|
|
Post by jesserebel on Aug 19, 2018 3:32:36 GMT
I am watching this film for the first time tonight and it is fantastic, but a large part of that has to do with Garlands performance. She is absolutely incredible in every scene she is in, from her diction to her expression to her dancing to her singing. She is PHENOMENAL. I am shocked that she was not given the Oscar, but instead it went to Grace Kelly.
I have seen Kellys performance more than once and it is far from impressive. I am shocked that Garland lost (by 6 votes I read). If anyone should have won that wasn't Garland it should have been Dorothy Dandridge, but we know that wouldn't have happened.
Why do you feel she lost in the end (when everyone was certain she would win) and it ended up breaking her to a point she never recovered?
Also, do you think her version of the role is the most iconic?
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Aug 19, 2018 5:11:47 GMT
Because the Academy thinks dressing down and having some kind of behavioral disorder (in this case, alcoholism) signifies serious acting, and this generally beats a performance that includes music or comedy, just because it has elements of frivolity.
|
|
|
|
Post by jesserebel on Aug 19, 2018 22:31:15 GMT
Because the Academy thinks dressing down and having some kind of behavioral disorder (in this case, alcoholism) signifies serious acting, and this generally beats a performance that includes music or comedy, just because it has elements of frivolity. It is ridiculous that Grace Kelly won that Oscar! I know some people will say she deserved it but how can anyone say that after seeing the performance Judy Garland gave in A Star Is Born... It blows my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 19, 2018 22:43:57 GMT
I think it's silly to put much thought or care into what the Academy does. They make awful decisions quite a lot.
Maybe Grace Kelly was more popular with the voters at the time. Who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Aug 20, 2018 0:20:11 GMT
I'm glad that there are people that agree with me that Judy Garland's performance felt more deserving of an Oscar than Grace Kelly's.
I think there are numerous reasons why Judy lost the Oscar. First, I think whichever actress deglamorized themselves from their onscreen and public persona was probably taken more seriously as a contender. Second, A Star is Born was edited down from its premiere version, which ran at 182 minutes, to 154 minutes in which some of Judy's best scenes were cut. The third reason is speculation on my part in which Judy had a bad reputation within Hollywood for being difficult to work with and holding up production on her films.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Aug 20, 2018 0:23:33 GMT
Garland was heaps better - I don't even know why Kelly was nominated.
Of course, Kelly was very "popular" with the mostly male members of the academy, but I'm sure that didn't come into play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2018 0:28:39 GMT
On the other hand, I watched Born Yesterday today and was flabbergasted that Holliday won an Oscar for it. She wasn't bad at all, but what was there about it that cried "Oscar-worthy?"
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Aug 20, 2018 0:48:44 GMT
I still want to know why Val Kilmer wasn't Nominated for an Oscar for "TOMBSTONE" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by jesserebel on Aug 24, 2018 23:38:18 GMT
Garland was heaps better - I don't even know why Kelly was nominated. Of course, Kelly was very "popular" with the mostly male members of the academy, but I'm sure that didn't come into play. Thats part of my issue. Kelly should not have even been nominated, yet alone WINNING! Kelly had a reputation for having affairs with her leading men. |
|
