2015 Academy Award Nominations

[Khev]

Not trying to put you on the spot, but do you have some examples. I'm having a hard time thinking of "great" films that didn't have at least very good acting, since actors are such key elements in (at least traditional, and not avant-garde) film. Also, you've got to place some of the blame on the acting on the director, don't you?

Well he did say "directors have made great films without great acting" and now you're asking him to give examples of great movies that didn't have "very good" acting. Not exactly what he was saying.

I think lots of "great" films have serviceable acting that in no way approaches Academy Award winning level. In fact probably most of the favorite films of members on these forums. FOTR, Raiders, The Terminator, The Winter Soldier, etc. I absolutely would consider all of those films "great," with great directing, editing, casting even writing. But with regard to acting I think the actors in those films in a lot of cases coast on having great lines that are easy to deliver and great synergy with the rest of the cast. But a moment like Emma Stone's rant in Birdman? Or that one clip of Redmayne playing Hawking? Nah.

That's one of the reasons that I think that The Dark Knight gets such notice, because it's the rare "great" genre film that actually did have an Oscar caliber perfomance (Ledger.)

 

[pturtle]

You mean Eddie Murphy?


Not trying to put you on the spot, but do you have some examples. I'm having a hard time thinking of "great" films that didn't have at least very good acting, since actors are such key elements in (at least traditional, and not avant-garde) film. Also, you've got to place some of the blame on the acting on the director, don't you?

I think T2 is definitely a candidate.

 

[karamazov80]

Khev makes a fair point, though I will have to ask Dave to allow us to ignore mods here after that outrageous Raiders comment. We've all got different thresholds for what "great" is though, I guess. I love Terminator. One of my favorite films. But "great?" I don't know about that. To my mind, unless I'm just using hyperbole, I think you do have to have that great acting component for a film as a whole to deserve that kind of acclaim. So Fargo, Godfather, Chinatown, Wild Strawberries? Great movies. Marvel Studios movies? Not so much.

 

[a-dev]

I dunno. Why does the subject matter have to 'serious' or set in the 'real world' for a film to be great?

 

[Khev]

I dunno. Why does the subject matter have to 'serious' or set in the 'real world' for a film to be great?

Dark, gritty, and "grounded." That's karamazov80 in a nutshell. Probably why he likes MOS so much.

 

[karamazov80]

I don't think a film has to be either of those things, but I'm thinking exceptional acting may be a necessary precondition for me. The Big Lebowski isn't serious but is, in my mind a great film. I'm not sure Fargo is a very serious film, either. A Clockwork Orange, and Alien would also go up on that list for me, which aren't very "real worldish."

 

[Khev]

Star Wars is another good example. I think AFI even has it in their Top 10 (or possibly 20) greatest films of all time. But Oscar caliber performances from any of the leads? No way.

 

[a-dev]

Dark, gritty, and "grounded." That's karamazov80 in a nutshell. Probably why he likes MOS so much.

His love of that film is legend.

 

[karamazov80]

Star Wars is another good example. I think AFI even has it in their Top 10 (or possibly 20) greatest films of all time. But Oscar caliber performances from any of the leads? No way.

I thought Guinness and Ford were absolutely top notch, and Hamill did about as good of a job as you would expect given the role he was supposed to play (though that argument can also be made for Arnie in Terminator). If Ford isn't a great actor in Star Wars, Blade Runner, and Raiders, then I think you're list of truly "great" actors would have to be pretty damn small, and wouldn't include many past Oscar winners.

 

[Khev]

If Ford isn't a great actor in Star Wars, Blade Runner, and Raiders, then I think you're list of truly "great" actors would have to be pretty damn small, and wouldn't include many past Oscar winners.

I think Ford himself fit the parts of Han Solo and Indiana Jones perfectly but that doesn't mean he was suddenly Daniel Day Lewis in the role. He just had awesome dialogue that fit what appeared to be mostly his own mannerisms. Mark Hamill? You really think he should have gotten a Best Actor nod in 1977? Really? Remember we're talking whether "Best Directors" and "Best Pictures" can exist without Academy Award winning acting performances.

 

[karamazov80]

I didn't say Hamill was great, or deserved a best actor, but he effectively complemented other, superior performances, which is what you would expect from any film. As for DDL, if our standard for great acting was that you had to meet or exceed his ability, you would have about 3 Academy Award winners in history. Bing Crosby won the Academy Award once. I would rank Ford much higher than him, if that's your standard. Nicholson and Denzel won for performances that weren't better than Han IMO.

 

[Fia2k9]

The Oscars


Here is an article about oscar voting with a quick video that explains the process

 

[CallMeTheDoctor]

Yeah I see where Khev is going with it. It's much like that talk about Tom Cruise and how he "acts himself". Every RDJ film I've seen has that snark, pompous, interesting character.

There are a few exceptional moments. Ford is the same. Blade Runner, as a whole, to me isn't special, probably due to my age. Indy and Han are good characters, but it's pretty much Ford. Unless you compare to The Fugitive or others.

 

[Khev]

I didn't say Hamill was great, or deserved a best actor, but he effectively complemented other, superior performances, which is what you would expect from any film. As for DDL, if our standard for great acting was that you had to meet or exceed his ability, you would have about 3 Academy Award winners in history. Bing Crosby won the Academy Award once. I would rank Ford much higher than him, if that's your standard. Nicholson and Denzel won for performances that weren't better than Han IMO.

All right then, if you think that Han Solo was an Oscar worthy performance then our examples and counter examples will probably break down going forward.

 

[marker2037]

Star Wars is the perfect example of what you're trying to explain Khev. No one is Oscar caliber, but it's a great movie nonetheless. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King are another two examples I can think of. Great ensemble cast in a great, great movie, but no one stood out enough to garner best acting nods.

 

[karamazov80]

All right then, if you think that Han Solo was an Oscar worthy performance then our examples and counter examples will probably break down going forward.

I'm just comparing him to other actors, who won because it was fashionable or politically correct at the time. Oscars are not my source for truly great actors or films, though. Seems like about a quarter of best actor awards are given out as lifetime achievement awards.

Doctor is right though, in that some actors step further outside of their comfort zone to put good performances on the screen. But I still think you can have great actors who are kind of one trick ponies, like Nicholson and Ford in their prime, when they can still convey such depth and range in the characters that they do play well (think of Deckard on one end of the spectrum of that character, and Han on the other end).

I think a better example of Khev's argument though, is Wizard of Oz. There are no truly great performances there IMO, but it is historically significant, and so considered great. I understand its historical importance, but do not consider it a great film.

 

[Sidewinder]

I would say that most of the films I like are not filled with Oscar worthy performances lol. Ensemble casts rarely are.

Julianne Moore won best actress without the film being nominated for best picture. It works both ways. You can have a standout performance in a not so good film, or a great film with no standout performance.

 

[Khev]

Star Wars is the perfect example of what you're trying to explain Khev.

Thanks.

I'm just comparing him to other actors, who won because it was fashionable or politically correct at the time. Oscars are not my source for truly great actors or films, though.

Maybe not but that is what gave context to the discussion "How can Birdman win Best Director/Picture without any Acting Awards?" At least Birdman still had three acting nominations. ROTK won 11 awards, including Best Picture without a single member of the cast, supporting or lead, even getting a nomination.

I think some films have a million great things going on and some are almost carried by the acting/writing alone. The first time I saw Birdman I didn't even realize that almost the whole movie implies one continuous shot. I could tell there were long takes but I was so caught up in the performances that I didn't really step back and take in how it was being filmed. That's one mark of a film with absolutely top shelf acting IMO. Not that you necessarily disagree with that last part, of course, I was just really impressed with it and even though every year I pretty much dismiss the Oscars, for the sake of those involved with the film I'm glad it got so much recognition.

 

[Bo Shrek]

Still think "Short Round" should have won a Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

 

[karamazov80]

Maybe not but that is what gave context to the discussion "How can Birdman win Best Director/Picture without any Acting Awards?"

Oh, that's a much easier issue to tackle IMO. It's because, as Fabio said, the guy playing Hawking was pure Oscar bait. On the other side of the coin, and a bit ironically, if not for Keaton's involvement, and Birdman being his real career resurgence vehicle, it's very unlikely Birdman would have received the attention and acclaim that it has. So that's a case where it may not be the best film, but gets acknowledged for other factors that affect how it is viewed by the Hollywood community.