Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. and Jaye Davidson only got a Supporting Actor nomination? Jaye's performance was clearly more complex and difficult than

and Jaye Davidson only got a Supporting Actor nomination? Jaye's performance was clearly more complex and difficult than

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
12 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Crying Game


    ajreal05 — 15 years ago(March 21, 2011 03:40 PM)

    and Jaye Davidson only got a Supporting Actor nomination? Jaye's performance was clearly more complex and difficult than Stephen's (although Stephen did a great job). It just seems so incongruous.
    And while we're on the subject, why didn't Forest Whitaker get nominated for anything?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      wallsofjericho — 15 years ago(March 22, 2011 02:08 PM)

      I think Rea was much better than Davidson. I dont see what was so complex about Davidson's performance in all honesty, I think Neil Jordan's writing deserves most of the credit than Davidson's acting, sure he did a great job of building up to the twist, but I never once forgot that I was watching an inexperienced actor act. His emotional scenes come across as forced in my opinion and not geniune.
      Plus Rea had to carry the film from beginning to end and had a much harder job than Davidson in the sense that Davidson had the more flashy role and Rea had to capture your interest doing much less, but Rea carried the film from beginning to end and never once had a false moment in his acting.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        IMDb User

        This message has been deleted.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          BornSlippy78 — 14 years ago(April 26, 2011 05:19 PM)

          I think it's because Rea had the lead role and Davidson had the supporting role.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            marbleann — 14 years ago(July 12, 2011 07:52 PM)

            Davidson role was more of a gimmick then anything else. He was good but it was a gimmick. Rea was in that movie from beginning to end.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              boogles — 13 years ago(August 21, 2012 08:38 AM)

              Put it down to the Miramax marketing campaign. Those boys are masters at marketing stuff for the Oscars. Harvey and co. are very good at it.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                marbleann — 13 years ago(August 21, 2012 09:56 AM)

                I agree. I believe they had to change or modify the campaigning rules for the Academy Awards because of the way they campaigned for Shakespeare in Love.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  Kompressor_Fan — 10 years ago(August 01, 2015 05:49 PM)

                  I'm guessing that most of the people making comments here have no idea what the difference is between being the lead role and what a supporting character is (hint: it doesn't have a thing at all to do with who gave the better performance, or gimmicks.)
                  The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote last edited by
                    #9

                    sirjeremy — 10 years ago(November 11, 2015 02:20 PM)

                    Rea had a lot of screentime and really was the heart of the film in a performance Andrew Sarris called 'one of the most brilliantly understated performances of recent years', and to be honest Davidson should count himself lucky he received
                    any
                    kind of awards recognition, though he did have some nice moments here and there.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote last edited by
                      #10

                      dominiqueg-377-70889 — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 03:40 PM)

                      And while we're on the subject, why didn't Forest Whitaker get nominated for anything?
                      Given the present furore, I had to chuckle at this one.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • F Offline
                        F Offline
                        fgadmin
                        wrote last edited by
                        #11

                        catbookss — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 02:11 PM)

                        Dunno. He was
                        so
                        good in this part. What a performance.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          fgadmin
                          wrote last edited by
                          #12

                          Monknificent — 10 years ago(March 20, 2016 09:02 PM)

                          And while we're on the subject, why didn't Forest Whitaker get nominated for anything?
                          Well, I was going to say it might have had something to do with his shaky accent, which at one point veered into South African and a few others, but then I realised that the ears of the American members of the Academy Awards are likely not attuned to any other accents than their own.
                          "It's too late Always has been, always will be
                          Too late."

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0

                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • Users
                          • Groups