Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Mister Tee wrote:
There's also -- let's not deny -- some pressure to display diversity in choices, and, while that's been great for people like Spike Lee, James Earl Jones or Cicely Tyson, it feels like it's reaching a point of near-absurdity with Palcy, of whom most people have never heard and whose achievements would never merit such a prize without her gender and race being a factor. You can argue her gender and race have played a role in how limited her career has been -- a very easy argument to make -- and that by itself is reason to honor her. But that slips over a bit into giving a prize for a career we imagine might have been, and I'm not sure how well that works.

Thank you for writing this.

Big Magilla wrote:I'd personally put Leslie Caron ahead of all of these names.

Most certainly. I missed her name. She's a beloved star, was fantastic in so many of the MGM musicals, can do comedy and drama with ease, did a good combo of working in Hollywood and International productions and is a two-time nominee to boot. A win for her would be most deserving.

Redgrave is truly a giant and her career has not only encompassed the big screen but she has Emmys and a Tony as well - a formidable stage presence which I've personally experienced - and would be most deserving of an Honorary Oscar for her entire career - that Oscar for Julia (although well deserved) somehow does not seem enough. At least to me.

I remember a lot of grumbling when Jimmy Stewart won his Honorary -- lots of people had by then internalized the idea that Honorarys were for people who'd had stellar careers, but slipped through the cracks and never won (Cary Grant, Chaplin, Groucho, Deborah Kerr, Myrna Loy, etc.). Stewart wasn't seen to NEED an Honorary, any more than Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis would have been. (Kazan of course was also an unpopular choice, for different, well-known reasons.)

I feel like, since the move of the Honorarys to its own separate presentation, there's been pressure to give at least four every year (to make it a full evening), which has the natural effect of diluting the pool -- the obvious choices have already been made, and they're picking from the second tier. Not to overlook that long list Reza posts...but I think there's some "They're young enough; they'd rather win a real Oscar" sentiment about many of those folk.

There's also -- let's not deny -- some pressure to display diversity in choices, and, while that's been great for people like Spike Lee, James Earl Jones or Cicely Tyson, it feels like it's reaching a point of near-absurdity with Palcy, of whom most people have never heard and whose achievements would never merit such a prize without her gender and race being a factor. You can argue her gender and race have played a role in how limited her career has been -- a very easy argument to make -- and that by itself is reason to honor her. But that slips over a bit into giving a prize for a career we imagine might have been, and I'm not sure how well that works.

I agree. In the old days they did it all the time - Gary Cooper, James Stewart, Elia Kazan among them.

Vanessa Redgrave, as Reza suggests, would be a good one.

Hmmm...

I guess the question is what is the purpose of an honorary Oscar? If it's about lifetime achievement, why is there a degree of reticence about former winners. Like, Meryl Streep doesn't need an honorary by any means, but is there any other performer who's career is as synonymous with Oscar as hers?

Reza wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:I know you guys are being facetious, but what actor or actress of any race, other than Glenn Close, is really perceived as overdue?

For the Honorary Oscar:

Harrison Ford, Catherine Deneuve, Gerard Depardieu, Jane Alexander, Judy Davis, Nick Nolte, Sir Ian McKellan, Martin Sheen, Vanessa Redgrave (despite the supporting win), Terence Stamp, Isabelle Adjani, Isabelle Huppert, Harvey Keitel, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Pfeiffer, Marsha Mason, Bette Midler, and Debra Winger.

Charlotte Rampling, Ed Harris, Bruce Dern, Diane Ladd, Tom Cruise, John Travolta… it just goes on and on

They just need to check a box with Euzhan Palcy

I'm obviously most excited at the prospect of Peter Weir getting an honorary Academy Award. He's a major talent who in retrospect probably never came close to winning despite his four nominations. It makes sense.

I understand the thinking behind giving one to Michael J. Fox. He had a very solid ten year run in movies (1985-1995) before his career was cut short by Parkinson's Disease and has dedicated the rest of his life to advocacy. He might be remembered by some here as more of a television star, but people of my generation revere him for his work in Back to the Future. There's no reason to believe that if his career wasn't cut short by Parkinson's that he wouldn't have gotten close to the brass ring.

I'm fine with Diane Warren getting one of these. Honestly, who cares? She's unlikely to ever win for a host of reasons pertaining to changing tastes and the types of films she's in. Anyone who gets fourteen nominations probably deserves to have won at least once. More than anything, I'm just excited to not have to think about her chances of winning ever again.

Never heard of Euzhan Palcy or Sugarcane Alley.

By many of us, maybe, but by the Academy?

I'd personally put Leslie Caron ahead of all of these names.

Big Magilla wrote:I know you guys are being facetious, but what actor or actress of any race, other than Glenn Close, is really perceived as overdue?

For the Honorary Oscar:

Harrison Ford, Catherine Deneuve, Gerard Depardieu, Jane Alexander, Judy Davis, Nick Nolte, Sir Ian McKellan, Martin Sheen, Vanessa Redgrave (despite the supporting win), Terence Stamp, Isabelle Adjani, Isabelle Huppert, Harvey Keitel, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Pfeiffer, Marsha Mason, Bette Midler, and Debra Winger.

I know you guys are being facetious, but what actor or actress of any race, other than Glenn Close, is really perceived as overdue?

Reza wrote:

anonymous1980 wrote:I'm guessing they're honoring Euzhan Palcy because they wanted to honor a female filmmaker of color.

Would it have killed them to have instead given it to somebody white? Man or woman. Preferably an actor.

I tend to agree that white performers have been under-rewarded by AMPAS and deserve more.

anonymous1980 wrote:I'm guessing they're honoring Euzhan Palcy because they wanted to honor a female filmmaker of color.

Would it have killed them to have instead given it to somebody white? Man or woman. Preferably an actor.

Mira Nair would make more sense, but they could have bypassed her for the same reason Reza thinks Ridley Scott was bypassed - she still has an active career. But then so has Diane Warren.

I'm guessing they're honoring Euzhan Palcy because they wanted to honor a female filmmaker of color. The list of living female POC who are old enough and whose careers are long enough to maybe merit an honorary award is unfortunately very, very short. Apart from Palcy, the only other one I can think of is Julie Dash and she has even LESS films than Palcy. Even if you expand the list to include international and other racial minority female filmmakers, the only other ones I can find are Ann Hui, Mabel Cheung and Mira Nair.

No career achievement awards for actors this year, which is OK, but two directors, one deserving if surprising, the other totally out of nowhere, and a prolific if deservedly also-ran multi-nominated mundane songwriter.

Bless us and save us said Mrs. O'Davis. Joy, joy, said Mrs. Molloy.