"Did You Just See What I Saw?!": you Must give back that oscar

Showing posts with label you Must give back that oscar. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

You MUST give back that Oscar! It's a wrap....

Well, I've given you my "top five" choices for the most unjustly- awarded Academy Awards in Oscar history. Narrowing the list down to just five choices was certainly a challenge, as there are so many worthy (or is it "unworthy"?) others. So I thought we'd have a brief wrap-up of a few other choices that might be considered prime candidates for the "honors". I expect this year that we may have a few more contenders, too! See you on Sunday, February 27! I'll be "live-blogging" during the show, if you care to join me...hope to see you here!:

And they are, in no particular order:

Best Actress, 1998: Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. It's become almost an accepted fact that most people, for one reason or another, simply can't stand her. Whether it's for her on-screen or her off-screen persona--or perhaps a little bit of both--is hard to tell. Hers was selected over Cate Blanchett's incandescent performance in Elizabeth. Fourteen years ago, the Gwyneth-bashing hadn't really begun yet in full. Could her Oscar-win have been the springboard? Who knows. Her performance wasn't bad--merely a bit of fluff in which she played the "pants-role" (disguised as a man) as well as the female love interest of Joseph Fiennes (whatever happened to him?). It was a clever-enough film, but rather instantly forgettable. And Paltrow? She was...good-ish. But "Best Actress"? Over Cate Blanchett? WRONG CHOICE, FOLKS! The Oscar REALLY goes to:

Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth

Best Supporting Actress, 1998: Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love. We all love Dame Judi Dench. She never fails to steal every scene she's in, including her very few scenes Shakespeare in Love, in which she has what amounts to a cameo role as Queen Elizabeth I. Her performance, in total, amounts to less than 8 minutes of screen time. Clearly her win for this miniscule part was a sop for having lost the previous year for Mrs. Brown (to Helen Hunt....grrr.... see part 3). Since the "Best Supporting" awards are so often given for reasons other than the winning performance itself (overall career achievement, encouragement of a new performer, etc.), the award should have been given to a wonderful actress, much overshadowed by her loudmouth sister, who gave a touching and skilled performance that year--and had never won an Oscar (and, sadly, never would).
And the Oscar REALLY goes to:

Lynn Redgrave for Gods and Monsters.

Best Supporting Actor 1997: Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting. With the possible exception of Dead Poet's Society, I've never seen Robin Williams in a dramatic film where I found his characterization believable, including this one. He comes across as either strait-jacketed or medicated. He's a brilliant comedian. Oscar-worthy dramatic actor? Not in my book. And the Oscar REALLY goes to:

Anthony Hopkins in Amistad.

Best Supporting Actress, 1995: Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite. There has long been an Academy tradition of handing this award to new, young actresses, as sort of a "welcome" to the industry. Some (Meryl Streep, Kramer vs. Kramer; Jessica Lange, Tootsie) went on to fulfill the voters' "show of faith" and proved their Oscar worthiness in a long series of other fine performances. Others (Miyoshi Umeki, Sayonara; Marlee Matlin, Children of a Lesser God; Tatum O'Neal, Paper Moon) watched their careers fizzle almost as soon as the Oscar hit the mantle. Perhaps most emblematic of that sub-category of "Best Supporting Actress" winners is Mira Sorvino--a selection that continues to baffle Oscar historians. It's not that she was "bad," per se...but how can one say that her cartoonish portrayal of a nasal, brain-dead hooker (in one of Woody Allen's most forgettable films) was the supreme acting achievement of the entire year? Surely Joan Allen's chilly portrayal of the icy, broken Pat Nixon displayed acting talent in spades. Was Mira Sorvino really better than Joan Allen? No...she was not.
And the Oscar REALLY goes to:

Joan Allen in Nixon. Incidentally, Marisa Tomei gets unfairly lumped in this category of undeserving Best Supporting Actress winner, I think. In 1992, her win for her hilarious performance in My Cousin Vinny has held up through the years and has proven to be, indeed, worthy of much praise. She has also subsequently given several memorable performances, such as In the Bedroom.

Best Actress, 1940: Ginger Rogers in Kitty Foyle
Boy, was this one a head-scratcher! The four other nominees gave performances that remain to this day in the "classic" category. Ginger, er, not so much:

Bette Davis in The Letter
Joan Fontaine in Rebecca
Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story
Martha Scott Our Town

It's almost anti-American to knock the darling Ginger Rogers, but I find this film pretty much unwatchable. Seeing her do her cutesy, little-girl routine makes me very, very nervous. I really couldn't find an adequate explanation of how on earth she won the Oscar that year. A true Oscar mystery.
And the Oscar REALLY goes to:

Joan Fontaine in Rebecca.

Best Actress, 1947: Loretta Young in The Farmer’s Daughter
(see above). Another 1940's Oscar puzzlement. Loretta Young was a stalwart, hard-working Hollywood veteran who had been making films since she was 12 years old. And there were very few lovelier actresses than her. But her phony-baloney Swedish accent was certainly not the thing for which Oscars should be given. The most deserving performance that year lost out as it was in a little-seen, little-understood film called Mourning Becomes Electra. The lead actress gives a "take-no-prisoners," full-out performance that was certainly leagues ahead of the Farmer's Daughter fluff. I think viewers/voters were simply put-off/confused by the title and stayed away from it. And the Oscar REALLY goes to:

Rosalind Russell in Mourning Becomes Electra.

Best Film, 1952: The Greatest Show On Earth, Cecil B. De Mille's turgid tale of love and deceit behind the canvas curtain of the circus world is generally considered by Oscarologists (I just made up that term) to be the biggest "HUH?" choice of "Best Picture" in Oscar history (though Crash is rapidly rising in the ranks as the years expose its hollowness).
And the Oscar REALLY goes to:

Singin in the Rain...which wasn't even NOMINATED!!

And, finally, the most egregiously idiotic award ever given by the Academy:

Best Song, 2006: "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp," from Hustle and Flow by Three 6 Mafia. What is there to say?

And the Oscar REALLY goes to: NO ONE! Because this category should have been eliminated altogether atleast 15 years ago.

See: Hmmm...where do we begin? for more on the "Best Song" category.

Also see:

Sunday, February 20, 2011

You MUST Give Back that Oscar! (Part 4)

The #4 selection in our parade of Oscar injustices may not be a popular one, and it's not a choice that reflects on the ineptitude of the performance; rather for the performance that was not awarded that year. The year was 1954. The winner: Grace Kelly in The Country Girl. Kelly was at the beginning of her brief, meteoric career in Hollywood, before she gave it all up to become Princess Grace of Monaco. She quickly ascended to the Hollywood "A-list" to become the co-star of such major stars as Clark Gable (Mogambo) and Gary Cooper (High Noon), among others. 1954 also marked the year of the comeback of Hollywood's most troubled, yet greatly beloved star, Judy Garland, in the first film remake of the perennial A Star Is Born (version #4 is currently in the works, to star Beyonce...uh huh). Garland had had a much publicized crack-up, having been fired by MGM, had several suicide attempts, stays in mental institutions, etc. As everyone knows, we all love a good comeback, and Garland (and her then-husband, Sid Luft) pulled out all the stops to ensure that her comeback would be a success. Warner Brothers produced a lavish, color, wide-screen, big budget musical extravaganza that was the perfect showcase for Garland's many talents.

And dazzlingly brilliant she was. Not only her musical numbers, but her many wide-ranging dramatic scenes reveal her to be a truly great actress, delivering one of the most unforgettably vivid performances in cinema history. But at 196 minutes, A Star is Born was far too long for Warners' liking--following the bottom line that at that length, the number of times they could show it per day was reduced; thus, it was randomly and viciously slashed to a more fiscally palatable 154 minutes, rendering the film choppy, hard to follow and confusing (what's more, most of the cut footage was destroyed!). And these cuts happened while the film was already in wide release, which left audiences feeling "gypped". It was one of the biggest mistakes Warner Brothers ever made. But when the film was originally released, in its full length, Judy Garland was considered a shoo-in--and a much-deserved one, too--for the Best Actress Oscar.

The Country Girl was the filmed version of the Clifford Odets' Broadway hit, and starred Bing Crosby, as the washed-up, alcoholic singer/actor (in a subtle, effective performance). And in a bit of off-beat casting, they cast the gorgeous, glamourous Grace Kelly as his bitter, frumpish wife. Her performance was just fine--and it wasn't her fault that she was far too young to play this role. There's nothing embarassing about her performance, though one is left to wonder how much more effectively the part might have been played by an actress of a bit more "depth"--not to mention, age-appropriateness (Bette Davis, perhaps?).

So, it's Oscar night. Judy Garland is not in attendance, as she is in Cedars of Lebanon hospital in Los Angeles, having just given birth to her only son, Joey. But her "lock" on the Best Actress category was so assured, the producers of the Academy Awards that year actually set up scaffolding outside the window of Garland's hospital room, in order to beam her acceptance speech, via remote, to the worldwide television audience (the show was televised for the first time only the year before). Garland later recalled that when Kelly's name was announced as the winner, the television crew silently began dismantling their lights and scaffolding and wordlessly scurried out of her hospital room. A heartbreaking scenario, to say the least.

There was a huge hue and cry in Hollywood (and beyond) over the injustice of the Academy's choice. Groucho Marx famously quipped that it was the "greatest robbery since Brink's". It became clear that it was something of a voter revolt against Warner Brothers for their greedy mutilation of a brilliant film, for A Star is Born was completely shut out of any major awards, receiving only one award, period: For Best Original Musical Score. George Cukor's flawless direction and Moss Hart's magnificent script (which stands up against any script of any year), weren't even nominated--nor was the film itself. And furthermore--in what was perhaps more a matter of "bad timing," James Mason (who was nominated) lost the Best Actor award to Marlon Brando's deserving performance in On the Waterfront--though I still feel Mason's heartbreaking, multi-layered portrayal of the lost Norman Maine should have won).

Painstaking efforts to try to track down the excised footage from the original version of the 1954 A Star is Born have been underway for decades, and scenes and snippets continue to turn up. But the version that is most commonly shown and is available on DVD is sort of a mutilated beauty; a shadow of what Cukor and Hart's vision must have been, with scenes recreated using still photographs. It's sad to see this glimpse of "what might have been," it's all we've got (for now?).

Grace Kelly's victory that year is generally considered by most Oscar historians to be one of the greatest injustices in the history of the Oscars. It's one in a long line of performances that were deemed Oscar-worthy, by glamourgirl actresses who won the award for taking off their makeup (Jane Wyman for Johnny Belinda; Sophia Loren, Two Women; Charlize Theron for Monster, to name a few) . Principality of Monaco:
You MUST give back that Oscar! Send it to Liza, or something Here is, perhaps, Judy Garland's finest scene in this very fine film. And, incredibly, this is one of the scenes that the hatchet-men at Warner Brothers deemed unnecessary and cut from the final print. Fortunately, it somehow escaped being destroyed, as so many others ultimately were.

See also:

Thursday, February 17, 2011

You MUST give back that Oscar! (Part 3)

Okay, I already tipped my #3 choice in part 1 of this story. My God, what was going on in the late 1990's, anyway? There were SO many poor choices made by the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences! I'd always considered the year 1956 to be the benchmark year for terrible movies that were taken terribly seriously (The Ten Commandments, The Bad Seed, The Conqueror, etc.). And Around the World in 80 Days was selected "Best Picture". But looking more closely now, with a bit more distance of time, it's clear that the latter-half of the 1990's will go down in history as a time when the Academy lost their collective minds.

In 1997, the front-runner in the "Best Actress" category was really anyone's guess. The nominees were:

Kate Winslet – Titanic
Julie Christie – Afterglow
Helen Hunt – As Good as It Gets
Helena Bonham Carter – The Wings of the Dove
Judi Dench – Mrs. Brown

It was not an epic year for actresses. Titanic and As Good As It Gets were the only two films featuring Best Actress nominees that voters might have seen....the other three were small, "art house" films with very limited release. Still, Julie Christie was a sentimental favorite for her memorable performance in Afterglow-- (with her third nomination - coming 32 years after her Oscar win in 1965 for Darling and 26 years after her previous Oscar nomination in 1971). Titanic was, of course, an enormous success--in fact, it remained the top-earning film of all time until Avatar was released in 2009. As often is the case of mega-blockbuster films, the actors are considered incidental to the overall picture and rarely are they given the top acting awards, which didn't necessarily bode well for Kate Winslet's possible win. Judy Dench remained a perennial nominee/winner. Helena Bonham-Carter was nominated for a film that no one had heard of, let alone seen. Which left Helen Hunt.

I had high hopes for As Good As It Gets, as Terms of Endearment and Broadcast News-two other films written and directed by James L. Brooks--were (and are) two of my very favorite films. And at that time, Jack Nicholson was still attached mostly to "prestige" films. But after just about 15 minutes into this film, I got that sinking feeling that a stink-bomb had been let loose in the theatre. There was a stilted, phony patina to the film that seemed to get more and more oppressive as the film spun on. Nicholson's portrayal of a..er..total, hateful asshole (sorry...can't think of a better way to put it...), who's supposed to be a "loveable curmudgeon" is anything but loveable. And his would-be love interest in the film is a bedraggled, whiny, unpleasant single-mother/ waitress who is played in a one-note, simpering manner by the oddly detached and unlikable actress, Helen Hunt (PAGING: MISS PALTROW, STAGE LEFT). Her faux-sincere bag of tricks is transparent and disingenuous (as always, to this viewer).

The film rings false on just about every important level and rarely has a "love story" been handed over to such an unbelievable pair as her and Nicholson--whose on-screen chemistry is about as potent as a day-old glass of Alka Seltzer. And Helen Hunt's charisma-free emotings left one looking at one's watch every 4 minutes or so (people wore those things way back then).

Just after the tragic, erroneous announcement was made....check out Helena Bonham-Carter!

So, it's Oscar night, March 23, 1998. "And the Oscar goes to....," Geoffrey Rush announced, "Helen Hunt!". If you watch the video of the awards ceremony today, the applause seemed very tepid, sort of like a mass, "WHO the hell did we just pick??"

Helen Hunt: NO SHE DI INT!

Not that it's necessarily an indicator of ability or merit, really, but since that win, she's only made a handful of films, none of them with her in a consequential lead role, and only two of them (Cast Away and What Women Want) had any showing at the box office. So, it is plain, with the passing of a decade and a half, that this win was clearly a giant aberration...a miscount...a "hanging chad," maybe? Something went terribly wrong. HELEN HUNT: YOU MUST GIVE BACK THAT OSCAR!

And the Oscar REALLY goes to: Julie Christie for Afterglow.