Everything You Need to Know About Robin Hood *
A Lebanese Friends First Baseball Game
Three Stories with J.D. Salinger
Everything I Need to Know I Learned from Omar Vizquel
The History of James Bond on Film
General
Baseball
Biking
Books
Business
Culture
Hiking
Jean Gabin
Jordys Reviews
Lancelot Links
The Media
Microsoft
Movies
Movies - Box Office
Movies - Foreign
Movies - The Oscars
Movies - Reviews
Movies - Reviews - 2010
Movies - Studios
Movies - Theaters
Movies - Trailers
Music
Personal Pieces
Politics
Quote of the Day
Robin Hood
J.D. Salinger
Seattle
Seattle Mariners
Superheroes
TV
Vietnam
What Liberal Hollywood?
Word Study
Yankees Suck
Roger Ebert
David Edelstein
Film Experience Blog
Patrick Goldstein
Dave Kehr
Large Ass Movie Blogs
Le Monde
Northwest Film Forum
James Rocchi
Jeffrey Wells
Hendrik Hertzberg
Clay Shirky
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Toles
USS Mariner
Joe Posnanski
Andrew Engelson
Tim Harrison
Jessica Thompson
Uncle Vinny
Everyone deserves an Oscar nom - again
Entertainment Weekly has a piece about the 100 greatest Oscar snubs ever — you can read it here — but once again they're adding without subtracting. That's like governing without taxing. Grover Norquist would be proud.
The list is made up of actors and actresses who weren't even nominated for what we now consider classic performances. At no. 24, for example, we get Denzel Washington in Philadelphia. EW writes that Tom Hanks deserved his Oscar for the same film but "Washington, as the ambulance-chasing homophobe, had the harder task. He had to coerce audiences, ever so gently, into realizing that his character represented our own ignorance, and then drag us on his path to enlightenment."
But EW ignores its own harder task. If Washington gets a nom in 1993, who doesn't? Daniel Day-Lewis for In the Name of the Father, Laurence Fishburne for What's Love Got to Do With It?, Anthony Hopkins for Remains of the Day or Liam Neeson for Schindler's List? Who does EW snub?
It's bad enough that they're doing this from an historical perspective that allows them to seem smarter than the Academy by touting classic film roles — Rita Hayworth in Gilda (no. 21), Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange (no. 17), Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz (no. 9) — but add some teeth to the argument. Add some hand wringing. I thought their no. 6 choice was inspired: Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham. I thought: Yeah! Great performance. Totally bought her in that role. Then you look at the other best actress nominees from 1988: Glenn Close in Dangerous Liasons, Jodie Foster in The Accused, Melanie Griffith in Working Girl, Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark and Sigourney Weaver in Gorillias in the Mist. Now it's a little tougher. For my part, I'd pick Sarandon over Griffith or Weaver but EW doesn't want to make any hard choices, just easy ones.
Aren't these lists disposable enough? Make them about something. This list could be about how overlooked performances tend to come from genre films (horror, comedy) while the nominated performances tend to come from overserious dramatic films. And of course this is still going on. The Academy is still doing this. Talk about that and at least you're talking about something slightly relevant.
No Comments yet | Permalink







