Reader MGO does some heavy lifting and comes up with a fairly interesting stat – it’s much more common for actors who star in Best Pic nominees to win. We knew this already; it’s a long held tradition at the Oscars. But it slams hard when you look at his list (my notes in italics):
Daniel Day-Lewis, won, Film Nod Best Picture (Marion Cotillard also won in film not nominated)
Helen Mirren, won, Film Nod Best Picture. (Forest Whitaker won in film not nominated)
Philip Seymour Hoffman, won, Film Nod Best Picture. (Reese Witherspoon also won in film not nominated)
Jamie Foxx, won, Film Nod Best Picture. Hilary Swank, won, Film WIN Best Picture.
Sean Penn, won, Film Nod Best Picture. (Charlize Theron also won in film not nominated)
Adrien Brody, won, Film Nod Best Picture. Nicole Kidman, won, Film Nod Best Picture.
Denzel Washington, won, film not nominated for Best Picture. Halle Berry also won in film not nominated
Russell Crowe, won, Film WIN Best Picture. Julia Roberts, won, Film Nod Best Picture.
Kevin Spacey, won, Film WIN Best Picture. Hilary Swank won, won, not nominated for best pic.
Roberto Benigni, won, Film Nod Best Picture. Gwyneth Paltrow, won, Film WIN Best Picture.
Jack Nicholson, won, Film WIN Best Picture. Helen Hunt, won, Film WIN Best Picture.
Geoffrey Rush, won, Film Nod Best Picture. Frances McDormand, won Film Nod Best Picture.
Tom Hanks, won, Film WIN Best Picture. Jessica Lange, won film not nominated.
Still, it’s a compelling argument that bodes well for Sean Penn. More of MGO’s reasoning:
I did this countdown from 1994 to this times, and in most of the years in 97% of the case, one of the leading roles are nominated as well in the Best Picture category and they WIN!!, and this year the actors who are nominated in lead category and also the film are:
Brad Pitt in for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, with 13 Nods.
*SEAN PENN for MILK, with 8 Nods.
**Frank Langella for Frost Nixon, with 5 Nods.
***KATE WINSLET for THE READER, with 5 nods.*Philp Seymour Hoffman won his Oscar for a real/gay persona.
**Anthony Hopkins lost his Oscar for a Richard Nixon performance.
***Nicole Kidman won her Oscar in a Stephen Daldry film.SOOO, after all this kinds of stadistics, im predicting…
Sean Penn will win his second Academy Award.
Kate Winslet will win her first Academy Award, after 5 nods losing it.
Heath Ledger will become the first actor to receive an Academy Awards for a comic movie.
Penelope Cruz will win her first Oscar and becoming the first Spanish actress to win it & will follow the tradition of Woody Allen women.
143 Responses for "Best Actor – Best Pic Stats"
1997 – Titanic won best picture. As Good As It Gets was only nominated.
Forgive me, but this looks like about a 50-60% correlation, not entirely overwhelming.
It’s a good argument for Penn but Rourke is still going to win. I can feel it.
It’s a weak argument for Penn, but Penn’s still going to win. I can feel it.
If the tradition of who presents the acting awards holds up then Javier Bardem – the first Spanish actor to win an Academy award – will be handing the statue over to Penelope, the second (and first actress; and Bardem’s co-star in the film she won for).
(I know. This was probably pointed out ages ago.)
“Milk” wasn´t nearly as much admired by the BAFTAS people than by the Academy members, I´m pretty sure.
That said, if the Academy members react to “Milk” in a very goodwilling, emotional way, they will book this on Penns account.
In honoring Penn, they will honor the movie and the social relevance it has for the US-public.
The voters will feel good and responsible by voting for Sean Penn, and that is VERY tough for Rourke to be able to cope with that!
I don’t.
I don’t know, after the nominations debacle, I’m still under the impression that the academy is simply not ready to make “crazy” choices like Mickey Rourke. The BAFTA win is promising, and I’d like to think of Rourke’s performance as a feel good choice that Academy members will pick instead of what might be an expected choice.
If Milk wins Best Original Screenplay (which is likely; can’t see In Bruges winning as much as I love it) then that should be enough to honor the struggle of Harvey Milk. I’m not dismissing Penn’s performance, I thought he was great, but the Academy also loves a good comeback story, which is exactly what Rourke has provided. Maybe if Penn hadn’t won before…but we’ll see.
This is definately the closest race for Best Actor since years, maybe since 2001, when Russel Crowe, Tom Hanks, Ed Harris and Javier Bardem all had a comparably good shot at winning. That year, the wrong performance was awarded, this year not (doesn´t really matter if Rourke or Penn- both are excellent).
OK, 2003 was very close too: Brody over Day-Lewis and Nicholson…
Penn played Harvey Milk has if he was channeling Forrest Gump.
Sean Penn already stole one Oscar from Bill Murray. I hope he doesn’t steal one from Rourke.
““Milk” wasn´t nearly as much admired by the BAFTAS people than by the Academy members, I´m pretty sure.”
that’s true. The Academy nominated the movie for 8 nominations, and at the BAFTAs it was 4. But still, both the Academy and the Brits nominated the movie for Best Picture.
“In honoring Penn, they will honor the movie and the social relevance it has for the US-public.”
Like gay rights issues are not relevant in England. Dustin Lance Black is a pretty much a lock for Best Original Screenplay, and he’s a former Mormon turned Gay rights activist. So it’s not like the film is going to go home empty handed.
Besides, if the Academy really wanted to make a statement about the social relevance of “Milk,” then they would honor it for Best Picture of the year.
I am placing my money(not literally) on Rourke. Rourke has the comeback story on his side and delivering a performance where he had to find new notes and showed his untapped gifts.
Penn channelled Forrest Gump? Don’t see it.
Rourke deserves it, but Penn will get it.
“Penn played Harvey Milk has if he was channeling Forrest Gump.”
..no, that would be Brad Pitt. But we won’t go THERE.
Penn played Harvey Milk as though he was channeling the man’s character, soul, passion and humor. From what I’ve read and heard, he did this beautifully. Watch the documentary “The Times of Harvey Milk.” Although you don’t watch it and think Sean Penn, because the resemblance is not strong, you definitely see the person that Penn conveyed in his performance. Arguably it is more challenging to play a real person than one off a screenwriter’s page. (go ahead, pile on). But that aspect of Penn’s performance – the challenge he faced in ‘being a real person on screen – should be mentioned while the debate on who deserves the Best Actor trophy is going on.
It’s a 69% overall correlation, however you have to give weight to more recent years so really its about a 50% correlation so its actually been rather meaningless.
Mickey Rourke, Kate WInslet, Heath Ledger and Viola Davis
Rourke deserves it .. Rourke will get it!
Kate (don’t) Winshit.
Meryl Streep wins The Oscar, I hope.
Critics>Globes>SAG>BAFTA
Streep>Winslet>Streep>Winslet
Oscar>Streep
I love the fact that people are saying that Rourke deserves it. Why doesn’t Penn deserve it? Or Langella for that matter.
Rourke gave a fine performance in The Wrestler after throwing his away his career. He was also good in Sin City. I don’t see why he deserves it anymore than the other nominees.
What’s pushing him is his constant talk to the media about his comeback story. He will most likely win because of that.
The only thing I can see derailing him is a dislike from some of the older members of the Academy.
I am glad someone else pointed out the “Borgnine-factor” in another post when it comes to the best actor race this year. Maybe I am being naive, but I am surprised many people don’t think that a lot of the old voters could end up voting for Frank Langella because 1) It will enable them to honor a respected character actor for the first time. 2) They don’t want to give it to Penn because he won it relatively recently. 3) They don’t want to give it to Rourke because of his past.
Maybe it won’t happen this year because Rourke’s performance is just one you can’t ignore – as is Penn’s Harvey Milk performance. However, I can see this being one category where a shock occurs with Langella winning.
Yes, best actor this year is incredibly hard to call. I do think that being in a BP-nominated movie helps Penn somewhat, especially in a race this close. Obviously it’s not a necessity, but it helps.
In a few of the cases listed above, where an actor/actress wins for a performance in a non-BP -nominated movie, the other nominees were also not in BP nominated films, or if a performer was in a BP nominated film, they were considered weak candidates for the actual win (no crit wins, no Globe or SAG or BAFTA win). For example, the year Forest Whitaker won, none of the five nominated actors was in a BP film.
In this case, with Penn being the crit favorite and SAG favorite AND being in a BP-nominated movie…well, that still makes him very strong. But he has won before, and Rourke does have the Globe and BAFTA and the comeback story going for him (not that the “comeback” always wins either). Both gave excellent performances.
Hmm. Flip a coin?
Although a Langella upset is always possible, I don’t see it happening. No doubt there are some Academy members who will vote per the so-called Borgnine factor. But I don’t believe enough of them will do so. If the actual nature of Langella’s role were different, I’d feel he’d have more of a chance. The Nixon character, however, doesn’t have the kind of arc (for example, sin to redemption or victory over impossible odds) that distinguishes itself from the competition, nor does Langella’s backstory provide the degree of sentiment that might give him the competitive edge necessary to win.
First of all, Sasha thank you for putting my comment as a single topic, tks!
-Other interesting thing is when women are nominated for Best Actress and the film is nominated for Best Picture as well, they usually wins.
-Kate Winslet right now is having the stadistics and all major awards, CC, GG, SAG, BAFTA for her performance in The Reader, only Heath Ledger has the same awards for his performance in The Dark Knight.
-And yes, in 1997 Titanic won the Oscar for Best Picture.
Sasha,
If i am correct – I might not be – no “Woody Allen” actress has ever won the academy award without being nominated in the screenplay category. Vicky Cristina Barcelona is obviously missing in the original screenplay nominees list, and that sort of tells me they weren’t so crazy, or didn’t really see, Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
Why wouldn’t they give the award to a movie the DID obviously se and liked, like Doubt (Amy or Viola). My money’s on Viola. Plus what better time to give an African American actress recognition than now, with Obama making history.
*see
I have a feeling Rourke will win.
Both Rourke & Penn deserve the Oscar they’re excellent performances cancel each other out on the ballot and Mr. Jolie wins.
I’m pulling for Frank Langella for the win.
Rourke was solid in “The Wrestler” but I can imagine that acting in a comeback story isn’t too difficult while that actor is having an actual comeback.
If anything, Penn over Langella for the win because at least Penn was working outside his comfort zone…
Also, Viola Davis over Cruz hands down for supporting…
@ Nyc Oscar Buff
But it wouldn’t work that way. If Rourke & Penn are the most popular nominees, then they’ll both get a shitload of votes and there won’t be a lot of ballots left unaccounted for. If they “cancel each other out,” that would result in a tie and they both win. Or one of them gets at least one more vote than the other, and he will win. But Pitt will be left out in the cold either way. As will Langella and Jenkins.
MOST Best Actor winners are attached to Best Picture nominees, but it is by no means a reliable formula:
- Forrest Whittaker in 2006 (Although none of the other nominees were attached to Best Picture nominees)
- Denzel Washington in 2001 (He beat Tom Wilkinson and Russell Crowe)
Twice in the 2000s decade so far.
- Nicolas Cage in 1995 (beat out Massimo Troisi)
- Tom Hanks in 1993 (Hanks beat out three actors attached to Best Picture nominees)
- Jeremy Irons in 1990 (Beat out Robert DeNiro and Kevin Costner)
Three times in the 90s decade.
- Michael Douglas in 1987 (Beat out William Hurt)
- Paul Newman in 1986 (Beat out William Hurt)
Twice in the 80s decade
- Art Carney in 1974 (Beat out Pacino, Nicholson, and Hoffman)
- Jack Lemmon in 1973 (Beat out Redford)
Twice in the 70s decade
- John Wayne in 1969 (Beat out Voight, Hoffman, and Richard Burton)
- Cliff Robertson in 1968 (Beat out O’Toole and Moody)
- Lee Marvin in 1965 (Olivier and Werner)
Three times in the 60s decade
- William Holden in 1953 (Beat out Burton, Brando, Lancaster, and Clift)
- Bogey in 1951 (Beat out Brando and Clift)
- José Ferrer in 1950 (Beat out Tracy and Holden)
Three times in the 50s
- Ronald Colman in 1947 (Beat out Gregory Peck)
*The 40s begin with ten Best Picture nominees.
It is more important that we look at the performance and awards won.
In 2001 for example, when Washington beat Crowe, both men pretty much won the same amount of awards that year. Crowe took home 6 (BFCA, Globe, SAG, BAFTA, Phoenix, and Dallas), and Washington took home 4 (AFI, Boston, L.A, and Kansas). What probably made the difference was the fact that Washington was sinking his teeth into new territory and created a truly frightening and memorable character.
I know this is a really unpopular opinion around here, but Micky Rourke in The Wrestler should win Best Casting, not Best Actor. What he did was compelling to watch, but not my idea of great acting.
That horse that played Seabiscuit was such a convincing horse! He totally nailed the horsiness of that role!
Penn most likely will win if Milk’s screenplay does, too.
You’re right, Ryan: It is an unpopular opinion around here.
I do agree with you to some extent, though. The success of “Randy the Ram” is 50% casting/50% performance. And I would say the numbers for “Harvey Milk” are 1%/99%; “Richard Nixon” 10%/90%; “Benjamin Button” 30%/70%; and “Prof. Vale” 50%/50% (according to Jenkins, the role is close to him).
You could make a diametrically opposed, but equally meaningless, argument against Sean Penn: that the false nose, voice modulation, and man-snuggling inflate people’s opinion of his performance by being obviously different from the real Penn. We could label Rourke in The Wrestler as “great casting, not great acting”, but we could also call Penn in Milk “stunt casting.”
But neither one is true. If the performance convinces and moves, it’s great acting, no matter the actor or the role.
…we could also call Penn in Milk “stunt casting.”
Benj, if they had cast Gavin Newsom as the Mayor of San Francisco and Cate Blanchett as Anita Bryant (instead of only using archive footage), that would have been stunt casting, by my definition.
That’s a really sharp observation about the 30/70 personality/character biofeedback in Benjamin Button, Paul. Brad Pitt’s own face and image was the most effective special effect in Benjamin Button (and the most expensive).
I’ll go along with all your other percentages, too.
In fact, I’ll agree with your next 20 comments in appreciation for you being the one person who doesn’t jump down my throat or crawl up my butt about my disagreeable attitude.
As long as I (a Winslet fan) can advocate a Winslet defeat on February 22 in peace, we’re good, Ryan.
Gentle Benj, Penn physically, vocally, emotionally and attitudinally transformed himself to embody somebody he’s not. He should get an Oscar for pulling off a convincing smile for two hours.
We could pretty much follow Micky Rourke around with a camcorder the week he goes to WrestleMania, and create The Wrestler II with no need for a script. (We’ll need a stripper. Is Diablo Cody busy?)
Rourke could very well take the Oscar. I’m resigned to the possibility. But then what? I envision a career where he’s always vying with Ron Perlman for whatever monster-of-the-year project comes along.
“If the performance convinces and moves, it’s great acting”
He was convincing in this role, yeah. So was the Hmong grandma spitting off the porch in Gran Torino.
@ Jack Stark, #32:
Don’t forget that in 2001, Russell Crowe throttled a Brit at the BAFTAs. I think that may have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back and caused AMPAS to gravitate toward Washington. As you mention, Crowe had won BFCA, Globe, SAG, and BAFTA before then.
Of course, Crowe had also won the Best Actor Oscar just the year before, so that may have been a factor as well. Obviously.
I don’t expect that such PR disasters will torpedo any candidates chances this year, unless AMPAS is really turned off my Rourke’s HandsDownPantsgate, or DisrespectingRachelEvansWoodgate. Which of course is not likely.
“As long as I (a Winslet fan) can advocate a Winslet defeat on February 22 in peace, we’re good, Ryan.”
That’s an especially brutal condition, Paul. Because Winslet will have 20 more chances in her career to be nominated or win. This is Rourke’s first, last, and only shot.
Can someone please put an end to “HandsDownPantsgate.”
I confess to being baffled, dela.
Baffled, but intrigued.
“This is Rourke’s first, last, and only shot.”
Reminds me of the film “In and Out” where Glenn Close reads the Best Actor Nominees and includes Steven Seagal for “Snowball in Hell”.
“As long as I (a Winslet fan) can advocate a Winslet defeat on February 22 in peace, we’re good, Ryan.”
That’s an especially brutal condition, Paul. Because Winslet will have 20 more chances in her career to be nominated or win. This is Rourke’s first, last, and only shot.
I say: Boo-hoo.
Penn-Leo in ‘09. (Okay: Penn-Streep in ‘09, to be more realistic.)
“Penn physically, vocally, emotionally and attitudinally transformed himself”
attitudinally and adenoidally
[Wait. Did I just heckle myself?]
Maybe he has his dog hibernating down there. Who’ll only come out if Mickey wins the Oscar.
Jack Stark, you are ridiculous. Russell Crowe won every major award for A Beautiful Mind, and the film swept all the other major awards including Best Picture and Supporting Actress.
We all know the reason why Crowe didn’t win was his BAFTA incident and overall bad-boy behavior. And while he had just won the year before, the voters didn’t want to anoint him as the next Tom Hanks while Julia Roberts was decrying a world where Denzel Washington didn’t have a Best Lead Actor Oscar. Case closed.
I think we should put away the statistics for the acting races this year because going with our gut instincts has mostly helped so far (my gut said Penn for the SAG and Rourke for the BAFTA and Oscar).
With Winslet winning for BP nominee The Reader, it’s not so important that the Best Actor comes from a BP nominee. And voters often favor a powerhouse or at least very centralized, very masculine performance like Rourke’s – Forest Whitaker won for a film that wasn’t BP-nominated. None of his rivals’ films were either, but the truth remains that a film can win its actor a prize without a nomination. The Wrestler was all Mickey Rourke, just like the best thing about Vicky Cristina Barcelona was Penelope Cruz.
It is unsettling that Woody Allen was not nominated this year, but just look at that category. You’ve got an (excellent) animated film, two witty British movies without acting nominees, and an Indie Spirit film that kind of came out of nowhere, though it also landed a Lead Actress nod. Like Rourke, Cruz has been around a long time and is well respected in the industry. No, Viola Davis isn’t as new and unproven as, say, Kate Hudson, and Penn isn’t as objectionable to many as Russell Crowe. But I’m not going to switch my predictions this year, fellow Oscarwatchers.
If Penn wins, the precedent will be a Best Picture nod, SAG, and BFCA. If Rourke, then the GG and BAFTA and a more appealing story and more central performance (all like Marion Cotillard). Either way, statistics are on their side, because most years don’t see this kind of two-way split in a lead acting category. So throw away the statistics and go with your gut, whichever way that leads you. I’m sticking with Rourke. I had substantial doubts early in the year, but then I heard people like Brad Pitt, Robert Downey Jr., and even Penn talk about Rourke with such reverence.
Penn-Leo in ‘09. (Okay: Penn-Streep in ‘09, to be more realistic.)
Interesting Paul. Which Leo role do you have your eye on?
& ZOMG! Just noticed this “rumored” project on IMDb: Farrelly Brothers, The Three Stooges — with Johnny Depp as Moe and Sean Penn as Larry! My ass is already half laughed off.
But whither Curly?
I have a strange feeling that Amy Adams will win supporting…
i still think Streep will take best actress.
honestly i think Winslet is trying to hard and campaiging too hard. looks desperate. i like Winslet and have seen The Reader. I still dont think she has yet delievered her “oscar winning role” yet.
Robert,
Everybody knew before the back stage incident that Crowe was a “bad boy” actor. There were plenty of Crowe scandals back in 2000 and 2001. Simply being a bad person in real-life didn’t stop Roman Polanski, George S. Scott, or Marlon Brando from winning Oscars.
If Crowe didn’t win the Oscar for “Gladiator,” I think he would have beat Washington. It is all about who “deserves” it more.
But my original point here is that you never know when the Academy is going to say, “I think we should vote for an actor in a non-best picture nominee.”
To AMPAS:
Streep and Winslet will be back in very near future. Leo would be a nice pick.
IMHO Tom Hanks got bonus points for being very well liked and that seems like an essential factor when winning a second Oscar in near future.
I have to add something after glimpsing through the comments I missed while writing my last post.
Many voters who think of this as Rourke’s “FIRST, LAST, AND ONLY” shot, rather than simply a strong comeback by a gifted and deserving actor, will vote for the more consistent Penn. Sure, Penn has more chances, but when it comes to comeback performances, the Academy doesn’t often favor them. Just look at Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd., Bette Davis in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, Lauren Bacall in The Mirror Has Two Faces, and Julie Christie last year.
I think what makes Rourke different is that he has a terrific backstory and true support. It’s not just an obligatory nomination for great work by a “living legend.” It’s a commanding performance by someone whose strongest competition is so consistent that he can easily win on his *next* nomination, for a more challenging role.
(When you look at the examples I mentioned above, Swanson lost to cute and quirky breakthrough Judy Holliday in a fellow Best Picture nominee. Davis lost to Anne Bancroft, a true “actors’ performance,” but Bancroft had never won and her character carried more pathos. Bacall was in a crappy movie and lost to Juliette Binoche, a true breakthrough, a more whimsical performance in the Best Picture. Christie lost to the breakthrough, landmark biopic turn in a movie that had more technical honors without a nominated script. Rourke is more like the actors who *did* win in each of these cases, or at least he doesn’t face the same kind of competition that the comeback nominees who lost faced. Penn is no sexy landmark breakthrough.)
Rourke IS the movie, The Wrestler. I know the Academy support for the film isn’t all there, but it’ll be a hard one to reject. If Milk were so loved, it would have won the SAG Ensemble Award. It didn’t, and despite the ensemble and the lead performance by Penn, no one considers the film a challenging piece for actors (not like Doubt, even). Its reward will be in screenplay. I’m sticking with Rourke.
Jackie B,
Winslet hasn’t delivered an oscar-winning performance yet? lol lol lol
That was a good joke; the best I’ve heard in a long time. lol lol
And no, Jack, Crowe had a reputation, but it peaked after the BAFTAs. It reached a head. Nobody could take it anymore. It wasn’t just that Crowe had won the year before, but that Washington was an easy alternative and, sure, someone thought to be more deserving.
But not simply based on performance or proximity of last Oscar win.
Zach,
The backstage incident might have hurt him, but then again, Brando and Scott didn’t want to win Oscars, but the Academy voted for them anyway. Polanski drugged and rape an underage girl and then fled the country, and he still won for Best Director.
What hurt him was the fact that he won too recently and the fact that Washington delivered a better performance.
No, Crowe did not win all the major awards that year. Boston, L.A, and AFI are considered major awards too. And it is not like playing Monopoly, where if buy properties of the same color, you get to build houses if you want. The Academy votes for films and performances they like, not necessarily what audiences and film critics like.
Ryan, this is silly. If we follow this paradigm, then truly great acting becomes possible only when the character is extremely different from the actor. It’s just not true. Conveying honest emotion on film is a tremendous feat, regardless of how much overlap exists between performer and character.
I haven’t seen The Wrestler so I’m not reacting to that specifically. But this idea that an actor cannot do great work while playing a version of himself, has bigger implications. I mean, Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd, anyone? Nah, not great, too much like herself.
Zach, don’t forget one of the more upsetting comeback losses:
“Hello, everybody. This is Mrs. Norman Maine.”
Though Jack’s conclusion is right – Best Picture and Actor can go in entirely different directions for God knows what reason.
“Penn-Leo in ‘09. (Okay: Penn-Streep in ‘09, to be more realistic.)”
Interesting Paul. Which Leo role do you have your eye on?
I mean February 22, ‘09.
I hope this is wrong on Penelope Cruz.
Viola Davis deserves to win this one. Her cause is not helped by the few votes being siphoned off to (1) a co-star in the same category and (2) another African American in the same category. Unfortunate in both cases, but true.
I never intended to try to argue my case, Gentle Benj. Just wanted to have my opinion on the record, because it’s been a while since I weighed in. Nobody can convince me to be too impressed by what Rourke has done this year, anymore than I can convince anyone to be unimpressed. A performance touches me or it doesn’t. Same for all of us.
I would venture that Gloria Swanson would’ve been deeply insulted to hear someone suggest she was very much like Norma Desmond. On the other hand, I feel that Rourke deeply identifies with Randy the Ram, and would happily agree, “yep! that’s me!”
Except he’d say, “Fuck yes, that’s me.”
Because it’s so fun not to give a shit about standards of behavior, and fuck the rules of the party you’ve been invited to.
So rebellious! So real!
So calculated.
I’m no prude about language. You guys know that. You also know that every single person in the Royal Opera House last night is capable of saying “fuck, fuck, fuck, FUCK!” But how funny would it have it been if they all did? (ok, if they all did, I admit, pretty funny.)
Most people are able to control themselves and find other ways to be witty (Jonathan Ross excluded). That speech was another razor slash to forehead for me. Anybody can be brutal or crude. Maybe at the Oscars he’ll whip out his dick.
Yes, the Academy did give Polanski an Oscar…about 25 years after the whole underage girl scandal!
Crowe’s BAFTA incident happened while Oscar voting was in progress. I suspect the bitter taste of Crowe, post BAFTA, was still on some voters minds when they cast their ballots.
And yes, AMPAS did give Oscars to George C. Scott and Brando even when they didn’t want them. But in the early 70s, not taking the Oscar seriously was more in vogue, wasn’t it?
Not wanting Oscar in 70s=cool. Throttling Brit in 2001=not cool.
We’ll never know if Washington would have won even if Crowe hadn’t attacked a Brit. But it’s extremely rare for someone who has won BFCA, Globe, SAG, and BAFTA to lose the Oscar. (Historians, how often has it happened?)
In short, I do think Crowe’s behavior that year ended up tipping the scales against him.
@ jorge (26)
“If i am correct – I might not be – no “Woody Allen” actress has ever won the academy award without being nominated in the screenplay category. Vicky Cristina Barcelona is obviously missing in the original screenplay nominees list, and that sort of tells me they weren’t so crazy, or didn’t really see, Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
Why wouldn’t they give the award to a movie the DID obviously se and liked, like Doubt (Amy or Viola). My money’s on Viola. Plus what better time to give an African American actress recognition than now, with Obama making history.”
You’re right: only Samantha Morton was nominated in a Woody Allen film (Sweet and Lowdown) without a screenplay nod, but lost (in a heavy weight category that year, won by Angelina, and with Keener, Sevigny and Collette also nominated). But also -with this only exception- every actress nominated in a Woody Allen film it was for an Oscar nominated screenplay.
At this shortlist I think it doesn’t care so much: Cruz is the frontrunner right now (and for months); Morton wasn’t.
I think you forget at this time AMPAS members don’t need to see once and again Penelope’s work to convince themselves. In the other hand, I don’t think Amy or Viola will win it, among others, for one very crucial reason: split vote. I know about massive support for Henson, it’s probably people like her so much, but I think it will be not enough. And Tomei won before, that’s the key: a so well career (for a previous Oscar-winner) but when you have 3 noms, you need to show something really great for to win again.
Please, do you really think AMPAS members would satisfy Obama? Seriously? No way. “Obama topic” is over. And they not need to award an African American actress for Obama. It’s hilarious!
By the way, I don’t think they like SO much Doubt. They respect actors, but not the movie (perfectly they could nominate it for Best Picture i f they liked it so much, don’t? but they “only” nominate it in acting and screenplay). They LOVE The Reader, don’t forget this point.
African American with an Oscar in last years: Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman (after be snubbed many times), Halle Berry (I don’t know why, probably they didn’t want to award again Sissy Spacek), Jamie Foxx and Forrest Whitaker (BOTH frontrunners without ‘doubt’) and newcomer and almost-lead Jennifer Hudson.
I completely agree with Benj. And Jack, AFI is not a major award. It doesn’t even exist anymore. If critics were so important, we’d see Sally Hawkins taking that statuette over Kate Winslet.
You can’t compare Polanski’s situation to Crowe’s without further analysis. Polanski was an overdue legend of the craft who had NEVER won. And the rape charges had happened DECADES before. He had to live with the consequences of his actions, outside of America, ever since. The woman even appeared on Larry King saying it was consensual and that Polanski should win.
Don’t think that the older voters didn’t remember the Sharon Tate murder and pity/excuse him further.
I forgot to even mention that the “Year of the Blacks” also helped Denzel, but that’s a different story.
As for Brando and George C. Scott, well, look, these were considered some of the greatest performances of all time. Also in Best Picture winners like Crowe, I concede. But these men had no clear challengers, and they got away with a lot partly because the media wasn’t so vicious then. Just don’t act like the performances and Crowe’s recent win were the lone factors. If you want to downplay Crowe’s bad-boy reputation, you have to concede that Denzel Washington’s legendary popularity – apart from that specific performance – had to do with it.
Paul, thank you for remembering another great comeback. But even there, Grace Kelly was not only in a Best Picture nominee (I know, so is Penn), but she was America’s Princess and had never won before. Judy Garland had technically won a special award for The Wizard of Oz. Hers was a drug-filled Crowe-like situation. It’s a great precedent for Rourke losing, sure, but Penn has already won before. Give me a Tom Hanks, even a Tom Hanks who has won twice before, and then I’ll tell you Rourke is a longshot.
So is Anne Hathaway this year’s Grace Kelly?
Robert, I don’t think it’s ever happened before. Nobody else has ever won the BFCA, SAG, BAFTA, and GG and not won the Oscar. And with that, the statistics should be thrown out the window, except that I wouldn’t use this rare example as a precedent for this year’s race.
Sorry, Paul, I have so many things to say and am rushing to say them too quickly. Mistake amended.
Not sure why your comment keeps getting shuttled off to “Pending” Zach. I’ve released it twice. I’ll bump it up to the end of the thread here.
Crowe’s antics in 2001 definitely cost him another Best Actor Oscar. He had the lead role in a bio pic that won Best Picture – plus, he was very good in the role. You think the Academy really enjoyed Training Day?
“Though Jack’s conclusion is right – Best Picture and Actor can go in entirely different directions for God knows what reason.”
Thank you. We also have to realize that stats can be easily broken.
The original poster might as well predict “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” for Best Picture. After all, 68% (64/80) of all Best Picture winners scored the most Oscar nominations. The number climbs to 72% (46/64) if you count the years where the Academy nominated 5 films for Best Picture.
thanks Ryan
Yeah, Jack, that stat is definitely thrown out the window. The last five years alone (anything after ROTK) have proven that the actors, directors, producers and screenwriters *totally* outweigh all other craftsmen.
“AFI is not a major award. It doesn’t even exist anymore. If critics were so important, we’d see Sally Hawkins taking that statuette over Kate Winslet.”
The American Film Institute is a highly respected film society and considered one of the best judges for film quality. Yes, they only did it for one year, but that doesn’t mean their panel of judges didn’t matter. If anything the awards were significant because many of the members were also members of the Academy.
As for Hawkins not getting in, I am sorry about your disappointment. She just didn’t get enough points to make it into the top 5.
Do critics awards matter? Like I said before, the Academy doesn’t give statues for winning the most acting prizes that year. They give the award to the performance they feel was the best.
“You can’t compare Polanski’s situation to Crowe’s without further analysis. Polanski was an overdue legend of the craft who had NEVER won.”
You use the word, “overdue,” which is key. Crowe already won the year before and many felt that Washington was “overdue” for another one. The fact that Polanski raped a girl did not impact the voting. What impacted was his legend status and the fact that they loved the movie.
@paul outlaw
“If they “cancel each other out,” that would result in a tie and they both win. Or one of them gets at least one more vote than the other, and he will win.”
I believe there is an academy rule witch states a margin for a tie (so you can’t really win by one vote). Can anyone here confirm this?
About Russell Crowe losing his second Oscar…
Denzel Washington won, Halle Berry won and Sidney Poitier won the honorary award.
Coincidence?
“Denzel Washington won, Halle Berry won and Sidney Poitier won the honorary award.
Coincidence?”
MGO, Ah yes, 2002. The year white people conspired to make sure black people would rule planet Earth, a mere practice run for Nov 2008.
If you stop skipping your Illuminutty meetings you’d know we don’t speak of these things in public.
It’s too bad, Rourke’s magnificent performance happened to be the same year than Penn’s outstanding, mesmerizing, incredible, life’s best performance.
I don’t know why it must give you special Oscar points to be a fuck up, pretty sure with some other “normal” actor without Rourke’s background, the mere Oscar nomination may have been enough and we wouldn’t have a race; Rourke may win and his it’s a very nice story, but the best performance of this year is Sean Penn’s Harvey Milk; and it’s not even close.
Thank you siro11 for bringing that up.
I don’t get it either. I can understand the overdue factor a la Winslet but there should be no bonus points for Rourke. His career downfall was his own doing. I hope if he wins it will be solely based on his performance.
I would venture that Gloria Swanson would’ve been deeply insulted to hear someone suggest she was very much like Norma Desmond.
I’d venture that she was too smart not to realize it. The casting of Erich von Stroheim eliminates any doubt that Billy Wilder was crafting a film with strong ties to the actors’ real lives. I believe that Swanson’s performance in the role is so visceral and vulnerable, in large part, because of the connection between Gloria and Norma.
Like I said, I haven’t seen The Wrestler (or Milk) so I’m not trying to convince you one way or the other about Rourke. But this:
A performance touches me or it doesn’t. Same for all of us.
Is all you need to say. Rourke’s work didn’t hit you as hard as Penn’s. There is nothing wrong with that. No need to explain it away with specious theories about the relationship between actor and character.
@dunbar, #77:
I think in the early days of the Academy, they had a rule that stated “the candidate or candidates who are within three votes of a tie shall be given an award” (this rule helped Wallace Beery tie for Best Actor in 1932, even though Fredric March received one more vote than he did)
But since then, the Academy has announced a tie only when a candidate receives the EXACT same number of votes as another candidate.
In short, Paul Outlaw was right when he said someone can win by having one more vote than the other.
@ Gentle Benj
“Like I said, I haven’t seen The Wrestler (or Milk) “
Every time you go to the multiplex and check out what’s playing, you always end up buying another ticket to see Benjamin Button again, right?
“No need to explain it away with specious theories…”
Fair enough. But the opportunity for specious theorizing was the main thing I liked about The Wrestler.
“MGO, Ah yes, 2002. The year white people conspired to make sure black people would rule planet Earth, a mere practice run for Nov 2008.
If you stop skipping your Illuminutty meetings you’d know we don’t speak of these things in public.”
The racially insensitive comments are getting out of hand on this forum. The inner ghetto spirit in me is about to be unleashed but I’ll practice restrain.
I really appreciate the thoughtful comments you all have made to this discussion. In the past it seems that ingredients for the Best Actor have been a) politics (as in issues and as in award politics), b) popularity and c) respect. Not always at the same time in the same year.
For example, I put Whitaker, Hoffman and Day-Lewis (of late) in the respect category. Truly good, highly respected artists who racked up the awards leading up to Oscar night. Tom Hanks is a good example of politics (Philadelphia/AIDS, plus some hold over from “Big”) and popularity and to some degree, respect vote (remember though, he won over the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Daniel Day-Lewis). Denzel Washington’s win was the perfect package of all 3.
This year, the recipe seems pretty close. Neither man seems terribly popular, though Rourke’s comeback story could be compelling, both are respected for their craft and this year’s performance (though I believe Penn has the edge here given his time in town), and though Penn has the stronger political issue Rourke hasn’t won before (and there may be the feeling of ‘last chance’ about him).
I keep thinking if the match up wasn’t between Penn as Milk and Rourke in The Wrestler, but Penn as Milk and Downey Jr. as say, Chaplin (but now, not then). The combination that RDJ would bring to it would make him quite the competition. (Some day though I am positive).
I keep thinking if the match up wasn’t between Penn as Milk and Rourke in The Wrestler, but Penn as Milk and Downey Jr. as say, Chaplin (but now, not then).
Me, I think about the match up between Penn as Milk, Rourke as Randy the Ram, and DiCaprio as Frank Wheeler.
DiCaprio = popular, likable, honorably politically active, and way overdue.
In the performance of his career.
“The racially insensitive comments are getting out of hand on this forum.”
Afrika, check the battery on your sarcasm detector before you suffocate on fumes, ok?
Every time you go to the multiplex and check out what’s playing, you always end up buying another ticket to see Benjamin Button again, right?
LOL! Yep. I love pain, and the local whip-mistress charges waaay more than $10 for 160 minutes.
Actually, the truth is much worse. Every time I go to the multiplex and check out what’s playing, I see this. Neither Milk nor The Wrestler has appeared in this are yet. But hey! We’ve still got Bride Wars!
I loathe this area, at this time of year.
ryan adams
I just checked and there are no batteries inside. Why? because I was dead serious!
Since I haven’t seen The Wrestler or Milk, i’m hoping that some other fellow commenters on this site can share their opinions on this question -
Is Sean Penn’s performance in Milk better than his performance in Mystic River?
If the answer to that is yes, he has a good shot at best actor.
But if the answer to that is no, his chances are quite slim.
It’s a prestigious club, the 2 time winners club. So unless its a really magnificient performance (like say Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump), I don’t think he’ll win it.
Sure, Hillary Swank won her second oscar for M$B and that too in relatively short time. Personally, I still believe Annette Benning was kind of robbed. But M$B just had so much momentum, with everyone loving it, and all girls just seemed to love her character.
The same is not true for Milk, as far as I can see. It doesn’t have the kind of steam that M$B had to help Sean Penn win his second oscar.
If Penn wins, the precedent will be a Best Picture nod, SAG, and BFCA. If Rourke, then the GG and BAFTA and a more appealing story and more central performance (all like Marion Cotillard). Either way, statistics are on their side, because most years don’t see this kind of two-way split in a lead acting category. So throw away the statistics and go with your gut, whichever way that leads you. I’m sticking with Rourke. I had substantial doubts early in the year, but then I heard people like Brad Pitt, Robert Downey Jr., and even Penn talk about Rourke with such reverence.
****
How is Penn not giving a central performance in Milk?
Let’s face it, some people like the poster above just prefers Rourke’s performance.
ha, Benj, I can so sympathize.
Your multiplex is showing the same roster as my multiplex, only we have The Unborn and My Bloody Valentine (2-D). Notice how they remind us “2-D” as if to really rub it in.
You have Slumdog Millionaire and we don’t.
Plus, you have a beach and we have ice storms.
Our whip-chain mistress is dirt cheap, but she’s booked for weeks.
@Robert : thanks.
Not that I don’t believe you, but I tried to find something on the Ampas-site; found nothing about a tie.
I did however stumble across this one (don’t know if that’s already mentioned somewhere) :
“In the event that two achievements by an actor or actress receive sufficient votes to be nominated in the same category, only one shall be nominated using the preferential tabulation process and such other allied procedures as may be necessary to achieve that result.”
I didn’t know that. Would it be fair to think that both of Kate Winslet’s performances would have made it if this rule didn’t exist?
Afrika, please calm down. Your sarcasm detector isn’t meant to detect your own sarcasm or else it would be worn out already. I meant to have you stop and consider that the sarcasm was mine. I think we’re on the same side, but I don’t want to think about it too much.
@ Dunbar:
I got those statistics about a tie from one of my Oscar history books. I’m pretty sure it’s accurate about what the Academy considers a tie these days. (exact same number of votes)
And yes, if the Academy didn’t have a rule that a performer can’t be nominated twice in the same category, it’s very possible that Kate Winslet would be nominated twice in lead actress this year.
Is Sean Penn’s performance in Milk better than his performance in Mystic River?
If the answer to that is yes, he has a good shot at best actor.
But if the answer to that is no, his chances are quite slim.
Sean Penn in Dead Man Walking > Milk > Mystic River
in my opinion. And Penn in Milk is not far from Penn in Dead Man.
#64: “I hope this is wrong on Penelope Cruz. Viola Davis deserves to win this one.”
My first response to this was: They ALL deserve to win this one.
The problem is guessing which one will get enough votes….
From the original post: “Heath Ledger will become the first actor to receive an Academy Awards for a comic movie.”
I assume this means “comic book movie” and not “comedy movie”?
I agree with Paul above that Penn’s performance in Milk surpasses his performance in Mystic River. I also thought that Penn was better in 21 Grams which came out the same year as Mystic River. And I do think his best performance over all is in Dead Man Walking. If he loses this year, he will lose the Oscar in the years he gives his two best performances so far.
Since all the big award shows are gone except for the Big O, here is my predix:
Best picture: Slumdog Millionaire
Actor: Sean Penn
Actress: Meryl Streep
Supp. Actress: Viola Davis
Supp. Actor: Heath Ledger
Director: Danny Boyle
Benj – Fandango shows “Milk” playing at a theater in Destin, FL:
http://www.fandango.com/livelycinema10_aaews/theaterpage
I have seen both “Milk” and “The Wrestler”. I’ll add to this discussion later.
Another bit of history does NOT bode well for Viola Davis winning Supporting Actress. Only two other films in Academy history have had four nods without a corresponding BP nod (Othello and I Remember Mama). In BOTH cases all 4 actors came up empty-handed on Oscar night. Still would like to see Davis beat Cruz.
Ryan:
“Me, I think about the match up between Penn as Milk, Rourke as Randy the Ram, and DiCaprio as Frank Wheeler.
DiCaprio = popular, likable, honorably politically active, and way overdue.
In the performance of his career.”
true, true, true, true, debateable. In fact, the problem is that Leo as Frank was quite good but forgettable. Really, how much has anyone talked about his performance this year (like years past with Aviator, etc)?
And Paul Outlaw,
I might agree with your assessment of Sean Penn’s performances. Though, considering the vast difference between Matthew Poncelet and Harvey Milk, I not only equate the quality of his performances but give him bonus points for portraying so vividly two completely different people.
No argument here, HaroldsMaude.
Penn’s performance in Dead Man Walking was not only his best, but one of the greatest screen performances in history by anyone, IMO. The fact that he didn’t win that year is only tolerable in my mind because I thought Nic Cage was just about equally deserving.
If Penn wins for Milk, it will be well-deserved – as it’s one of his best chameleon-like performances. But my heart is with Mickey Rourke – not for all the real life drama, but for the unforgettable and devastating portrayal that he puts on the screen. As far as I’m concerned, with two great performances, the tie breaker goes to the actor who genuinely moves me the most – heart over mind. Rourke did this in spades.
As far as I’m concerned, with two great performances, the tie breaker goes to the actor who genuinely moves me the most heart over mind.
All I could think about reading this was how great it would be to see Melissa Leo (the heartbreaking performance) win.
But since Streep and Winslet (the technically brilliant performances) seem to be the clear frontrunners, I’d rather see Streep win than Winslet for The Reader.
Penelope Cruz will win her first Oscar and becoming the first Spanish actress to win it & will follow the tradition of Woody Allen women.
The winning tradition: Diane Keaton,Dianne Weist (twice), Mira Sorvino?
or
the losing tradition: Geraldine Page, Maureen Stapleton, Mariel Hemingway, Judy Davis, Jennifer Tilly, Samantha Morton?
Benj – Fandango shows “Milk” playing at a theater in Destin, FL:
Whoa! Thanks, kind benefactor! I had kind of stopped checking that theater because they never seemed to have anything that the Rave didn’t. I stand corrected!
enjoy seeing Milk, GentleBenj, you’ll love it!
#108:
LOL — good call — I guess we make far too much of Allen’s success with Actresses…..
#24:
Pete Hammond at Goldderby is saying that many of the older voters are in fact voting for Langella, and that those votes would otherwise be going to Penn and not Rourke.
So Rourke may well win this if Langella siphons off Penn’s votes.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/season/2009/02/did-bafta-slip.html
never underestimate Frank Langella. he’s well loved by many Academy members (just like him, a voting member). i don’t see mickey rourke winning an oscar on the 22nd.
as for sean penn, i’m rooting for him. if not, langella is my underdog choice. for brad pitt and richard jenkins, the nomination is enough.
Hmmm, why is my post #112 (about Langella siphoning votes away from Penn) awaiting moderation?
Is it the link I provided to Hammond’s article?
“Pete Hammond is saying that many of the older voters are in fact voting for Langella, and that those votes would otherwise be going to Penn and not Rourke.”
So the Academy is Miami-Dade County, Langella is Ralph Nader, and Sean Penn is Al Gore? Sounds about right.
And these older voters who “would otherwise” vote for Sean Penn would be the same older voters who “would otherwise” have voted for Into the Wild — if they hadn’t had a more boring movie to turn to instead. Seems they’d always rather vote for Sean Penn — except when there’s anything else for them to vote for.
Pete Hammond’s theory in nutshell? The older voters can’t be relied on to get anything right. Never would’ve guessed.
“Whoa! Thanks, kind benefactor! I had kind of stopped checking that theater because they never seemed to have anything that the Rave didn’t. I stand corrected!”
You’re welcome, Benj. If you are going to see it, do it ASAP. Focus will be losing screens again on Friday. They really botched the release of this film.
I would be more than overwhelmed if Langella won. I am sticking to my predictions
Best actor – Langella
Best actress- A tie ( Streep and Winslet)
Best supporting actress- Viola Davis
Best supporting actor- Heath Ledger ( Unfortunately).
Best picture- The Reader
I called it here first
“Pete Hammond’s theory in nutshell? The older voters can’t be relied on to get anything right. Never would’ve guessed.”
I wonder just how many AMPAS members he actually talked to who told him what they were voting for. My guess is less than a dozen.
Pete Hammond is a tool and he has his own agenda. This is what he wrote:
“The Langella factor could be key in determining which way this race goes. Many older voters and non-actor members I have spoken to are casting their votes for him, and it appears he’s taking more potential support away from Penn, who, like Langella, plays a real-life politician, than from Rourke.”
First of all, the logic in this is shaky. Why is a vote for Langella a vote that would have gone to Penn? Because Nixon and Milk are such similar roles? Or because Langella and Penn are such similar actors? Please.
And secondly, the whole “members I have spoken to” ploy is one of the most tired ones going. It wasn’t credible when talking about the SAG nominations or the Oscar nominations, and it’s not credible now.
Going into the countdown, the best actor race is the only thing keeping me interested. I’d like to think its very much a toss-up between Penn and Rourke, both of whom I liked a lot, with a long-shot spoiler by Langella. All three are far better than a lot of stuff that actually wins, but of course we all know that it’s usually the best stuff or the right stuff that usually gets overlooked while the safe stuff takes home the gold. It’s been something like 70 years since Irving Thalberg famously quipped “Let’s face it…we win Academy Awards with crap like ‘The Sin of Madelon Claudet” after Helen Hayes took the best actress trophy for that clunky soap opera.
In many ways the Oscars are still kind of like that country club that every once in awhile lets in “the other” because they have to, but would just as soon keep the status quo and reward films based on any number of vary criteria except the one that really and truly matters: lasting quality.
We all know this. Everyone knows this. That’s why “Rebecca” and “Mrs Miniver” and “Driving Miss Daisy” can win best picture. These are like the respectable girls you marry after losing your virginity to Raging Bull or Dr. Strangelove. OK, I know this analogy is a little forced, and it’s late and I’m tired, but bear with me….
I , for one, don’t think that AMPAS has changed that much since Madelon Claudet. And we can debate the merits, as I and my friends tend to do every single Oscar season, about who deserves to win.
It’s a pointless argument. Because who really “deserves” to win very often doesn’t. If Sean Penn is truly giving the performance of his career in “Milk” (and I’d say it’s right up there with “Dead Man Walking”), then it’s certainly not the quality of his work, but rather marketing, campaigning and maybe his combo of precursers that can get him into the winners’ circle.
If Mickey Rourke is assured another win, I think it’s the Indepedent Spirit (for which he was nominated, btw, 20 years ago for “Barfly” –and lost to Dennis Quaid for “The Big Easy.”) As much as he may deserve an Oscar this year, I think there are still plenty of voters who don’t want to honor someone who might, God forbid, spoil the party with bad manners.
That’s why my jaw wouldn’t drop if Langella actually won this thing. Art Carney took it away from Nicholson and Pacino. John Wayne broke up Voight and Hoffman (can you see the Academy giving an award to characters as, gasp, unsavory as Ratzo or Joe Buck?…that would be like honoring a wrestler we all know). Langella might not have quite the sentimental support of Carney or the Duke but he is
–a well respected actor
–a Tony winner for this same role
–the star of a Ron Howard movie
–giving a critically acclaimed performance in a biopic (something the Oscars have loved since George Arliss chewed the scenery in Disraeli drag)
Like most everyone I know who even cares about this, I think it’s going to be Penn for a truly great performance if excellence rules out, or Rourke –if he can get past some snobbery— for a very very good and heartbreaking comeback turn….. but I wouldn’t rule out Langella.
That’s why “Rebecca” and “Mrs Miniver” and “Driving Miss Daisy” can win best picture. These are like the respectable girls you marry after losing your virginity to Raging Bull or Dr. Strangelove.
You do realize that Hitchcock’s perverse little Rebecca was the winner in a field of ten including
- All This, and Heaven Too (a Bette Davis costume drama);
- Foreign Correspondent (another Hitchcock, this one a spy thriller);
- The Grapes of Wrath (John Ford’s prestige literary adaptation; won Best Director & Best Supporting Actress);
- The Great Dictator (Chaplin’s classic and first full talkie);
- Kitty Foyle (a “women’s picture” which got Ginger Rogers a Best Actress Oscar);
- The Letter (an adaptation of a Maugham play with a classic Bette Davis performance);
- The Long Voyage Home (another John Ford prestige literary adaptation);
- Our Town (the Thornton Wilder Broadway drama);
- The Philadelphia Story (Cukor’s remarriage comedy masterpiece with Hepburn, Grant and Best Actor winner Stewart).
I would have picked The Philadelphia Story, The Letter, The Great Dictator or Rebecca, the four least respectable of the bunch.
Everybody says this is the closest race since 2002 with Day-Lewis vs Nicholson and then Brody upsetting in the end, but I think we are forgetting that Sean Penn was involved in a really tight contest a year later. A week before the Oscars, Depp won the SAG and suddenly, for the entire week, it became a fascinating three-horse race, Penn vs Murray vs Depp. The fact that the favorite won doesn’t mean it wasn’t really really close.
Paul @ #119:
> “First of all, the logic in this is shaky. Why is a vote for Langella a vote that would have gone to Penn?”
I imagine it might be because the voters he spoke with refer to Rourke simply as “that Wrestler guy”?
> “It wasn’t credible when talking about the SAG nominations or the Oscar nominations, and it’s not credible now.”
What do you mean by “credible”? Do you mean reliable? Okay. But if we’re talking about finding out what the buzz is among the voters, I’d think getting people’s actual opinions is just as credible as looking at the voting patterns of the past 10 years. (I seem to recall the “voters I spoke to” helped some folks predict a Crash win a few years back.)
Don’t you think we need to use both sources of information to make good predictions?
“But if we’re talking about finding out what the buzz is among the voters, I’d think getting people’s actual opinions is just as credible as looking at the voting patterns of the past 10 years.”
But we have to take into consideration what demographic segment of the Academy is likely to open up Pete Hammond. Especially when, as others have said, it’s probably only a dozen or so people.
I’m picturing the scene in Chinatown where Jake Gittes goes to talk to the ladies at the rest home, sitting around the table, quilting.
Well, as long as they’re filling out their own ballots, that’s at least a good thing. When was the last time we heard reports of voters letting their spouses or kids decide their votes? Or (and I did read this one several years back) asking their dentist whom to vote for?
Or picking the most attractive candidate to vote for — oh wait, that’s called “Best Actress” — oops!
—————-
P.S. — I just saw the link to the article on the smackdown between you and T O’Neil. Didn’t realize there was so much bad blood between the sites; I’ll think twice about mentioning GoldD again!
Well, as long as they’re filling out their own ballots, that’s at least a good thing. When was the last time we heard reports of voters letting their spouses or kids decide their votes?
yeah, the grandkids were filling out the ballots back when The Departed and No Country won. That’s why GrAMPAS kept the ballots to fill out on their own this year. They’ve had quite enough of all those nasty hippie movies, thank you very much.
“When was the last time we heard reports of voters letting their spouses or kids decide their votes?”
Those days happen to be over, otherwise “TDK” would have been in for a best picture nominee.
120: ” As much as he may deserve an Oscar this year, I think there are still plenty of voters who don’t want to honor someone who might, God forbid, spoil the party with bad manners.”
This has been my thinking — more so than Langella siphoning votes from Penn, I’d expect many voters are scared of what he might say on the podium!
Dominik, we’re on the same page, my friend.
“Didn’t realize there was so much bad blood between the sites”
It scabbed over, brainypirate, but still itches me so I rub the scars
The scars of Oscar, as somebody else once said.
(picture O’Neil as the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “It’s only a flesh wound!”)
Nope, seriously, no bad blood between the sites. It was a big brouhaha, but it was good publicity for everybody in the long run. I might not be one of Tom’s favorite upstarts, but Sasha patched things up nicely. (It dragged on for days.) Sasha has mastered those skills that elude me, the whatchamacallit, “tact” and “diplomacy” part of blogging.
> “Nope, seriously, no bad blood between the sites. ”
I don’t know, Ryan. Maybe you folks should play it up. Doesn’t everybody want a good fight during the Oscar season? Penn V. Rourke; Streep V. Winslet; Cruz V. Davis, etc.? (I thought Penn or Rourke even mentioned this recently.)
You’d think if we were really going to get into the spirit of the season, we’d be playing up the AD V. GoldD catfight!
> “It wasn’t credible when talking about the SAG nominations or the Oscar nominations, and it’s not credible now.”
What do you mean by “credible”? Do you mean reliable? Okay. But if we’re talking about finding out what the buzz is among the voters, I’d think getting people’s actual opinions is just as credible as looking at the voting patterns of the past 10 years. (I seem to recall the “voters I spoke to” helped some folks predict a Crash win a few years back.)
Don’t you think we need to use both sources of information to make good predictions?
No, what I meant was: It’s not credible (or reliable) unless he literally spoke to several hundred members, noted their preferences and reported on it. I’m not interested in the muttering of a couple of geezers/toadies/blowhards/etc. after a screening. I can “report” on that myself.
> ” It’s not credible (or reliable) unless he literally spoke to several hundred members…”
Agreed. What’s the margin of error on his surveys, I wonder?
well, it’s simply the set of winners that common sense and history were inducing. It’s my prediction too, Penn (undeserving) – Winslet (yet to see) – Ledger (awesome) – Cruz (deserving)
I have yet to see Tomei’s performance, but Cruz – not a fan – certainly gives an Oscar-calibre performance. And I’m one of the very few spaniards saying this… here she’s being trashed in ways she hasn’t been by americans in her worst years in Hollywood.
Supporting Actress, in advance, seems locked. Cruz is in an Allen movie (check), has swept most of the most important awards (check), has been the year-long frontrunner (check), is a previously nominated star that is running in supporting (check), is an “it”girl (check)… plus Davis, Adams, Henson could cancel each other and Tomei is still a previous winner AND the second performance in The Wrestler that everybody wants to see winning. That is, the ones voting for Rourke may be voting for Tomei, but the ones voting for Tomei will be voting for Rourke. Can we really picture Tomei winning her second while Mickey losing his first? Unlikely.. and I think Penn has the edge on lead, so…
RyanA, I laughed when I read your reference to Jake Gittes and the quilting bee. So true. (Gosh, I love that movie… and to think that Nicholson lost that year to Art Carney.)
“(Gosh, I love that movie… and to think that Nicholson lost that year to Art Carney.)”
Apparently, Carney gave a better performance than Nicholson………………………………………………………………………………………..
Don’t you find the actor race a lot like Best Actress last year?
Otto,
Which one is Cotillard this year????
brainypriate,
That would be Richard Jenkins.
I feel like Rourke would be Cotillard. It’s been a two-horse race, Penn won the Sag and Rourke, the Bafta, and most people seem to think Penn will win the Oscar, but Rourke has a good chance as well. Last year most people were betting on Christie and Cotillard ended up winning.
Does that make sense? I dont know, I saw some similarities, and maybe that’s just the way I wanna see it ’cause I’d like to see Mickey Rourke winning the Oscar heh
Since I was all about Cotillard (undeniably best performance) last year, things are looking good for Penn (undeniably best performance this year) in this analogy.
AS GOOD AS IT GETS DID NOT WIN BEST PIC.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.