DVD Giveaway – The Hurt Locker, Anthony Mackie Edition
CONTEST WINNERS!
These were randomly chosen. I know, I never win when I enter giveaways either.
The winners are Rojper and Ethan G
Thank you so much for entering. Please write me if you are either of those two to claim your prize.
We are giving away two Hurt Locker Blu Ray DVDS to you fine readers as a way of thanking you for hanging around – we’re baffled that you but grateful nonetheless.
In this particular giveaway (winners chosen at random) – please meditate on why it is that Anthony Mackie, who gives a moving, memorable turn in The Hurt Locker, will continually be ignored this Oscar season. Is it really to do with being a name? Because Osborne Cox wants to know, whose ass didn’t he kiss? Good luck!
To play: please submit a comment. You can answer the question or just write anything you want. We will select two at random.
Blu Ray or DVD.
Alex Carlson says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:15pm
The name argument doesn’t explain how Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe are getting so much love.
I think it’s because nobody in the precursor game realizes that there were other people who acted this year besides Christoph Waltz.
Jeff Beachnau says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:19pm
I think the problem is, though he was very good in the film, he plays the typical sane person trying to go by the book while the protagonist is wild and breaks the rules, so it’s not an extremely original character.
However, this theory doesn’t make much sense because Anna Kendrick keeps getting nominated and winning things.
Peter Labuza says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:21pm
It’s mainly because mackey’s character is not as interesting as Jeremy Renner’s. The Academy nominates the most memorable characters not the best performances. That’s why Molina won’t get recognized for “An Education,” and Monique will be for “Precious” (Not saying it’s a bad performance, but I’m sure a lot of actresses could have pulled it off just as well.)
schick says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:22pm
It seems hurt locker has been viewed largely as a directo’s piece (with bigelow almost a shoe-in, according to current buzz. Its only recently that Renner is now staking claim to the fifth–FIFTH–spot in the best actor line-up. Overall, I think Mackie’s exclusion thus far is just a bi-product of peopleLs overall ‘director’s piece’ branding of this film.
Andrew2 says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:22pm
I agree with Alex. there will be a number of nominees without name recognition this year. I think its about campaigning
Dean says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:23pm
The story shifts its focus from him in the beginning to totally zoom in on Renner’s character. He gets forgotten.
Seankgallagher says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:25pm
I think it may also be because, whether you like HURT LOCKER or not, it’s not primarily thought of an “actor’s film.” People tend to focus more on the technical aspects and the story. The only reason Jeremy Renner is getting any attention is his character is essential to talking about the film from a technical aspect. Mackie was excellent, but his character hasn’t been mentioned as much in the discussion about the movie.
Googooboo says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:25pm
As much as I enjoyed Mackie’s supporting turn, much of the spotlight regarding Hurt Locker has been focused on Renner’s breakout role (he too is pretty unknown – I’d assume most filmgoers would recognize Renner only from his minor role in SWAT) and Bigelow. Plus, it looks to be the third year in a row where a villainous character sweeps the supp. actor awards en route to an Oscar (though Waltz is deserving). It’s just not Mackie’s year.
Oh well, hopefully Mackie can learn to keep his head up like Ozzie Cox did lol, (“I’m bigger, I’m back. I’m better, I’m back. Than ever, I’m back. You fuckers, I’m back! Fuckers!”)
Roger says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:29pm
Like so many before him in the history of films with strong leading characters, Mackey is standing in the shadow of Renner’s in-your-face character. Is he equally good? PErhaps. Is he equally remembered? No. Besides, Supporting Actor, as it often is, is a crowded field. The good news for Mackey is that sometimes the greatest surprises out-of-no-where come in the supporting categories. I also have to wonder, how many dollars have been spent for Mackey’s FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION campaign? Oh well. Watching that clip reminded me of his great contribution to a stellar film.
Matt says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:30pm
A much more interesting give-away, especially since the fantastic film is getting over-looked for awards consideration, would have been Moon which is also coming out this week. It’s a far better movie too.
Georgie says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:30pm
His role wasn’t very flashy, and he never picked up momentum from the precursors. The Hurt Locker also seems to be only receiving attention for the directing and the lead performance.
Sasha Stone says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:31pm
Matt, I didn’t get much in the way of good reviews for Moon but we might do that giveaway anyway — it’s an interesting idea since apparently the DVDs weren’t sent out.
Julian Stark says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:32pm
I think that Mackie’s character is a bit less interesting than Renner’s character. It also doesn’t help that The Hurt Locker is more of a director’s film than an actor’s film. Sure: it’s well-acted, but the film doesn’t exactly have awards-bait written into the characters
Matthew Starr says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:34pm
Anthony Mackie is good but maybe the other candidates just gave legitimately better performances? I know Waltz, Molina and Harrelson were great. I have not seen Lovely Bones. Matt Damon is good not sure if better than Mackie though.
knnth07 says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:34pm
For me it was a very subtle performance, yet incredible still. However, it just did not scream award-winner to me. I felt that his character wasn’t that developed and Renner was given more spotlight.
Kaitlin says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:34pm
I think the film’s early release has a lot to do with Mackie’s performance receiving little recognition. Clearly, Renner (and Bigelow’s direction) are the most memorable things in the movie; the latter particularly has been brought up recently. It seems like critics have been so focused on specifics, not the film more generally.
On a somewhat more positive note, Mackie did get a Spirit nom…but LAST year. Bummer.
Sasha Stone says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:36pm
I tried to find Mackie’s best scene towards the end but it wasn’t up on YouTube. I also think Brian Geraghty was pretty great. He recently played a rapist creep on Law and Order SVU – nice turn to show versatility.
Andrew says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:37pm
If this makes sense, it’s just not that memorable. I’ve seen the movie twice, once when it was on the film festival scene and again when it hit the mainstream and neither time did I leave thinking about Mackie’s performance. I didn’t even think about him being nominated for any award until I saw this post.
Jordan Finke says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:38pm
I think it is because:
1). Anthony Mackie’s character isn’t as intriguing as Jeremy Renner’s in the Hurt Locker; he doesn’t play the daredevil, but instead the normal guy who’s just trying to get through his deployment.
2). He hasn’t played enough significant roles in significant movies to be recognized yet (subjective I know, but in my opinion that’s how the academy works).
Ryan B says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:38pm
Mackie’s character is the entry point into the story for the audience. He makes the story possible, but also stands outside the spotlight. He’s sort of in the same boat as Paula Patton in Precious. They each get less attention than other characters in their respective movies, but in hindsight, they’re the ones directing that attention in many scenes.
Adam says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:40pm
While it’s true that there are many other likely nominees this year that aren’t “names,” they’re either in performances that cannot be ignored (Christoph Waltz) or in categories where there simply aren’t enough viable nominees with a “name” (Carey Mulligan). Mackie benefits from neither.
I disagree with Roger — Ethan Hawke managed a nomination for “Training Day” precisely BECAUSE he was viewed to have elevated Denzel Washington’s performance. Though perhaps if Mackie were as well-known as Hawke was, he’d be finding himself on more lists.
Or of course, it could just be that Mackie isn’t as good as the eventual five nominees …
David says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:41pm
Mackie is like Pete Sampras. He makes his work look too easy to be full appreciated.
Brook Brooks says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:49pm
Anthony Mackie isn’t being recognised because critic’s groups like to stitch up Supporting Actor early, and with semi-famous names.
joseph~~ says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:49pm
Jeremy Renner’s performance and Kathryn Bigelow’s direction are what stick with the viewer days after watching the film. I think it’s as simple as that. There’s no denying how good Anthony Mackie is in the Hurt Locker, but Renner’s and Bigelow’s contributions to the film, I think, come more immediately to mind when one thinks about the film.
Cedric says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:51pm
Not sure, but I know that he deserves more recognition than Alfred Molina in An Education.
Gyros says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:51pm
For me it is a case of not receiving some early buzz for Mackie. There was not a strong swell of support for his performance like what we’ve seen for Waltz or Tucci or Harrelson. Why? I think it is largely due to Renner and the early and continued support he has received.
Take a look at the contenders for Best Actor/Best Supporting Actor to the right – the only movie with an actor in both cats considered “in contention” is ‘The Messenger (Foster, Harrelson), and I would argue though deserving attention, Foster isn’t really in contention for a nomination. In the case of ‘The Messenger,’ the support has swung to Woody. For ‘The Hurt Locker,’ this attention has been showered on Renner for his great leading role.
Matt M says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:54pm
Not flashy enough.
Ethan G. says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:55pm
This has been one of the biggest questions this awards season for me, especially since Mackie snagged that Indie Spirit nomination last year (sure, the Indie Spirits are hardly indicative of the season as a whole, but it at least showed that SOMEBODY could tell a great performance when they saw one). I think Mackie just got unlucky with his performance coming in the same year as Waltz’s. For whatever reason, there was clearly something about Waltz’s performance that clicked with the critics’ groups. Without an awards-sweeping performance like Waltz, the critics would have been a bit more varied in their selections, and I bet at least a couple of them would’ve swung Mackie’s way. Mackie needed those critics to remind people of what a great performance he gave, and swing some of the more sheep-like voters (it wasn’t that long ago that Jeremy Renner was a “dark-horse” candidate; it wasn’t until most of the critics went his way that Renner started looking like a sure bet). It’s not necessarily about being a name (after all, who was Christoph Waltz until Inglourious Basterds came out), but you have to have a name; and unless the critics singled him out, Mackie was probably just a face to a lot of people. And by a lot of people, I mean the handful who actually went to go see The Hurt Locker in theaters.
Tom says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:55pm
I think it is somewhat similar to Rachel Getting Married from last year. Both were small films that didn’t make much over $10 million. The lead and supporting characters depend on each other and have a love/hate relationship with each other. However, at the end of the day each movie is not big enough to get two acting nods because only the lead will be remembered by voters. Nobody said the Oscar game was fair.
Jeff Warner says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 9:56pm
I think that #2 and #3 said it the best… I couldn’t have explained it better myself. It’s a combination of his character not being interesting enough and being overshadowed by Renner (and even Bigelow). Just look at Christoph Waltz in IB… now that is a memorable character. After The Hurt Locker, you pretty much forget Anthony, but that is certainly not the case with Christoph. Anthony’s character is just too plain Jane that anyone could have done…
Adrian says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:00pm
I think it’s just a roll of the dice. In another year under different circumstances, he might have had just a few more critics rallying behind him, which might have snowballed into awards attention. On the other side of the same coin is Christopher Waltz, who gives a great performance in a film that’s unconventional, in terms of awards. If he didn’t have the high-visibility campaign kickoff of a Cannes award, who knows if he’d be in the conversation at this point?
Rob C says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:03pm
Not a memorable performance. If anything, the fact that the movie was shown months ago, it is not fresh in the minds of viewers. I don’t even remember it as well as the leading actor. Now if I win the Blu-Ray disc, I’d be able to watch it again and appreciate it more.
Checko says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:05pm
I think the name argument is very true.. maybe you can say “carey mulligan, gabby sidibe, anna kendrick they got no big names in hollywood but c’mon they got very talented publicists.. maybe you can say is dumb but the three girls are now being familiar with the audiences, the simple humans being that watch gossip sites or tv shows.. MULLIGAN: shia labeouf’s girlfriend, she’s gonna star in a oliver stone’s film… SIDIBE: oh that funny girl that was in that late night show.. KENDRICK: OMG Jessica from twilight.. maybe for you that follow the awards very deeply there’s no diference between they and he.. but if sometime just sometimes you see the awards season like all the “muggles” some things could be more clear.. the oscar is a thing about fame, public relationships, and the critics year by year are less about who’s the best, they’re about who’s gonna win the oscar.. and they dont throw brave nominations, they play safe. so i think thats why people like anthony mackie doesnt get the praise they deserve… sorry for my very bad english.
Sean says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:05pm
It’s likely a combination of things, the primary being that Renner shines brighter, and for a small, early release with a lot of acclaim but not as much viewership, that alone is enough to leave him with little notice. There also is no campaign for him. these reasons are weighty enough for the list to stop here. Even without oscar recognition his turn in this movie is enough to ensure that we’ll be seeing more of him, undoubtedly.
Silencio says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:06pm
He’s steadily building a fanbase. Another strong film or two and he should be in the mix.
Matthew Lucas says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:11pm
I don’t think it has anything to do with being a big name, just look at how far Christoph Waltz has come this year. THE HURT LOCKER is more of a director’s film than an actors film. The performances are all universally good, but they don’t draw attention to themselves. Mackie is sadly being lost in the shuffle, as all the film’s attention is focused on Bigelow and her shot at being the first female to win the Oscar for Best Director, and the acting attention goes to the film’s lead.
A.J says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:12pm
He’s overshadowed by star power. Not because Renner’s amazing performance but because of Bigelow’s amazing direction. The film is never mentioned without Bigelow, ever. Every other film in the race is talked about, to a degree, by itself. The Hurt Locker can’t be in a sentence without Bigelow. The star power of Bigelow is too much for two of the actors to get enough time in the spotlight. With Renner the lead Mackie gets left out in the cold.
cineJAB says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:14pm
because five other men gave better supporting performances in movies in 2009.
Ryan Aguirre says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:15pm
Because in the Best Supporting Actor race, being a no-name can only be made up for by showboating. Being subtle AND unknown is DOA.
Mad Professah says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:17pm
Blu-ray please.
I just saw INGLORIOUS BASTERDS on blu-ray and was very impressed with Diane Kruger…
I really don’t see what the fuss about Christopher Waltz is about–its a very showy role.
I think Anthony Mackie in THE HURT LOCKER is more deserving than Waltz.
Rob Y says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:18pm
I thought that Renner and Mackie were stand outs. I would be happy if he were nominated.
Tim Woodward says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:18pm
While Mackie’s performance is certainly strong and powerful, it just isn’t memorable or as interesting as Renner’s, the film itself, or the message that the movie gives. When I saw the movie, I remember thinking “Man, the guy from 8 Mile is giving a good performance”, but immediately after the film, all I wanted to talk about was Renner, the attitude that the movie had about war, and how more movies like this need to be made. Simply put, he is a good part of a great movie. I wish he got more recognition, too.
Eric says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:19pm
I agree that it is considered a director’s film, but I also believe the role is not as “oscar baity” as other one’s this year. Name recognition is not the problem. Christian McKay has been brought up because the academy loves roles based on real people.
guany says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:20pm
His performance isn’t big or loud enough, and as a result, voters don’t see him as deserving.
Hans says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:21pm
He’s black.
Ziyad Abul Hawa says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:22pm
I think it’s just a very good year for supporting actors, and there is no place for everyone, Jeremy Renner was better and even he is getting a hard time getting some attention (until the last days, in which he is getting what he deserves).
Kevin says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:22pm
I think it simply comes down to being outshone by Renner, who completely steals the show. That, and despite him giving a powerful performance, the character himself just isn’t as interesting as Sgt. James. His scene “I want a son” is heartbreaking and incredibly moving, but the character just doesn’t stand out as much. It’s an ensemble film, but it’s also Renner’s film.
Dan says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:23pm
I agree with #22 David – Mackie makes the role look easy, when in fact, in another’s hands, it could very have become quite horrid. He does have some of the weakest lines in the movie, and he makes them work, along with the more powerful lines he’s occasionally given. He was utterly convincing in the sniper scene.
EllDeb says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:29pm
Jeremy Renner’s awesome lead turn and Kathryn Bigelow’s direction are hoggin the attention!
eurocheese says:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:31pm
I think it’s so he can Laura Linney his way to an Oscar nomination when we don’t see it coming. After all, he and Renner are key elements to this film, and if the Academy loves the film then both of them may benefit.