Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:23 am
by Hustler
I voted for Washington. He won that year having given a weak performance, far from Malcolm X, his best so far.
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:15 am
by Big Magilla
It was white guilt that gave Washington the Oscar over Wilkinson and Crowe. Don't you remember Julia Roberts' gushing "I can't believe I have a lead Oscar and Denzel Washington doesn't?"
It also helped that there was much ado about never having given the Best Actress to an African-American. Both Washington's and Berry's were"time has come" awards, both being the only lead performances by African-Americans to win since Sidney Poitier nearly forty years earlier. Poitier, not coincidentally, was being given a career achievement award the same night.
They're both good performances but without the aura of making history I doubt either would have won.
None of the decade's winners were "bad", but most were inconsequential. Most insignificant, rather than worst, might be a better appendage.
I think I voted for Philip Seymour Hoffman, but it might have been Russell Crowe. I don't remember. It was a week ago.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:33 pm
by Okri
jack wrote:I picked Denzel Washington. I don't understand how he won. I know Crowe fucked things up at the Bafta's that year, but Tom Wilkinson was sitting there fully deserving of the Oscar, but no they gave it to Washington for a performance less deserving than Bullock's.
AMPAS thinking. I thought Wilkinson was by far the best. But in that line-up, I'd rather Crowe lost than Wilkinson won, so voting for Washington (the other contender) seems to be the best move. Since Sissy Spacek also lost.
For me, Crowe and Foxx represent the nadir. But holistically, this group is quite strong. Foxx would've ranked second for me in that group, but he wouldn't have made my top ten overall that year. Ditto Crowe, but again, the snubs made this category sorta empty for me. Whereas I think Hoffman gives a slightly stronger performance, but he's outclassed by Ledger and Straithairn.
Voted for Crowe in this grouping, but I have to admit that Bridges win is the least satisfying for me.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:27 pm
by kaytodd
Tough choice. Voted Brody. I was upset that neither Cage or Nicholson won that year.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:36 pm
by Reza
Day-Lewis. Yes, pure torture.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:55 pm
by jack
I picked Denzel Washington. I don't understand how he won. I know Crowe fucked things up at the Bafta's that year, but Tom Wilkinson was sitting there fully deserving of the Oscar, but no they gave it to Washington for a performance less deserving than Bullock's.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:23 pm
by Damien
No contest. Hands down Daniel Day-Lewis. The pits. And although a couple of these other performances are not at all impressive, they are not torture to sit through like Day-Lewis.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:39 pm
by Mister Tee
Well, this one looks like it'll be all over the map.
I'm with BJ: Crowe would have been a fine winner in '99, but citing him for Gladiator was silly; it was barely a performance...the only lead male winner this year whose victory made me groan. (But then, I'm not as contrarian on consensus critics' choices as many around here)
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:18 pm
by FilmFan720
I went with Jamie Foxx...a lifeless, humorless surface imitation that is about as deep as an SNL sketch.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:15 pm
by Sabin
OG: I almost think that Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves his Oscar for being so woefully miscast in Capote and yet coming close to pulling it off. This is NOT Truman Capote. He's a beefy, joyless blob, who is far better suited to supporting scene-stealing work in Boogie Nights and Charlie Wilson's War or portraits of male menopause in The Savages or Synecdoche, New York. Hoffman gets quite a few surface details right with Truman Capote, but it's such a joyless performance and that's just wrong. Between Infamous and Capote, there is a very good film.
But I don't think he's worse than Whitaker. The charisma you're talking about is just volume. Hoffman at least delved into certain parts of Capote. Whitaker did nothing. Whitaker's Idi Amin is a archetype found in countless other films. Audience-surrogate goes into exotic land, gets close to Eccentric Genius, thinks he might be right, becomes frightened by him, runs away, credits. Finding something introspective in Idi Amin might not be the easiest job in the world, but it's hardly Oscar-worthy and far less ambitious than what Hoffman did.
Original BJ: I recently rewatched Gladiator, and honestly I don't have a huge problem with Russell Crowe's win. He's nowhere near as good as Bardem or Hanks, but he's perfectly cast in this role. And while Gladiator is a dumb movie that shouldn't win the Oscar, the reason it got anywhere near the acclaim and reception it did is largely because of Russell Crowe. He's not nearly as great as in The Insider or L.A. Confidential (and I much prefer his Jack Aubrey in Master and Commander to brooding Maximus), but this is a far superior performance to his busch league "Special" in A Beautiful Mind. That performance is ridiculous.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:49 pm
by OscarGuy
Sabin, I would contend that Philip Seymour Hoffman is even less interesting than Whitaker. I at least found Idi Amin as embodied by Whitaker a fascinating character that had charisma. Hoffman, on the other hand, gave absolutely nothing in the way of charisma with that performance. I find it very hard to see how anyone could possibly have found his version of Truman Capote interesting or relate-able in a way that would have allowed him such access as he received. And that's how I felt BEFORE I saw Toby Jones who just blew Hoffman's limp characterization out of the water.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:46 pm
by The Original BJ
I picked Russell Crowe, especially because the two performances that bookended Gladiator were much better.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:42 pm
by Sabin
We're going to do this now. Although I think he's one of the best actors to have won this decade, I do not see anything special about Whitaker's two-note performance in The Last King of Scotland. There have been lots of Real Person Impersonations to have won, but Whitaker's is the most limited, flaccid, and dull. Blame the filmmakers for failing to find anything interesting for him to do, but if you've seen five seconds of his performance you've seen it all. I can't say that about any of the other winners.