SO sad about her Oscar snub!!
-
EJverh — 12 years ago(January 17, 2014 08:32 PM)
Sad, personally speaking, yes because she really needed a comeback (but then again, does she really? From her humiliating drunken episode some could deduce that it isnt all that good for her afterall). But, objectivelly speaking, if anyone needed to get off that list to accomodate the Amrica's sweetheart in the Academy's favorite movie right now, Amy Adams, she did. Everyone else, Bullock, Blanchett, Dench and Streep were better than her so it doesnt surprise nor sadden me. I would have been upset had she gotten the nomination instead of any of the ladies on the list, especially Streep like it seem to be the case just before it was announced.
-
larpine — 12 years ago(January 26, 2014 10:40 AM)
Hmm, you sound like Kenneth Branagh. Personally or objectively or whatever, Oscar nominated or not, Thompson has consistently maintained the reputation as one of the best actresses alive and hardly needed a comeback, for she's never gone away.
That said, I do think she was robbed of the nomination, but by Bullock, not Adams, for I think it was a given that Amy had one coming.
I mean, wasn't Sigourney Weaver's performance in Aliens the last best actress nod given to a woman for a performance in the action/adventure genre? -
-
markedjuan — 12 years ago(April 05, 2014 12:27 PM)
These are just my conjectures and you don't have to agree with them:
It must be noted that the Academy members who nominate the actors for the awards are also actors. Maybe it was politics that caused Thompson the nomination. A lot of the Academy members also probably shared Meryl Streep's opinion of the film and it was only Streep who dared to voice it. Perhaps for many in the industry, Saving Mr. Banks ran false and it was just a studio's own Valentine to itself. (P.L. Traverse is probably rolling in her grave; first, Disney demolishes her book and then 50 years later it goes on to demolish her own life story.)Hence its omission in the major categories. Thus, despite her marvelous performance, Emma Thompson unwittingly became one of the spoils of this backlash.
Or:
Emma Thompson hasn't been popular with the liberal Hollywood brass, especially since the time she played a foul-mouth Hilary Clinton in Primary Colors.
Or:
Julie Andrews won an Oscar for Mary Poppins, and there are those who insist she won the sympathy vote. Emma Thompson had to pay big time for this. Yes, this is absurd but it's just that I ran out of other reasons. -
murph24 — 12 years ago(April 05, 2014 02:06 PM)
Or maybe Emma Thompson's performance simply wasn't that great.
If her performance was good enough to win the National Board of Review's award for Best Actress of the Year (which it did), and good enough to snag her a Screen Actors Guild nomination for Best Actress (which it did, in addition to a number of other nominations from various organizations for Best Actress), I'd say it was good enough to warrant an Oscar nomination.
But it's the Oscars after all, and nothing that anyone should get their panties in a wad over. Besides, Thompson already has two Oscars at home. -
murph24 — 11 years ago(April 12, 2014 09:23 AM)
So because she had other wins and nominations for the performance, that automatically means that she should have also been nominated for an Academy Award?
I never said that her other awards and nominations "automatically" meant she should have been nominated; I said her performance was "good enough to warrant" a nomination. Two entirely different things.
But it seems that most of Thompson's fans get all up in arms about her "loss" because they believe that she is somehow deserving of more Oscars. At the same time, though, they will argue that Oscars "mean nothing."
I don't know about "up in arms" (though there are fans who are literally fanatical), but it goes without saying there was considerable surprise when her name wasn't among the five nominees for Best Actress; her nomination was practically considered a lock a week earlier by Oscar prognosticators, and after they were announced it was difficult to find an Oscar column that didn't mention the omission of Emma Thompson's name. Also, actors comprise the largest block of Academy voters, and she was one of only five who'd already received a Screen Actors Guild nomination for Best Actress. No one said this "automatically" meant she was going to receive an Oscar nomination, but there's no denying there was an
expectation
she'd be among the five nominees.
I'm only disagreeing with your suggestion that her performance wasn't nominated because it was "not that great." There's no rhyme or reason why the Academy votes the way they do, but there
was
general agreement that Thompson had given one of the strongest performances of her career in
Saving Mr. Banks- and that's a career that includes four previous Oscar nominations and one win (the other win for her work as a screenwriter). She wasn't nominated because - well, who knows why wasn't nominated? Maybe the Academy wasn't pleased when they learned she kept her Oscars in the bathroom. But the quality of her exceptional performance was never in doubt.
-
murph24 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 08:02 PM)
A career that includes four previous Oscar nominations and one win? Big deal. As some posters said, the Oscars mean nothing.
Actually, it's two wins - the other win, as I pointed out, was for screenwriting. And the reason I mentioned it was because this thread is about the Oscars and their often arbitrary history. But I never said the Academy Awards were the ultimate barometer of quality: in fact, if you look at what I've written, you'll see that I'm arguing that Oscar recognition (or lack of it) has nothing to do with the quality of an artist's work.
I'm sure the Oscars have certain benefits as an industry award; they can raise the profile of an individual or project, and sometimes boost salaries and box office numbers. But ultimately, it's up to filmgoers to decide what works, or dosn't work, for them; they shouldn't program their brains according to the choices of the Academy. -
sesquick-seabag — 10 years ago(June 03, 2015 08:20 AM)
No, I think she was quite rightly ignored. That was a very repellently ripe and actorly performance, all affected and caricatured mannerisms and no real soul. And the film was a true stinker too, full of clichs and manufactured sentimentality. Mind, the same could be said of Blue Jasmine and Cate Blanchett but I guess there was no stopping that steamroller.