And the Movie Movie Oscar goes to...

[forever1267]

... a lot of people who didn't get a nomination.

It does happen sometimes. An actor gets nominated for a performance that doesn't explain look at The Human Condition or The Meaning Of It All.

Just a fun performance in a fun movie.

For example, Johnny Depp certainly didn't change anyone's views on pirating in Pirates of the Caribbean and Kathy Bates hasn't stopped us from seeing nurses, despite her work in Misery. She won an Oscar for that excellent performance, and so did Jack Palance as a crusty cowboy in City Slickers

Cary Grant received 2 nominations, but not for Bringing Up Baby, North by Northwest or The Philadelphia Story. Marilyn Monroe never received a nomination, despite her work in Some Like it Hot, Bus Stop or The Misfits.

And watching some recent movies, it occurred to me that there have been several performances that maybe should have been at least a nomination.

For example, Steve Martin won several awards for his performances in All of Me and Roseane. Rupert Everett seemed an obvious choice for Best Supporting Actor in My Best Friend's Wedding.

This year, we might have 2 of them. Meryl Streep in Mamma Mia! and the Late, Great Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight Neither one of those movies are Great Works of Deep Art, but they were fun.

So who else should have been nominated, or should have won, an Oscar for a Great Performance in a Movie Movie?

[Deleted]

Great topic and one I can get behind. The choices are purely personal preference!

Diane Keating in "Love and Death"
Kevin J. O'Connor as Beni in "The Mummy"
Amanda Root in "Persuasion"
Maggie Smith and Denholm Elliot both won awards for "A Room With A View" but not Oscars---they should have IMO! And so should Daniel Day-Louis for the same movie and doubtless many others as well.
Bruce Willis is the best he's ever going to be in "Twelve Monkeys" but as a runner-up to that film I nominate him for his hapless plastic surgeon in "Death Becomes Her"
Sydney Pollack in an uncredited but hilarious take as an E.R. Dr. in "Death Becomes Her" along with Meryl who of course should have won an Oscar for the dry-witted shrew character she played to perfection.

Just for starters.

[Deleted]

If by "movie movie," you mean crowd-pleasing movies (like blow em ups and comedies) where actors don't get nominated:

For one, I would say Daniel Craig got robbed for Casino Royale. Total sympathetic Bond who was also charismatic with the ladies and could kick ass (physical aspect of the role) in a major and believable way. He gave his all in that role under much duress b/c from what I understand the "Blond Bond" was a controversial choice.

Also I would say (going wayyy back here) John Candy and/or Steve Martin for Trains, Planes and Automobiles. I never gave so many gut laughs in a movie. They were both perfectly cast as pretty much themselves but I felt them as characters too. I couldn't find any info that showed they were nominated so I'll include them.

This is a great topic.

[normadesmond]

Oh yeah, John Candy. What a great actor. And that's someone I could actually see getting an Oscar nod sooner or later if he'd only lived longer.

Okay here's a couple:

Mark Addy (Supporting Actor) in The Full Monty:

I mean it was nominated for a bunch of Oscars, including Best Picture, but not for any of the actors. Why not? That movie stood and fell on the actors. Nobody came out saying, "Wow, what great cinematography! What stellar art direction!" Addy was fantastic especially in the scene at the end with Lesley Sharp playing his wife, where she learns about the stripping for the first time. For that matter, Sharp and Robert Carlyle, and Tom Wilkinson, were all great too. (At least Wilkinson eventually got some Academy recognition, for other movies.)

Jude Law (Supporting Actor) in Gattaca:

I think he's overrated in general, but weirdly, he got very little attention for his early performances, where he was much better, I feel, than after he became a big star and started getting cast in a lot of bad blockbusters. As the genetically-enhanced superman Eugene, he was a lot more interesting and sympathetic, I feel, at playing the lofty, arrogant Adonis than he was doing the same thing in The Talented Mr Ripley. What's weird is he got tremendous acclaim for his Ripley performance, which wasn't even half as interesting as his Gattaca performance, which got very little attention. Even though it wasn't "movie movie" sci-fi, but fairly cerebral, it was still the sci-fi/fantasy genre, which probably didn't help his chances. It's like, if you make a big, lush historical set in the past, like Cold Mountain, they take you seriously, but make a futuristic sci-fi movie and you're out of contention.

Or Reese Witherspoon in Election. Because it's a comedy, even if one with a serious theme, it greatly reduces her chances. She wasn't nominated, and she didn't really ever have much of a shot of being nominated. Yet she was a shoo-in to win the Oscar for the Johnny Cash movie just because it was a "serious" drama. You could say the same about Winona Ryder in Heathers (or Christian Slater). I think she was far better there than in The Age of Innocence, yet the costume drama elegance of the latter made it seem "important," whereas the former was a seemingly frivolous teen comedy. And yet to me, she was pretty dull in Age and really watchable and interesting in Heathers. The awards don't really match up with where actors truly were at their best.

[forever1267]

These last 3 posts are exactly what I'm talking about.

There are great performances out there that don't get nominated just because they are outside the Academy's view of Important Cinema.

There are Movies, where the point is to entertain, enthrall, thrill us, and then there are Films, where the point is to show us something about The Human Condition. And the best of them are both, that entertain us as well as make us think about Life and Love. And I think that a lot of performances get short shift because of that.

That's one of the things I love about the Golden Globes is because they have categories for Comedy / Musical. They are so underserved by the Academy, because those films aren't "deep" enough to be nominated for an Academy Award.

For another example, look at Nathan Lane's performance in The Birdcage. Hysterical work, but the only award he got for it was a SAG award for Best Ensemble.

I think there are many performances out there by those who have been nominated for the wrong performance, or who will probably never get a nomination, just because their work is "too light" for the Academy.

[Deleted]

I would also like to mention Andy Serkis as Gollum in Lord of the Rings. Actually, he won numerous awards for this (Saturn award, etc.), but not an Oscar nomination. Yes, I know it was digitized but the digi transformation was based on his characterization, physicality, and voice. He was aptly pitiful and grotesque, annoying, even humorous. From watching the special features (geek ) I would imagine his work was especially difficult, acting against the green screen, by himself in many scenes, and I believe having to dial up the expressiveness and physicality just enough but not too much for it to be captured for digitizing.

Actor Driven Digital Character

[Deleted]

I always wished either Susan Sarandon or Geena Davis had gotten an Oscar for Thelma & Louise. Emotionally they just yanked me back and forth between laughing, biting my nails and feeling utter despair, among other things. One scene in particular that got to me -- They're driving down the highway without speaking and at this point they've both accepted that they've left their old lives behind for good - but they look kind of serene and almost at peace with the realization.

Damn, one of them at least should have gotten an Oscar!