|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 18, 2020 11:34:03 GMT
Denzel already had a previous Oscar win. He was either the alternate choice to Crowe, a back to back would have been sensational hype, or it came down to Academy grandstanding for two major black wins. Sensational also. Did all the voters in the acting branch feel this way that year? Best Actress was a weak year too. Then why weren't the Supporting Actor/Actress winners black too? Surely there were roles in 2001 to choose from? Again, if you haven't seen 1 of the 2 performances when talking about who deserved it more, then you can't have much credibility. Look at me. I'm not discussing MONSTER'S BALL because I haven't seen it. At the time, it was a lot less common than today for a foreign film to be popular among the masses, making AMELIE an exception. It would've been sensational hype for it to win Best Foreign Film, but it didn't. Poitier’s was an Oscar for his contribution to film, although he wasn’t on the screen much throughout the latter part of the century, and for his dignity in industry representation. Why Poitier? Because he's considered to be one of the best actors of his generation. If you don't like him, that's fine, but you're a minority. These awards are only given when the person is old. As they get older, they get less job opportunities. Also, he's not the only person receive one, so it's not like he had some kind of preference over other more-deserving candidates. Whoa!! Hold on - I didn’t say that it was the only Oscar he’d ever won. I said he deserved Oscars for other movies (which I think he did) but I think he got attention from some of the viewers for playing a bad guy. You can’t prove he didn’t get attention this way.  I don’t think it’s an accident when beautiful actresses get Oscars for appearing ugly in movies. My opinions are just as good (or not good) as your opinions. There is no way to objectively analyze something as subjective as the Oscars, but we’re all entitled to our opinions. Don’t call my opinions myths and expect to use the scientific method to prove this. Susan Sarandon wore little or no makeup in Dead Man Walking and cried when she saw how ugly she looked in the dailies while her significant other was directing the film. She won an Oscar. Sorry, I wasn't dismissing you. By "myth" I meant "Something people often say because they're heard it from someone else but can't actually be proved." You say that it's not objective or a science, yet you and others have reached this conclusion because you've found a pattern. What am I disagree with are the numbers themselves. The amount of actresses who have won for an unglamorous role isn't the majority. In fact, there are plenty of actresses with unglamorous roles who didn't even get a nomination, despite Oscar buzz (Emma Thompson in STRANGER THAN FICTION immediately comes to mind). And as I said before, the actresses that have won for that (including Susan Sarandon) have also won/gotten nominated when they've looked beautiful. Now, if the argument was that, without makeup or sexy outfits, the actresses focus more on grit and it complements the raw atmosphere of the movie... That would make sense. It would mean that the voters are judging realism and the emotional factor, as opposed to being shallow. |
|
