|
Post by pacinoyes on May 17, 2020 19:17:04 GMT
Male or female......I mean it for film only but if you have someone in TV/Stage you want to add that's fine too - Glenn Close got nominated for an Oscar/Emmy/Tony in '84 (@tyler ) for example and as far as I can tell she is the only one to ever do that for all 3. Looking for mentions like Diane Keaton in '77 - 2 wildly diverse performances - one comic/one the complete opposite - nominated/won for Annie Hall and a daring, and dark performance in Looking For Mr. Goodbar which she possibly would have been nominated for if she could have been. Doesn't have to be Oscar friendly either just anything you can come up with:
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 17, 2020 19:25:20 GMT
Holly Hunter - 1993 The Piano The Positively True Adventures of the Alleged Texas Cheerleader Murdering MomThe Firm, too. Double Oscar nom, wins Lead Oscar, and Lead Emmy. Cheerleader is a scintillating, busy, wicked perf. And The Piano couldn't be more different, a searing, beautiful, poetic perf. MORE: Cheerleader is her firing up, in, and out. It has the Southern ring and comic launch of Raising Arizona, and some of the ambitious resource (though darkly motivated) of Broadcast News. These are all great, great perfs. The Piano, perhaps best of all, is most astonishing bc you're taking away not only an actor's greatest tool but specifically Holly Hunter's - her motoring dialogue snap and her firecracker physical energy. And then.......The Piano rips all that away. She navigates a whole different tone of grit and sensuousness that is just mesmerizing to see.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 17, 2020 19:30:54 GMT
Matthew McConaughey in 2013 and 2014.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on May 17, 2020 19:47:52 GMT
Brando in 72
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 17, 2020 20:23:49 GMT
Thinking recently... Also, Josh Brolin 2007. American Gangster, No Country For Old Men, In the Valley of Elah, Planet Terror. Chastain 2011.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 17, 2020 20:25:03 GMT
Brando 1972 Di Caprio 2006 Pacino 1973 De Niro 1995
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 17, 2020 20:42:05 GMT
Brando 1972 Di Caprio 2006 Pacino 1973 De Niro 1995Also Pac in '92 - first double male nominee ever and De Niro in 73 for me actually - with Bang The Drum Slowly/Mean Streets - which I actually prefer for him (not a big fan of Casino)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2020 20:52:31 GMT
pacinoyes - I think Close is much more comparable to the British Dames (Dench, Mirren, Smith) than she is to Streep or Lange or Fonda for this very reason. There is no other A-List American actress who works all three mediums as often or as well as she does - it's very British!
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 17, 2020 20:56:00 GMT
I'm a fan of Gosling's 2007 too. That Fracture/Lars and the Real Girl one-two punch instantly made me fascinated, as I thought he was fine but overrated in Half Nelson. He got to show alot of range in 2011 as well (Drive, Crazy Stupid Love, The Ides of March).
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 17, 2020 20:56:15 GMT
Brando 1972 Di Caprio 2006 Pacino 1973 De Niro 1995Also Pac in '92 - first double male nominee ever and De Niro in 73 for me actually - with Bang The Drum Slowly/Mean Streets - which I actually prefer for him (not a big fan of Casino) I slightly prefer Al's 73 from his 92 although I love Scent of a Woman (unlke most people). I agree on Bobby but I'm a fan of Casino (unlike most people )
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on May 17, 2020 21:05:58 GMT
Gene Hackman in 75 with Night Moves, French Connection II and Bite the Bullet.
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on May 17, 2020 21:10:15 GMT
Judi Dench had a super year in 2001 (Iris, The Shipping News, The Importance of Being Earnest).
|
|
|
Post by Viced on May 17, 2020 21:13:40 GMT
some random favorites:
1958 - Jeanne Moreau (Elevator to the Gallows, The Lovers... two others)
1974 - Warren Oates (Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, Cockfigher, Badlands, The White Dawn [ns])
1988 - Michelle Pfeiffer (Married to the Mob, Dangerous Liaisons..... Tequila Sunrise)
1990 - Robert De Niro (Goodfellas, Awakenings........ Stanley & Iris)
1992 - Harvey Keitel (Bad Lieutenant, Reservoir Dogs............... Sister Act)
2001 - James Gandolfini (The Sopranos season 3, The Mexican, The Man Who Wasn't There, The Last Castle)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 17, 2020 21:18:46 GMT
Nicole Kidman 2001
Nicole Kidman 2017 or 2018
Michael Douglas 1987
Matthew McConaghey 2013 or 2014
Jessica Lange 1982
Mahershala Ali 2016
Jamie Foxx 2004
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on May 17, 2020 21:25:10 GMT
Glenda Jackson had a great 1971 and her work in Sunday Bloody Sunday and Elizabeth R earned her an Oscar nomination, a BAFTA and two Emmy's. She was also in The Boyfriend, Mary, Queen of Scots and The Music Lovers.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 17, 2020 21:30:23 GMT
And nobody has mentioned probably the most impressive single year in combined critical and commercial succes by a film actor (so succesful, that he probably cancelled himself out in Oscar voting at nomination time):
Sidney Poitier 1967
The number 1 box office star of 1967, starred in 3 critical and commercial smash hits with acclaimed performances in all of them..., Look Who's Coming To Dinner, In The Heat Of The Night and To Sir With Love.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 17, 2020 21:36:50 GMT
And nobody has mentioned probably the most impressive single year in combined critical and commercial succes by film actor (so succesful, that he probably cancelled himself out in Oscar voting at nomination time): Sidney Poitier 1967
The number 1 box office star of 1967, starred in 3 critical and commercial smash hits with acclaimed performances in all of them..., Look Who's Coming To Dinner, In The Heat Of The Night and To Sir With Love.Probably the most baffling exclusion for an actor having a great year I can think of. Even if they weren't willing to give him a second Oscar, with everything going on at the time culturally, you'd think they would've at least recognized him somewhere. It doesn't even feel like vote-splitting; it feels like a very pointed message when you look at it.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on May 17, 2020 21:38:36 GMT
Gary Oldman, 1990 (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, State of grace).
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 17, 2020 21:39:45 GMT
Gerard Depardieu - 1990 Though you could pick several years for him (between '74-'94 there are at least 25 remarkable perfs - that's just from what I've seen!). Cyrano de Bergerac might not be his best but it's definitely up there and it's arguably his most definitive and well-known, a role he was born and bound to play, like Welles and Falstaff. He won Best Actor at Cannes and at the Cesars, and it's his only Oscar nom. Green Card (in theaters the same time as Cyrano) is an English language commercial triumph, a terrifically charming and uncatered perf. He won a GG for Actor in a Comedy/Musical. And there's Uranus , where he plays an aspiring poet but unlike Cyrano here he's an untamed brute who pulverizes chairs in his fingertips, and maybe never better traced the paradox between the romantic soul and its intentions against a rebellious bodily heaviness. Also could slightly cheat and add Too Beautiful For You bc it had a '90 US release......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 17, 2020 21:42:16 GMT
A nice throwback:
Charles Laughton in 1935: Mutiny on the Bounty, Les Miserables, Ruggles of Red Gap.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 17, 2020 22:00:33 GMT
And nobody has mentioned probably the most impressive single year in combined critical and commercial succes by film actor (so succesful, that he probably cancelled himself out in Oscar voting at nomination time): Sidney Poitier 1967
The number 1 box office star of 1967, starred in 3 critical and commercial smash hits with acclaimed performances in all of them..., Look Who's Coming To Dinner, In The Heat Of The Night and To Sir With Love.Probably the most baffling exclusion for an actor having a great year I can think of. Even if they weren't willing to give him a second Oscar, with everything going on at the time culturally, you'd think they would've at least recognized him somewhere. It doesn't even feel like vote-splitting; it feels like a very pointed message when you look at it. Why do you think that it wasn't vote splitting? I believe vote splitting probably happened with Kirk Douglas 1951 year, when he had two really strong lead performances in Detective Story and Ace In The Hole. And Douglas only had two lead performances. Poitier was a lead in all three of his 1967 movies. And he was terrific in all those roles....there are different reasons to vote for him during nominations in all three parts, and I can easily see voters being drawn to all those performances. Today, studios would have found a way to category fraud Poitier or one of his nominated co-stars, and he'd probably get in somewhere or maybe even get double nods. Maybe today they might have placed Poitier in supporting for Guess Whose Coming To Dinner, so he wouldn't have to compete with himself in the lead category x3 (and with two of his co-stars in Tracy and Steiger) I don't see it as a pointed snub. He had 3 Oscar calibre lead performances in the same season and internal competition in 2 of his movies, at a time when category fraud was not as blatant.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 17, 2020 22:19:12 GMT
Probably the most baffling exclusion for an actor having a great year I can think of. Even if they weren't willing to give him a second Oscar, with everything going on at the time culturally, you'd think they would've at least recognized him somewhere. It doesn't even feel like vote-splitting; it feels like a very pointed message when you look at it. Why do you think that it wasn't vote splitting? I believe vote probably splitting happened with Kirk Douglas 1951 year, when he had two really strong lead performances in Detective Story and Ace In The Hole. And Douglas only had two lead performances. Poitier was a lead in all three of his 1967 movies. And he was terrific in all those roles....there are different reasons to vote for him during nominations in all three parts, and I can easily see voters being drawn to all those performances. Today, studios would have found a way to category fraud Poitier or one of his nominated co-stars, and he'd probably get in somewhere or maybe even get double nods. Maybe today they might have placed Poitier in supporting for Guess Whose Coming To Dinner, so he wouldn't have to compete with himself in the lead category x3. I don't see it as a pointed snub. He had 3 Oscar calibre lead performances in the same season, at a time when category fraud was not as blatant. He's terrific in all three, and even though the year is very strong for Best Actor, you'd have to think that a previous winner like Poitier (who was riding high as the most popular actor of color at the time) would've been able to muscle in and secure a spot. He had internal competition with Tracy and Steiger (the latter of whom won), and while To Sir With Love was very good it wasn't as big a hit with the Academy, but it's also the film that didn't require him to run against a co-star. So either the studios decided to campaign for the winless Steiger over Poitier, who probably had zero chance of securing a second win in four years, and go for the sympathy win for Tracy, who had just died . . . but you'd also think they would've just gone for a category fraud shot at a Poitier nod for both films. It would've been rank, especially for In the Heat of the Night, but if awards politics were the same back then as they are now, you would've figured they'd have tried for it. But I think t he studios knew that they would never reward Poitier with a second Oscar so soon, so they didn't bother pushing him as hard.I mentioned the pointed snub aspect of it because with the racial strife going on in America at the time, you had to wonder if they did fear that there might be blowback on a black actor, even the most popular one in Hollywood, getting two Oscars in the same decade. There's a lot more subtext in the Poitier snub than there is in Douglas's, at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 17, 2020 22:28:26 GMT
One of my favorite actors - behind only Olivier in the UK for me - with a spectacular and spectacularly varied twin 1994 performances: Albert Finney - The Browning Version and A Man of No Importance
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 17, 2020 22:29:44 GMT
1990: Joe Pesci in Goodfellas and Home Alone.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 17, 2020 22:53:50 GMT
Why do you think that it wasn't vote splitting? I believe vote probably splitting happened with Kirk Douglas 1951 year, when he had two really strong lead performances in Detective Story and Ace In The Hole. And Douglas only had two lead performances. Poitier was a lead in all three of his 1967 movies. And he was terrific in all those roles....there are different reasons to vote for him during nominations in all three parts, and I can easily see voters being drawn to all those performances. Today, studios would have found a way to category fraud Poitier or one of his nominated co-stars, and he'd probably get in somewhere or maybe even get double nods. Maybe today they might have placed Poitier in supporting for Guess Whose Coming To Dinner, so he wouldn't have to compete with himself in the lead category x3. I don't see it as a pointed snub. He had 3 Oscar calibre lead performances in the same season, at a time when category fraud was not as blatant. He's terrific in all three, and even though the year is very strong for Best Actor, you'd have to think that a previous winner like Poitier (who was riding high as the most popular actor of color at the time) would've been able to muscle in and secure a spot. He had internal competition with Tracy and Steiger (the latter of whom won), and while To Sir With Love was very good it wasn't as big a hit with the Academy, but it's also the film that didn't require him to run against a co-star. So either the studios decided to campaign for the winless Steiger over Poitier, who probably had zero chance of securing a second win in four years, and go for the sympathy win for Tracy, who had just died . . . but you'd also think they would've just gone for a category fraud shot at a Poitier nod for both films. It would've been rank, especially for In the Heat of the Night, but if awards politics were the same back then as they are now, you would've figured they'd have tried for it. But I think t he studios knew that they would never reward Poitier with a second Oscar so soon, so they didn't bother pushing him as hard.I mentioned the pointed snub aspect of it because with the racial strife going on in America at the time, you had to wonder if they did fear that there might be blowback on a black actor, even the most popular one in Hollywood, getting two Oscars in the same decade. There's a lot more subtext in the Poitier snub than there is in Douglas's, at any rate.Interesting theory, but I just don't really go for it. Poitier was established Hollywood royalty at this point that everyone in the industry liked. He was beloved by audiences as well. I don't think there'd be any blowback to him winning a 2nd Oscar, other than in the racist, redneck parts of America that Hollywood went out of their way to scorn in movies. And even if the industry didn't want to give him a 2nd Oscar, I feel they'd definitely want to have at least nominated him in celebration of his stellar year. I also don't think awards politics was the same back then. We always read how awards campaining and politucs really went to a different level when Harvey Weinstein and Mirimax got into the game. While I'm sure Oscar campaigning was a serious business in the late 1960's, I don't believe it was anywhere as serious or as intense a business as it was post-Weinstein or today. I think you are looking back at those 60's Oscars with a 2020 lens, and I don't feel that works or that they vviewed it quite as deeply as we might now. I think the most obvious reason is also the most likely one. Poitier was competing with 3 of his own lead performances and 2 of his co-stars, and studios back then weren't savvy enough about the category fraud game to make sure Poitier didn't start splitting his odds. Post-Weinstein and today, studios have a campaign budget for strategists to figure that stuff out. I doubt they had specifics straegists back then. It seems to me it was often left up to the producer and stars themselves how they wanted to campaign.
|
|