Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,674 
Likes: 4,369
|
Post by Archie on Oct 13, 2017 19:54:10 GMT
Why? Why? Is there a good fucking reason for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Oct 16, 2017 1:50:56 GMT
Would you really wanna be the one to tell “The Life of the Mind” the bad news if he didn’t win? Furthermore, would you want him to show you what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 16, 2017 1:53:20 GMT
It's criminal that he was snubbed, especially as the Bugsy boys manage to sneak their way in, but I think Michael Lerner is still one hell of an inspired nod and he deserves a lot more respect than he gets.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on Oct 16, 2017 2:03:54 GMT
A goddamn crime that's what it is. But like stephen said Michael Lerner is one hell of an inspired nomination, and I'm glad that happened.
They also forgot to nominate Ted Levine for his great work in The Silence of the Lambs
|
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Oct 16, 2017 2:36:21 GMT
It's really one of the weirdest snubs, especially since the problem clearly wasn't that not enough people saw it. I'm just not sure how all those people voted for Lerner and not Goodman.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Oct 17, 2017 15:56:42 GMT
I am glad I am not the only one who is mad about that - brilliant performance and so underrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Oct 23, 2017 10:13:42 GMT
I don't know. Their picks that year were trash. Well, not even trash, just insignificant. I don't have a problem with Michael Lerner's performance, but I wonder if he got in just because the powers that be of Hollywood perhaps saw themselves in his performance. Just a theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2017 12:55:44 GMT
I don't know. Their picks that year were trash. Well, not even trash, just insignificant. I don't have a problem with Michael Lerner's performance, but I wonder if he got in just because the powers that be of Hollywood perhaps saw themselves in his performance. Just a theory. That's always been my supposition (and to be fair, Lerner's subplot is the most straightforward one in the film). But not only is he the best of the nominees by a landslide, he's probably the most inspired nomination of the decade, so I will not abide people dissing him in favor of Johnny G. Goodman is better, yes, but not by much, and there are still a half-dozen guys from JFK and Levine that should've been in consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Oct 23, 2017 14:07:41 GMT
I don't know. Their picks that year were trash. Well, not even trash, just insignificant. I don't have a problem with Michael Lerner's performance, but I wonder if he got in just because the powers that be of Hollywood perhaps saw themselves in his performance. Just a theory. That's always been my supposition (and to be fair, Lerner's subplot is the most straightforward one in the film). But not only is he the best of the nominees by a landslide, he's probably the most inspired nomination of the decade, so I will not abide people dissing him in favor of Johnny G. Goodman is better, yes, but not by much, and there are still a half-dozen guys from JFK and Levine that should've been in consideration. I don't know if I'd go that far, but like I said, I don't have a problem with the performance. Goodman being ignored doesn't make me hate the performance. But I can see why year's later someone would scratch their heads at all of the 1991 best supporting actor nominations when Levine and Goodman were ignored. 2 people from Bugsy?  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2017 14:23:01 GMT
That's always been my supposition (and to be fair, Lerner's subplot is the most straightforward one in the film). But not only is he the best of the nominees by a landslide, he's probably the most inspired nomination of the decade, so I will not abide people dissing him in favor of Johnny G. Goodman is better, yes, but not by much, and there are still a half-dozen guys from JFK and Levine that should've been in consideration. I don't know if I'd go that far, but like I said, I don't have a problem with the performance. Goodman being ignored doesn't make me hate the performance. But I can see why year's later someone would scratch their heads at all of the 1991 best supporting actor nominations when Levine and Goodman were ignored. 2 people from Bugsy? I'm not calling you out specifically. But there was a bad habit people used to have on IMDb in regards to Lerner's nomination that never sat well with me. |
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Oct 24, 2017 4:09:04 GMT
He scared the heck out of me near the end. I thought he would have downright earned an Oscar nomination. That's what I appreciate about him, he brings a real grounded quality to everything he does.
|
|
|
|
Post by marvelass on Oct 25, 2017 18:36:29 GMT
A goddamn crime that's what it is. But like stephen said Michael Lerner is one hell of an inspired nomination, and I'm glad that happened. They also forgot to nominate Ted Levine for his great work in The Silence of the LambsThey didn't forget. They deliberately snubbed him. SotL was controversial when it came out and was attacked by the LGBT community for its portrayal of Buffalo Bill, who appeared to be trans, as a serial murderer. (The same thing happened to Basic Instinct a year later.) |
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Oct 25, 2017 19:15:17 GMT
Barton Fink deserved a helluva lot more noms in general. With Goodman, I think it might've been a case of Lerner out-campaigning him. Idk if Goodman campaigned at all.
This is from an early '92 article:
I remember seeing some other video that also detailed how Lerner was like a bloodhound for an Oscar nom.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 25, 2017 19:24:31 GMT
Barton Fink deserved a helluva lot more noms in general. With Goodman, I think it might've been a case of Lerner out-campaigning him. Idk if Goodman campaigned at all. This is from an early '92 article: I remember seeing some other video that also detailed how Lerner was like a bloodhound for an Oscar nom. Yeah, same deal with Diane Ladd the year before. Back then, if you wanted an Oscar nomination and you were in something as offbeat as Fink or Wild at Heart, you had to do the due diligence to get it yourself. Ann Dowd tried it a few years back and unfortunately failed to garner the necessary support. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 25, 2017 20:40:40 GMT
Barton Fink and Goodman's role in it are hard to get in one watch I think and you can't really expect the Academy to be that smart and that committed  The whole political side to the film - and it's definitely there, where World War II is dawning, Goodman's "Heil Hitler", the sort of isolation and pretensions of the intellectual artiste ill-equipped to see or even care to understand Charlie or the world around him...... You can feel as clueless as Barton himself on that first watch and maybe wrongly just embrace it as quirky when it's a lot more than that of course - it's a complete original vision. |
|
