Well, I missed the Oscars this year…I never really sit there and watch the entire show anyway, but I find parts entertaining. I think I was more bummed about missing lost and survivor last week to be honest. I usually watch the Oscars for the comedic montage that Billy Crystal does at the beginning and then flip the channels around and occasionally come back to see highlights - best actor, director, movie etc. This year, best actor went to Jamie Foxx, and it went to him as though there were no question he would be the winner. I would like to point something out though…Clint Eastwood is the only actor who is playing an original character. All of the other characters are based on the lives of real people…people with reference to their mannerisms. Clint Eastwood’s character is based on a character in a short story…no visual reference to what he looked liked, how he walked, talked etc. Clint Eastwood created the character based on bits of information in a short story. Now this doesn’t mean that the others are not great actors but think on this - The other actors have the real lives of the characters they are playing to mimic. Expecially in ‘Ray’. I am willing to bet that for Ray Charles, there was plenty of footage and interviews from which an actor (in this case Jamie Foxx) could mimic his mannerisms, voice etc. That is not to say that Jamie Foxx isn’t talented as an actor. Fooling others into believing you are another person is the holy grail of any impersonator. But I guess they award people who can “act” like another person and not just for creatively making a totally new person based on fiction. I’m not a great fan but I think he is as good as any other popular actor today. I just can’t help but think that the decision to give him the most coveted acting award in Hollywood had something to do with the respect that the academy had for the now deceased, well respected musician and not as much for the acting ability of Jamie Foxx. I wonder how political other choices were and how many were not recognized who really stood out in the crowd. All in all, I guess the entire event is more for the spectacle and making the careers of the chosen ones in Hollywood. I suppose I will keep watching and keep making my own picks for who I think is great and not letting it bother me that my list of great actors is not the same as the list of people who got the statue.
-
Latest Comments
-
- Guinevere: I love you. :heart:
- Carol Orvis: Hi Allen! I used to watch Sesame St. with both Shelby and Guin when they were young. They would sit in...
- Allen: testing comments! :BOMB:
- Big Al: Sesame ruled. I remember those clips. Talk about retro. :D
- Brian: yeah, weird, trippy, and great! I remember seeing all of those, so great. always liked the guy who turned into...
-
Upcoming Events
-
Popular on DIGG
-
Latest del.icio.us
-
Weather
Meta
6 Responses to “Oscar Trickery”
As I live in a tiny town that doesn’t play new movies and rarely get to the city to see a new release, I haven’t seen ANY of the movies nominated for best picture/best actor/best actress. As someone really into film, this bums me out, but I digress a little…
My point is I can’t judge the acting in movies I haven’t seen. I can say with certainty however, that many movies and people have won oscars for “political” reasons. Even just recently, if you look at Lord of the Rings. The 3rd one won best picture, but was it the best of the three? I don’t think so. But academy members publically admitting “saving up” the awards for the triology until the end. Look back at the history of the awards and there are tons of decisions made not on the best picture or most talented actor, but because the time was right for them to win, or some other motivation.
I saw a few of them in the theatre but I downloaded the Oscar Screeners for the others, otherwise I wouldn’t have seen them either.
I guess the only time we can be “mad” over someone winning an Oscar is if we were included in the voting process and the person we voted for didn’t win.
You know, I think next year I am going to start my own awards, where I pick whom I think is the best. And if people don’t like who I pick…tough! 
I find this post interesting, so I am going to comment……Many actors, nearly all, do “research” for there roles, whether they are stage or screen. This may involve meeting the actual person being portrayed, a person or people a character is based upon or someone in the same situation, like someone interviewing or following cops to learn there mannerisms and such. Writers create there characters based on a jumble of traits from all sorts of people, real or fictional. So, even though I see your point and have not seen the movie Ray or Million Dollar Baby, I think that most actor’s performances is based on some sort of impersonation or mimic.
I too missed Billy Crystal’s montage.
I have no idea how the Academy voters decide who to cast their vote for but I am sure that there are personal and political considerations that are made.
I think he won it hands down, because of the following reasons:
- He WAS Ray Charles on screen. It is the Holy Grail for an impersonator to do that because, as Linton pointed out about recreating a certain period in time, it is much more difficult to convincingly portray something real because you have the real thing to compare it to and even the smallest variance will break the illusion.
- He was able to do his own piano playing and in some scenes, his own singing. The whole “multi-talented” thing.
- This was really his first “starring” role as a dramatic actor.
- Without him the movie wouldn’t have been the success it was.
Watching the special features for Ray; Jamie Foxx was asked by the director to work with Ray Charles, which he did for a short time but then told the director that there was nothing more he could get from him that would help him with the character. This was due to the fact that he was playing a much younger Ray Charles not the 74-year-old.
Clint Eastwood was good, but I didn’t think it was much of a stretch for him to play that character. I think that was Hilary Swank’s movie and he was more or less a supporting character. That said, Morgan Freeman deserved the Supporting Actor Award.
Leo was great as Howard Hughes, but I think he should have definitely won previously for Arnie Grape (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape) and for Frank Abagnale Jr. (Catch Me If You Can).
I haven’t seen Hotel Rwanda yet so I cannot comment on Don Cheadle’s performance, but I can say from past performances and based on what I have seen of the role, he deserved to be included in that group.
I think the Supporting Roles are harder to judge. For instance, Alan Alda was in The Aviator for maybe 20 minutes (if that) of screen time of the 3 hour movie, yet Clive Owen should have been in the Leading Role category because he was more of a lead character than Jude Law was. That said, I think that both Natalie Portman and Cate Blanchett deserved to win, my mom actually made the bold prediction that it would be a tie.
On that note, I read an article about the accounting firm that tallies the ballots. They said that they never disclose how the votes were broken-down but they did say that there have been a few times were the winner has won by one vote. It was a really good article. http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-050222-movies-oscarsecrets,0,3134499.story?coll=mmx-movies_features
Left by ArchAngel on March 2nd, 2005