|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Oct 2, 2021 0:02:32 GMT
Brother Fease - I think people (certainly not me) generally feel that Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth was more deserving and that Dench's role wasn't substantial enough to warrant an Oscar win. When you say "people", I really hope you don't mean "film twitter"? Quite honestly I don't really see what was so superior about Blanchett's performance in Elizabeth.
As for Dench, she was nominated (and won) for best SUPPORTING actress. Notice the word "supporting". Yes, she was only in the movie for almost 6 minutes. So what? We should in no way, shape of form, discriminate against a performer based on their length on screen. The actors have no control over the length of their roles. The director, producer, and editors makes those types of decisions. I for one, thought it was a great performance, very moving (the last speech) and very funny (the rope in the mud). It is quite amazing that Dench did so much, with little screen time.
And btw, are people really still whining about Blanchett losing? She has two Oscars now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Oct 2, 2021 0:13:56 GMT
I am only referring to the merits of Shakespeare in Love, not one of the producers of the film. I am still lost on why the wins for Paltrow and Dench were controversial, especially when you consider their competition. For the record, I have seen all of the Oscar nominees for the 1998-1999 Oscars.
The Truman Show was the best movie of 1998. I would have voted for that for Best Picture, if it was nominated. I have nothing against SPR, but back in 1998-1999 (I was in high school and took film study courses), all what I heard was that SPR deserved it because of its opening sequence.
There should have been no surprises for Best Actress -- She won the SAG and all and attached to a movie nominated for picture, director, screenplay, and editing. Dench won the NSFC award for that year.
Surprisingly, I see nobody complaining about James Coburn winning Best Supporting Actor. Coburn was only nominated SAG and didn't win. He didn't win at the Independent Spirit Awards either. Ed Harris and Robert Duvall were the favorites going into Oscar night.
Well, you asked how they were controversial. I was just pointing out how that films entire awards season (and by extension everything it won) was infamously controversial on account of the tactics used by those pushing it. It's got nothing to do with its qualities. So if I understand the logic here -- Keep in mind, I have had a long day -- it's not about merits of Paltrow and Dench, but about creepy, evil genius Harvey Weinstein? Am I correct?
Here's the thing: In the original post, nobody mentioned Harvey or the so-called tactics. More over, I still don't understand why Paltrow/Dench didn't deserve to win. It seems more like the endless "Saving Private Ryan fanboys" continuing their 20+ year whining. It's almost as bad as "The Social Network whining" over losing to "The King's Speech".
|
|
