And the Oscar Should Have Gone to...

[newtothis]

The Best Actor Oscar 1994 should have gone to Daniel Day - Lewis for In the Name of the Father instead of Tom Hanks for Philadelphia.

[anne]

I know that several people on this thread have said they thought that Good Night and Good Luck should have won the Best Picture Oscar this year instead of Crash if BBM didn't win. I rented it this weekend, and after seeing it, I'm curious to know why those who think it should have won think so. I still have the DVD for a couple of days, so I'd be willing to go back and watch it again to see what I missed. Can someone give me a guide for what he/she found spectacular about it?

[thecupcakekid]

Anne, I'm one of the people who thought Goodnight and Goodluck should have one. I saw it a while ago, but I remember thinking it was beautifully shot, and I don't usually like black and white films. I thought David Straithern was fantastic, and was impressed with the way the movie included actual footage of McCarthy without it looking strange, but fitting in. The supporting actors were excellent as well, and it had a message without being preachy. I just really enjoyed the story and the way it was told. I liked it a lot better than Brokeback Mountain as well.

[anne]

Thank you Cupcake. I can definitely see what you're saying regarding the cinematography and editing. I watched the commentary on the DVD yesterday, and while I didn't gain much more appreciation, one thing I did gain an appreciation for was the jumps from Murrow clips to Straithern acting. In several of them, I did not even realized they were making the jump.

I think for me, aside from the cherry picking of history, I just thought the movie fell short from an emotional standpoint. I frankly didn't care about any of the characters, and didn't think they wrote much of anything to give the audience that investment. As an example, the suicide of Don Hollenbeck fell completely flat with me, because they had done so little to set it up and give you any sort of attachment to him. I also thought the subplot with Robert Downey Jr and Patricia Clarkson was so random and out of place. I think I know what they were trying to get to by including their story, but in the context of the film, it just felt so random to me.

I have a hunch that Clooney and Heslov assumed an admiration and hero-worship of Murrow and his boys from the get go. If an audience didn't walk in with that same love that they felt for the guy, then there was no emotional investment. They depended too much on their own point of view, and I think they fell short in conveying that to the audience.

[marywebgirl]

I think I know what they were trying to get to by including their story, but in the context of the film, it just felt so random to me.

Can you share, because I have no idea. I thought Straithern was good and the film was OK, but I don't know what was added to the story by making it a drama as opposed to a straight documentary.

[anne]

marywebgirl said:

I think I know what they were trying to get to by including their story, but in the context of the film, it just felt so random to me.

Can you share, because I have no idea. I thought Straithern was good and the film was OK, but I don't know what was added to the story by making it a drama as opposed to a straight documentary.

From what Clooney and Heslov said in the commentary, a lot of the purpose of the Downey and Clarkson characters was to summarize some of the debates and discusions that exsisted about McCarthyism. As an example, there's a scene where the two of them are talking in bed about whether or not some of the people being tried are actually spies. Most of Murrow's reporting was not about whether or not any of these people were guilty, but was about the due process. So the discussions between them allowed the other debate to be included.

Beyond that, you had the aspect of the two of them being secretly married. A portion of that, I think, was Clooney and Heslov wanting to share a neat little tidbit they discovered. I think it was also intended to make the statement that you could be so busy looking for rules being broken outside your own circle that you woudln't even notice what was happening under your own nose. But if that was the intent, I don't think it was done very effectively ... and in many ways, it also would have been going against the POV they were trying to present.

[Baby Fish Mouth]

newtothis said:

The Best Actor Oscar 1994 should have gone to Daniel Day - Lewis for In the Name of the Father instead of Tom Hanks for Philadelphia.

Nitpick--it was 1993 that Hanks won for Philadelphia. Actually I disagree and believe Hanks deserved the award that year. However, I don't think he should have won the following year for Forrest Gump. Morgan Freeman should have won for Shawshank Redemption.

I know it's a big joke by now, but the fact that Martin Scorsese does not have a directing Oscar is embarassing, espeically when you think about the fact that he lost the Goodfellas nomination to Kevin Costner.

[heyalice]

I know it's a big joke by now, but the fact that Martin Scorsese does not have a directing Oscar is embarassing, espeically when you think about the fact that he lost the Goodfellas nomination to Kevin Costner.

And that's what pains me the most. Anyone but Costner. I'm sure Costner has his defenders, but you will never convince me he deserved it over Marty.

[newtothis]

Sorry. You're right, babyfishmouth. It's was 1993.

[memememe76]

Morgan Freeman should have won for Shawshank Redemption.

For playing Morgan Freeman? Not a Morgan fan, nor a fan of Shawshank Redemption, the kind of wheepie that gets respect because it's set in prison so it must not be feminine or wimpy!