No Love For The BEST Actress
I was watching Ebert & Roper do their annual "If We Picked the Oscars." They're of the opinion that since they actually watched all the movies, they're the most qualified to select the winners. In the Best Actress category Roper selected Felicity Huffman while Ebert picked Reese Witherspoon.
However, both of them agreed that Charlize Theron gave the best performance of the five nominees, and if she hadn't already won they would have chosen her. Two critics who revel in making intelligent selections free of Academy BS, and they openly vote for their 2nd choices.
Best Actress should mean exactly that. Or else why not call it "Best Performance By An Actress Who Hasn't Already Won"?
There's a strong bias against NORTH COUNTRY and Charlize's extraordinary work, and I'm wondering if somebody reading the column can tell me why? Why is Charlize crossed off the list because "she already got hers"? I'm not looking for people who don't think Charlize gave the Best performance. That's a totally different debate. I want to hear from people who agree Charlize gave the Best Performance, but hope she doesn't win the Oscar.
posted by Cutshaw at 3/01/2006
2 Comments:
I may not be the ideal person to judge because I havent seen the movie yet. I definitely agree that there should be no kind of bias. Even if an artist has won it in the previous year, if he/she deserves it, they should win it again... that should be the way of looking at it and not how many times the artist has won the award previously!!
I think that everyone deserves an Oscar and you should not even be nominated if you have won before...
Okay, not really, but that does seem to be the thought process of the acadamy. What it does do is give us geeks something to bitch about and I am thankful for that.
Post a Comment
<< Home