Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Best Supporting Actor

Expand Messages
  • Stolzi@aol.com
    Aaaaaaaaaaggh!!!!!!!
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Aaaaaaaaaaggh!!!!!!!
    • SusanPal@aol.com
      In a message dated 3/24/2002 7:14:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, Stolzi@aol.com ... My sentiments PRECISELY. I m afraid the early tech awards were consolation
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 24, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 3/24/2002 7:14:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, Stolzi@...
        writes:


        > Aaaaaaaaaaggh!!!!!!!
        >

        My sentiments PRECISELY. I'm afraid the early tech awards were consolation
        prizes. :-( But maybe there are upsets yet to come . . . .

        Ever hopeful,
        Susan


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Sweet & Tender Hooligan
        ... Aye, but you can t grudge Jim Broadbent his award. He did some amazing work, and - dare I say it - probably deserved the award more than McKellen. I, of
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 24, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > > Aaaaaaaaaaggh!!!!!!!
          >
          > My sentiments PRECISELY.

          Aye, but you can't grudge Jim Broadbent his award. He did some amazing
          work, and - dare I say it - probably deserved the award more than McKellen.
          I, of course, am biased toward "Gandalf", but...

          Anyway, I'm still shocked that the film was nominated for /anything/. It
          deserves all the awards, of course, but the Academy is notoriously biased
          against genre films.

          -

          s&th
          sthooligan@...
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          In a message dated 3/24/2002 11:23:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... I think the Academy s bias against fantasy and science fiction has been decreasing lately.
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 24, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 3/24/2002 11:23:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
            sthooligan@... writes:


            > Anyway, I'm still shocked that the film was nominated for /anything/.

            I think the Academy's bias against fantasy and science fiction has been
            decreasing lately. As I wrote once before, the Academy voters tend to be
            distinctly older than the average filmgoer, and that age-group is finally
            reached the point where they consider science fiction and fantasy to be
            somewhat acceptable (since it was a little more than 30 years ago that
            Hollywood began regularly making big-budget science fiction films). I
            thought that would be enough to outweigh the Academy's prejudice toward
            "Isn't it wonderful how this person has overcome adversity" films, but it
            wasn't quite. Did you notice that as Brian Glazer accepted the Best Picture
            award, he looked at the paper in the envelope and said, "It says that the
            vote was close." So it appears that _The Fellowship of the Ring_ was
            (apparently) close.

            Wendell Wagner


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • michael_martinez2
            ... One of the announcers for E! said in their pre-ceremony Red Carpet show that he had taken a poll among academy members and they all told him they voted for
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 24, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In mythsoc@y..., WendellWag@a... wrote:
              >Did you notice that as Brian Glazer accepted the Best Picture
              >award, he looked at the paper in the envelope and said, "It says
              >that the vote was close." So it appears that _The Fellowship of the
              >Ring_ was (apparently) close.

              One of the announcers for E! said in their pre-ceremony Red Carpet
              show that he had taken a poll among academy members and they all told
              him they voted for "Moulin Rouge". I think that the closeness of the
              vote may apply to "Moulin Rouge" more than to "The Lord of the Rings".

              I have to admit that I was shocked and somewhat disappointed to see
              that Best Supporting Actor did not go to Ian McKellen. But then, he
              favored the actual winner, so I suppose he was not entirely
              disappointed himself.
            • Stolzi@aol.com
              In a message dated 3/24/02 10:23:34 PM Central Standard Time, ... I haven t seen IRIS, but I remember some reviewers being very troubled that John Bayley would
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 25, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 3/24/02 10:23:34 PM Central Standard Time,
                sthooligan@... writes:

                > Aye, but you can't grudge Jim Broadbent his award. He did some amazing
                > work, and - dare I say it - probably deserved the award more than McKellen.
                > I, of course, am biased toward "Gandalf", but...

                I haven't seen IRIS, but I remember some reviewers being very troubled that
                John Bayley would use his wife's personal tragedy as "material" and publish
                it. The same objection wd seem to apply in spades to the movie. What makes
                Broadbent "supporting actor" anyway? I wd imagine it is a two-person movie
                basically.

                Yes, we're all biased toward Gandalf - and what biased me towards McKellen
                was just that he seemed to incarnate Gandalf flawlessly: Tolkien's, not
                Jackson's. One felt that if given all the original lines and scenes from the
                book he would have been just as good.

                A team effort like the (literally) =Fellowship= of the Ring makes it hard to
                say, "who's leading and who's supporting"? I certainly thought of G. as one
                of the =main= figures in the film.


                Diamond Proudbrook
              • WendellWag@aol.com
                In a message dated 3/25/2002 9:46:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, Stolzi@aol.com ... Actually, it was a four-person movie, since it had scenes with both the
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 25, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 3/25/2002 9:46:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, Stolzi@...
                  writes:


                  > What makes
                  > Broadbent "supporting actor" anyway? I wd imagine it is a two-person
                  > movie
                  > basically.

                  Actually, it was a four-person movie, since it had scenes with both the
                  younger and older Iris Murdoch and John Bayley.

                  The whole distinction between leading and supporting actor/actress is
                  notoriously arbitrary at the Oscars. Essentially an actor/actress and the
                  distributor of the film is allowed to choose for themselves which category
                  they wish to try for a nomination in. They choose the category that they
                  feel they have the best chance for nomination.

                  Wendell Wagner


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Joan Marie Verba
                  ... It s the studio that presents actors as either leading or supporting. I suspect that the studio put forward Ian McKellen in the supporting category because
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 25, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stolzi@... wrote:

                    > A team effort like the (literally) =Fellowship= of the Ring makes it hard to
                    > say, "who's leading and who's supporting"? I certainly thought of G. as one
                    > of the =main= figures in the film.

                    It's the studio that presents actors as either leading or supporting. I
                    suspect that the studio put forward Ian McKellen in the supporting
                    category because they thought it might be easier for him to win there.
                    (I believe he did receive the SAG award for supporting actor.)

                    Joan
                    ******************************************
                    Joan Marie Verba
                    verba001@...
                    http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba
                  • dianejoy@earthlink.net
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 27, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      << Did you notice that as Brian Glazer accepted the Best Picture
                      award, he looked at the paper in the envelope and said, "It says that the
                      vote was close." So it appears that _The Fellowship of the Ring_ was
                      (apparently) close.>>

                      Are we certain that it's *Fellowship* that Glazer was referring to? It might have been another film. I see that *FOTR* won the usual tech awards, and nothing else. And not even those; what most upset me is that Randy Newman got the award for best song, and his the worst of the offerings. Cute, yes, but come on! Any of the others would have been a better song, but I'm sure they gave Newman the award because he'd been up for an Oscar 16 times, and hadn't won anything. They do that in Hollywood; hang around long enough and contribute enough to the craft, and you'll get an award eventually. They seemed to carefully parcel out a little bit of honor to a scattered number of films; none swept the Academy off their feet. Wasn't Denzel Washington a class act? And the Cirq de Soleil was wonderful as always. ---djb


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                      --------------------------------------------------------------------
                      mail2web - Check your email from the web at
                      http://mail2web.com/ .
                    • WendellWag@aol.com
                      In a message dated 3/27/2002 12:23:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... might have been ... Yes, it might have been, but most of the articles I read predicting the
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 27, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 3/27/2002 12:23:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                        dianejoy@... writes:

                        > Are we certain that it's *Fellowship that Glazer was referring to? It
                        might have been
                        > another film.

                        Yes, it might have been, but most of the articles I read predicting the
                        Oscars said that _The Fellowship of the Ring_ was probably running second to
                        _A Beautiful Mind_ in the voting.

                        > They seemed to carefully parcel out a little bit of honor to a scattered
                        number of
                        > films; none swept the Academy off their feet.

                        And that strikes me as a good summary of this year's films. _Memento_ might
                        have been the best of this year's films, but it wasn't even nominated for
                        Best Picture. It was this year's "Well, let's just nominate it for Best
                        Screenplay. It didn't make enough money, so we can't actually nominate it
                        for Best Picture, but we can give it some minor award" film. _The Fellowship
                        of the Ring_ went a long way toward getting the feel of the book, but not all
                        the way. I thought those two films were the two best of the year. And then
                        there was _Moulin Rouge_ - very original, but maybe not quite successful. _A
                        Beautiful Mind_ was this year's big-budget feel-good film. Given all the
                        distortions it made in Nash's life, I thought it was no better than the
                        fourth best film of the year. (And that's typical, I think. The film that
                        wins the Oscar tends to be one that I would rank around fourth or fifth best
                        for the year.)

                        Wendell Wagner


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.