SO sad about her Oscar snub!!
-
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.