Hollywood have their heads plunged deep into their collective áššëš.
I thought that Walken was wonderful in Catch Me If You Can. Her certainly took more risks that either Hanks or Leo.
They HAVE to alwyas be noble, but Wlken is never afraid to be an ášš. I think that my favorite performance of Walken’s was in MOUSE HUNT. Or maybe in THE DEAD ZONE.
The Academy is full of šhìŧ.
Ice Age will likely win over Spirited Away, which shows that most of the mornons in Hollywood have their heads plunged deep into their collective áššëš.
I hope that the may change their minds once they see the film.
What I don’t get is why they didn’t consider William Dafoe for his excellent acting in Spider-Man. That mirror scene when he is playing Norman/Green Goblin was an awesome bit of acting.
Later,
Kyle
Any makeup artist that can make me not want to immediately throw Salma Hayek on a bed and start makin’ sweet whoopie is working double-secret overtime.
amen.
Ice Age will likely win over Spirited Away,
Of course, the award might … just might … go to Lilo and Stitch.
which shows that most of the mornons in Hollywood have their heads plunged deep into their collective áššëš.
Oh, Puh-leaze!! It’s an awards show, folks!! It only matters as much as you allow it to. I watch it for the entertainment value, not because it is germane to the forming of my opinion or the confirmation of it. Comments like that make ‘Get a life’ sound reasonable.
Just a quick observation on the thing about “Oliver!” not being a better movie than “The Graduate” — well, that’s true, but they didn’t come out the same year, so it’s not a question of one winning over the other. Consulting the ol’ Internet Movie Database, “The Graduate,” released in 1967, lost out to “In the Heat of the Night” in a field that also included “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Dr. Dolittle”.
As for “Oliver!” the following year, it beat “Funny Girl,” “Rachel, Rachel,” “The Lion in Winter” and “Romeo and Juliet”. Not nominated for best picture? “2001: A Space Odyssey.” “2001” was nominated — and lost to “Oliver!” — in the categories of best director and best art direction/set decorations…both inexplicable in hindsight.
And don’t get me started on “Raiders of the Lost Ark”‘s loss to “Chariots of Fire”. I mean, 95 percent of what I (and I’ll wager most people) remember about “Chariots” is the score.
Brian
Man, if I were Richard Gere, I’d be feeling very ‘Mr. Cellophane’ today.
Although that whole married-to-Carey-Lowell thing proves that it doesn’t entirely suck to be him!!
;^)
Hooper
Go John C. Reilly! He was better than Leo in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” and better than Burt Reynolds in “Boogies Nights”, and yet they got the nominations.
Reilly HAS to win, he’s in THREE of the “Best Picture” films!
Tim, you comment “Two years ago, I made a vow never to watch this award show again.”
I gave up on them in ’77 when the insipid ANNIE HALL won out over STAR WARS, the latter probably being the all-time best ‘space opera’ ever seen.
Jason ” My favorite thing about last year’s awards was that both of the two Actress Oscars went to women who will not only both play comic book characters this year…”
One of whom honestly should not have won. Hall was pretty dismal as Ororo. Storm is supposed to be tall, imperious and have PRESENCE. Hall had none of these characteristics. It took special effects to have her look genuinely imposing when she’s beating up on the Toad, for God’s sakes. Sorry, that’s not Oscar material.
Evan – “Like Denzel winning for Training Day when he should have gotten it for The Hurricane.”
I am tempted to say “I can’t understand why he wasn’t at least NOMINATED for his stand-out role in JOHN Q.” But I know. Politics. Feh.
Billy Flynn is not a substantial or meaty part. It’s a *good* part but it doesn’t arc and doesn’t go anywhere. I’m not at all surprised it went overlooked, especially given how strong the other performances are.
And why do people who don’t like the Oscars feel the need to bellow loudly from mountaintops about it? If you don’t like the show, or the concept or whatever, then kindly step away from conversations about them. Why not worry about something you DO enjoy??
Well, the only thing I can say, Starwolf, is that she won for Monster’s Ball, not X-men. Or even Swordfish (although that was certainly an enjoyable performance…)
Anybody who has a policy of snubbing former comedians regardless of the quality of their work (Steve Martin, Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, et cetera) have no place in my life. I can’t respect anybody who doesn’t respect comedy.
Bad enough they never nominate comedies. I still think Back to the Future was one of the best movies of 1985, for example, and all it got was a screenplay “nod.” Nevermind that the movie wouldn’t have been what it was without Christopher Lloyd.
Ghostbusters was brilliant, appealed to kids and adults, and had two of the funniest human beings alive in it, and all it got was the crappy “Best Song” nomination (a song that, incidentally, inspired a lawsuit by Huey Lewis, who claimed the Ghostbusters theme was direct theft of his “I Want a New Drug”).
No, if it’s not depressing as all Hëll, forget it. It’s not worth Oscar’s time, and that’s why they are not worth mine.
Incidentally, A Beautiful Mind was ok. The first half was great, but I didn’t know anything about John Nash when I went to see it, so when it turned out that it was all in his head, I was totally jarred out of the movie. It was a kickass spy flick until then, and the commercials didn’t warn me about it. I think I should see the Chuck Barris movie to get the fix that was denied me by A Beautiful Mind.
Posted by StarWolf:
Jason ” My favorite thing about last year’s awards was that both of the two Actress Oscars went to women who will not only both play comic book characters this year…”
One of whom honestly should not have won. Hall was pretty dismal as Ororo. Storm is supposed to be tall, imperious and have PRESENCE. Hall had none of these characteristics. It took special effects to have her look genuinely imposing when she’s beating up on the Toad, for God’s sakes. Sorry, that’s not Oscar material.
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not, but you do realize that Halle Berry’s Oscar wasn’t for X-Men, right?
Yes, I’m aware that Halle didn’t win for that film. Just seems to me that anyone with such a dismal performance in any film really shouldn’t rate an Oscar. But that’s just me.