Page 5 of 8

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:16 pm
by Penelope
cam wrote:
Penelope wrote:If you think about it, the front-runners in 3 of the 4 acting categories are all villians,

Quite likely, that only one of them will be nominated for Actor--that is probably Day-Lewis.
Don't know about Bardem, and if Amy Ryan is a true villain, neither of them will win. Bet.
I'll take that bet! Ten bucks says both Bardem and Ryan will win.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:13 pm
by cam
Penelope wrote:If you think about it, the front-runners in 3 of the 4 acting categories are all villians,

Quite likely, that only one of them will be nominated for Actor--that is probably Day-Lewis.
Don't know about Bardem, and if Amy Ryan is a true villain, neither of them will win. Bet.




Edited By cam on 1198462427

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:28 pm
by ITALIANO
No, but I didn't mean this... Ok, never mind. Must be my English.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:03 pm
by Penelope
If you think about it, the front-runners in 3 of the 4 acting categories are all villians, or very, very shady:

Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd.

Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men.

Supporting Actress: Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone.

With the exception of Bardem's character--who seemingly has no redeeming characteristic save for an acutely ironic sense of humor--the others, at least, have some redeeming qualities (I'm assuming about Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood).

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:17 pm
by cam
and YOU are right, too, Marco. I thought about that when I replied to you.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:24 pm
by ITALIANO
I was referring, of course, to movies with a hero AND a villain - who was Jeremy Irons's antagonist? Or Anthony Hopkins's? And of course it's not that "bad guys" can't win Oscars - they did, and they will. It's about category placement.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:06 pm
by cam
You are both quite right--I stand corrected. I was trying to be too particular, I guess. None of the three mentioned had any redeeming feature whatever, but were delicious in their rottenness!



Edited By cam on 1198436934

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:57 pm
by Hustler
Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:53 pm
by FilmFan720
cam wrote:BUT: in my life, I can never remember an actor WINNING Best Actor or Best Supporting Oscar, who played a villain.
Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, or Denzel Washington in Training Day. Just two modern examples.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:33 pm
by rain Bard
I'm acquainted with a member of a critics group that voted Affleck in as Supporting and I recently asked him in an e-mail to explain the placement. He wrote back that he agreed it was by no means a supporting performance, but that since all the screeners supplied by the publicist were plastered with "FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: CASEY AFFLECK AS BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR" he expected his fellow critics to vote for him in that category. He said he didn't want his vote to be wasted, so he placed it where he thought it would would make an impact.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:28 pm
by cam
ITALIANO wrote:And he plays what could be conventionally (and, I admit, wrongly) called "the villain role" - the bad guy. And traditionally, especially in the American cinema, which has always glorified heroes, even very bi-dimensional heroes, the bad guy has a minor, supporting (though often showy) role.

I agree for the most part Italiano. And in recent years I can remember that Joaquin Phoenix in The Gladiator was much better drawn( as a character) than Crowe, who was very nearly one-dimensional.

If the villain is so much the main character that the film is entirely about him, he must have some redeeming quality that makes us see that he **could**be a good person in some other circumstance--i.e. Marlon Brando in The Godfather.

BUT: in my life, I can never remember an actor WINNING Best Actor or Best Supporting Oscar, who played a villain.

Maybe Damien, Big Magilla, or anonymous can wade in here. Is this true--has a villain, who is truly black in nature, ever won an Oscar? It does NOT seem to be "The American Way".

Therefore, Affleck, who is after all NAMED as the villain( a "coward") has a far better chance in Supporting. BUT he will not win.




Edited By cam on 1198434768

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:33 am
by ITALIANO
Okri wrote:Is is star status? Are critics evaluating a construct of history where Robert Ford remains supporting column of the Jesse James myth (as criddic seemed to do)?
I think it's a combination of the two. He's not the "star" of the movie - and critics are as victims of the so-called star system as anyone else (including, of course, the members of the Academy). And he plays what could be conventionally (and, I admit, wrongly) called "the villain role" - the bad guy. And traditionally, especially in the American cinema, which has always glorified heroes, even very bi-dimensional heroes, the bad guy has a minor, supporting (though often showy) role. In the eyes of not only the Academy, but more generally of America (and probably even more of Bush's America), Robert Ford is a supporting role, let's face it.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:22 am
by Hustler
Penelope wrote:
But why are the critics groups lemmings and following suit?

This is a mystery to me, as well.
Could be some critics involved in marketing strategies?

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:42 pm
by Penelope
But why are the critics groups lemmings and following suit?

This is a mystery to me, as well.

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:14 pm
by Okri
Italiano, I think most of us are resigned to seeing Affleck placed as support with the oscars (as they do stupid stuff like that all the time). But why are the critics groups lemmings and following suit? Is is star status? Are critics evaluating a construct of history where Robert Ford remains supporting column of the Jesse James myth (as criddic seemed to do)?