Tell me again why Reese won the Oscar for Best Actress?

I just saw the last of the top movies and can't for the life of me figure out why Reesee won that Oscar for her role in Walk the Line. The role required very little and the script was very thin. I guess I don't understand Hollywood politics.

Sometimes that has an effect on the voting. I haven't seen it yet, though the DVD is sitting within reach. Literally, at the moment. I think she's a better actress than she's given credit for, but :shrug: that's just me.

it ain't her fault the movie was lame.

The character was a ditz, but she was such a nice person. Kinda reminded me of a girl I used to know...

I don't know what others think but I thought she killed in that movie and was shocked that she wasn't recognized for her performance.

But I think that has something to do with it.

it's a great picture!

Anyway, I like Reese Witherspoon and I think she's a great actress. :shrug:

And, I'll even say "Legally Blonde"... because more good comedy roles should be given the nod. But Election? Definitely.

I dunno... I really take the whole self-congratulatory leftist Hollywood thing (e.g. Clooney's acceptance speech) with a grain of salt. Maybe among the "worker bees," sure, but Hollywood's always, in some form or fashion, played footsies with the establishment.

Or... maybe it's cuz she did her own singing?

Cash and Carter Cash are loathed by many Country fans and by people in the Bible Belt -- they are almost Godless Commie Pinkos.

So unfair. I thought he was way better than Reese Whitherspoon. Not that she was bad, but he put alot more into his performance, IMO.

as Best Picture: Rachel Weisz for "The Constant Gardener"

I really thought Michelle Williams had that one in the bag, such a powerful performance. Weisz was... eh... it left me cold, there was nothing really memorable about the performance--no, it wasn't BAD, per se--but Oscar-worthy, the nomination more than sufficed. AND LET'S NOT FORGET CATHERINE KEENER for cryin out loud...

however, Weisz definately deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. In fact, she did a clean sweep with all the major award festivals - if she was nominated, she won.

She deserved the Oscar.

(on a shallow note, I think she's smokin'!)

Weisz is a smoker but obviously quit for the pregnancy

And, imo, she's an excellent actress.

Ms. Witherspoon was good, but not that good. Wonderful movie, though.

i think that was the problem.

Maybe. What can I say? Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite movies - I like melodramatic.

Not having seen either "Walk The Line" or "Transamerica", I shouldn't prejudge. However, I would have to believe, just viewing the trailers alone, that Felicity Huffman's performance as a woman playing a man playing a woman blows away Reese's as June Carter Cash. Reese played up her southern drawl, darkened her hair, and basically played it straight.
Whoop-dee-doo.

Hell, I don't know.:shrug:

It's a great movie. I just watched it yesterday. But Academy Award winning performance? Not in my book.

Charlize Theron earned her Oscar -- Reese's win was the equivelent of Marissa Tomei's oscar

The only thing is, there was a lot of speculation and predictions that Reese would get it, so no surprise there. Plus, it was Reese playing against type, which Oscar loves, not to mention the singing and playing the long-suffering wife of an addict.

I think everyone still has some form of chin pain from it dropping to the floor when Marisa's name was announced.

I'll say it again: a good comedic role deserves the Oscar as much as a dramatic one does. And, that year Tomei was up against a lot of heavy roles... and a lot of furriners.... she did a very good job as Mona Lisa Devito. She made that movie.

the oscars are rigged? no one has ever been able to tell me what criteria is used in evaluating one acting performance over another

for Felicity Huffman in TRANSAMERICA. A great performance.

Anyone remember "Second Serve," the 80s TV movie about Dr. Renee Richards?

Vanessa Redgrave was SO GREAT in that performance, the hairs on my arms are standing just thinking about it. I'm shocked she didn't get the Emmy for it.

If you EVER get an opportunity to see this movie (you'll have to keep your eyes peeled while channel surfing, as it's not on video), please check it out.

But I still want to see Huffman, she's a damned fine actress herself. :-)

for it. Vanessa Redgrave is terrific. What a gleaming body of work she's turned in over the years.

By the time "he" got around to going to a clinic to get a sex change operation, I caught myself thinking "poor devil, there's no way they will be able to make an attractive woman out of him." And the "him" was, of course, Vanessa Redgrave. :rofl: As I said, a great performance.

Who are "The Academy" ?
What qualifications are needed to
belong to this exclusive group?

As far as awarding Reese Witherspoon 'Best Actress'
what were they thinking?
She did a great job with her singing in the film.
However, any one of the actresses in Crash did a better job, IMHO.


( I saw both movies,haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet.)

WGA members vote for the writing awards, DGA for director awards, SAG members for acting awards, and everyone for the Best Picture. SAG is all kinds of people: Tom Cruise to peons. Same with the other branches. It and SAG Awards are considered "peer" wards.

Or I'm sure Thandie Newton would have been put up for it.

But from I read, a bulk is actors that make up the voting.

"Actors nominate the performances of actors, directors the work of directors, and so on through most of the categories. (There are a few -- documentaries, foreign films, certain technical slots -- that do things a bit differently to deal with the demands of a particular medium.) Then the entire organization votes on those nominations."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5235315

money that is for advertising. Those that put the most money into the hype before the awards usually win.

zalinda

no contest...her performance was incredible. I was very disappointed. However, I was thrilled that the actor won for Capote - he also was unbelievable. Oh well...I guess you can't win 'em all.

Hollywood rewards success and/or big librul themes. Besides, it's been The Age of the Pretty Girl since Gwyneth Paltrow (deservedly) won her Oscar. Since then: Julia, Charlize, Halle, Nicole...I'm forgetting somebody.

I about fell over when I read that, LOL, as I view that to be one of the greatest tragedies of Oscardom. Considering who she was up against, Gwyneth pretending to be British in love with a hottie like Joe Fiennes did not seem to me to be worth anything but 8 bucks.

I mean, Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth, Fernanda Montenegro (who should have won) in Central Station, I think Emily Watson was up that year for Jackie... I think you are the very first person I've ever heard say she deserved that Oscar!

Reese and the women you named did great, IMO.

Charlize and Halle really shined in Monster and Monster's Ball. Charlize was absolutely scary in her role and became her character, I thought.

:shrug: It's a difference of opinion.

Although you can argue there were nominees who deserved it as much as Roberts and Paltrow. I actually think Paltrow should have been nominated for "Sylvia." She was REALLY good in that. As was our new James Bond.

Why does it have to be a conspiracy of politics?

I haven't seen Transamerica yet, so I won't say she was the best, but I really enjoyed her performance in that movie.

And she sang and played the autoharp. Something she hadn't done before.

Same as PSH won for "becoming" Capote.

she didn't put much effort into the role. She was amazing and I think she deserved it.

It's why I prefer comedies over most overblown, hyper dramas.

Don't make me strain to watch you onscreen; I want to enjoy it. Like sex!

Is it a weird sexism thing or something? because no one ever said any of this about PSH of Foxx... and all three were very good in the roles (as was Joaquin Phoenix).

range. She sang - she did humourous monologues, she did drama.

She did it all.

Million dollar baby just had to play a fighter and then a fighter in hospital.

she'd never sung before, and her voice was amazing.

I wasn't wild about the movie and I liked some of the other nominees better. The Dame shouldna won.

... the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have an opinion that differs from their own?? It seems bizarre to me that this gets argued every year, no matter what. Are people so insecure in their own personal preferences that they regard the opinions of people with different perspectives a threat??

It personally doesn't bother me at all. I take the list of nominees (and winners) as mere suggestions that I might appreciate the film ... depending on plot and other factors. I try to pay attention to what 'earns' a nomination and guide myself accordingly. (Trashing the Oscar would just be a way of throwing way information - something the happily ignorant do, imho.)

Let summarize the Academy's process. Directors nominate directors, actors nominate actors, screenwriters nominate screenwriters, and so on. Once the nominees are selected, the films are repeatedly presented for screening to all members. These people are human beings, specialists, and professionals (it's a business). (What they aren't is the "average theater-goer" who plops down $6.50 for admission and $5.00 for about $0.50 worth of popcorn.)

Nonetheless, when they evaluate the performance of an actor, for example, they're usually far more aware of how much of what they're seeing is the skill of the actor and not the skill of the director, the cameraman, the make-up artist, the costume designer, or (often most important) the skill of the editor. They probably know how many 'takes' a director obtains or an actor requires. They might know whether that actor was supportive of another's performance by doing 'reactions' or ran to their trailer and left it for a stand-in. What the average "average theater-goer" knows is what he or she "likes" - and is often clueless about what it took to get that performance out of an actor. Most "average theater-goers" don't know what a Production Designer does, what a 'grip' does, who the 'best boy' is, or what a Foley Artist does - where the latter is critical to most films. Most of us aren't very aware of how surprisingly much the soundtrack and the music affect our perceptions, either.

Most of all, the members voting are people and subject to the same pressures, biases, ethical influences, politics, and relationships as you and I are.

I respected Reese Witherspoon's performance. It was highly nuanced (subtle) and very key to the reactions and emotional flow of the performances around her. She did her own singing. The 41-year-old Director (James Mangold) was not extensively experienced and was one of the screenwriters on the film, although nominated for an IPA Satellite Award (a somewhat minor award) for 'Walk The Line.' The Editor (Michael McCusker) was even less experienced, having edited only three prior (minor) films. It was a $29 million film, compared to 'Pride and Prejudice' which cost $28 million, 'North Country' which cost $35 million, and 'Transamerica' which cost only $1 million!

While I thought the film was just OK (I don't like Johnny Cash), I felt Reese Witherspoon's performance was worthy - at least worthy of the nomination and possibly the Oscar. I loved (this version of) 'Pride and Prejudice" and adored watching Kiera Knightly. I also enjoyed 'North Country' and Charlize Theron is one of my favorite actresses. I think Judi Dench is extraordinary and have never seen her put in a below excellent performance. Nonetheless, I have no problem whatsoever with the award going to Reese Witherspoon. While I may have personally selected another, it was a worthy performance, imho.


Disclaimer: I've only once filmed and edited my own (scuba diving) video - a two-hour 'music video' that took me more than 20-22 hours to tape and over 250 hours to edit and add/mix music. It did, however, open my eyes a lot. My second cousin (by marriage) is Rick Carter, a Production Designer who's worked on some of Spielberg's and Lucas's more famous films. I don't recall ever talking with him - they live a somewhat 'different' life from the rest of the family.

:applause:

I've been perplexed by this for some time, not only in the psychological reactivity to dissonant opinions but in the very clearly differing perspectives that (legitimately) give rise to such a diversity of opinions. Furthermore, it seems we have a thematic problem in our culture in fairly attributing and crediting labor, often unable to fairly apportion the rewards in a systemic manner. The Oscar controversies seems to be emblematic of this.

again, spot on!!!

Great rant, but if admission were still 6.50 it MIGHT be worth all the bullshit of the "theatergoing experience". I just refuse to go anymore. It's never worth the money.

1) She was personally picked by June Carter Cash.

2) She did her homework- studying audio tapes and video of performances.

3) She learned to play the autoharp. How many ppl actually immerse themselves that far into a role nowadays ?


With all of that said, I will admit that Felicity Huffman was my leading choice after seeing Transamerica- which unfortunately was 4 days before the Oscars. I just think the timing was bad. WTL had a helluva head start and was in wider release. Transamerica came to my town only on a two day arc- and in a 1,585 seat theatre.

I dunno why, but that's the way it usually is.

She did all of the singing and instrument playing, I thought she was FANTASTIC! I also thought that Pheonix should have won too, he was great!

Reese & Joaquin did all their own singing, so not only did they need to learn how to sing but they had to learn how to sing so they would sound like June & Johnny. Plus they had to learn how to play their instruments in the same mannerisms too. (June was much but Johnny had a unique style of playing the guitar).

Had it not been for that, I think Felicity Huffman would have won the Oscar.

And even experienced guitar and banjo players have difficulty learning this....