Can someone give a refresher on how the actor's branch handle their nominations? Do they receive a list of eligible films and a seperate list of eligible performers? When filling out their acting nomination ballots, is it up to each voter to determine whether to place a candidate in the leading or supporting category? Are they required to submit 5 nominees for each catgegory? I know that a performer can not be nominated for the same performance in both lead and supporting categories, but can a voting member violate this rule on his or her individual ballot - e.g. selecting Helena Bonham Carter or Kate Blanchett ("I'm Not there") for both lead and supporting actress?
Thanks in advance.
Oscar race rules changing
As a musical-theatre person, I liked Chicago a lot; I thought it was the best of the Kander-Ebb scores, and it was beautifully cast and filmed. Compare it to this year's inexuseably highly-rated Hairspray, which IMO was fu--ing horrible: so unrelentingly cheery and banal. The little John Waters film was way better: Nikki Blonsky is not Ricki Lake, and Travolta! We would have preferred Harvey Feinstein ( Not Divine, who scared the shit out of me!).
Edited By cam on 1195676152
Edited By cam on 1195676152
Well, all I can say is thank the heavens that the mind-numbingly and butt-numbingly boring Traffic didn't win.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
1999-2002 produced four wins in a row I didn't care for. I'd say American Beauty, A Beautiful Mind and Chicago all have their mitigating factors (featuring lovely performances by Thora Birch, Jennifer Connelly and John C Reilly respectively) but Gladiator was indeed the absolute worst.
Interestingly, both Gladiator and Chicago appeared almost defeated at the end of the night -- with the sudden surge by The Pianist, and with Traffic winning everything else it was nominated for, and with BOTH films snatching Best Director away from the eventual Best Picture winner -- but still managed to claim the top prize in a somewhat anti-climactic victory to an admittedly fun race.
Edited By Akash on 1195502853
Interestingly, both Gladiator and Chicago appeared almost defeated at the end of the night -- with the sudden surge by The Pianist, and with Traffic winning everything else it was nominated for, and with BOTH films snatching Best Director away from the eventual Best Picture winner -- but still managed to claim the top prize in a somewhat anti-climactic victory to an admittedly fun race.
Edited By Akash on 1195502853
Not everyone here disagrees with you, Steph. Chicago was neither entertaining nor artful to me. So count me as one of the dissenters (I also remember a negative review from Ed Gonzalez? Not every critic loved it)
I preferred Gangs of New York and The Two Towers by far, but since neither one seemed to have a chance of winning, I found myself rooting for that last minute dash by Polanski's lovely film.
Edited By Akash on 1195421894
I preferred Gangs of New York and The Two Towers by far, but since neither one seemed to have a chance of winning, I found myself rooting for that last minute dash by Polanski's lovely film.
Edited By Akash on 1195421894
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Yeah, Steph, Chicago is one the Academy's better choices; and while I'm certainly a minority in this opinion, I think Gladiator was the best of the five nominated that year.
But I'm total agreement re A Beautiful Mind.
But I'm total agreement re A Beautiful Mind.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6398
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Don't knock Chicago. (Though I personally would've voted for The Pianist that year)Steph2 wrote:The Academy really should have a higher standard in choosing its voting population. Like maybe an exam or something to prove how much you know about film. If you're the kind of person who voted for Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind and Chicago one year after the other, you really shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. I mean jesus, look at the recent list. How many times did Cameron Diaz get to vote?
The Academy really should have a higher standard in choosing its voting population. Like maybe an exam or something to prove how much you know about film. If you're the kind of person who voted for Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind and Chicago one year after the other, you really shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. I mean jesus, look at the recent list. How many times did Cameron Diaz get to vote?
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Um...does anyone else feel like this article was written by someone who has NEVER followed an awards race? I mean, seriously, I honestly feel we're in the same place we always are in November (would-be frontrunners emerging, early favorites hanging on, fall prestige films bombing once people actually see them) and this guy's proclaiming some kind of sea change. Heck, the biggest constancy is writers declaring that this year is more up in the air than any other -- which seems to happen EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. Sheesh.Hustler wrote:Kudos voters are like diners at a buffet: They like to look at everything that's being offered before they make their decision. So the big irony this year is that the kudos season started earlier than ever, has entailed more thought and fretting than any other -- and there is less clarity than any previous year.