Posted by Kathy S on August 06, 1998 at 16:21:16:
In Reply to: Re: Oscar Snub posted by ann on August 06, 1998 at 07:34:49:
: : Ann wrote:
: : : For comparisons sake, these are the movies that were nominated in '92: Unforgiving(winner),The Crying Game, A Few Good Men, Howards End, Scent of a Woman. I've seen 3 out of the 5, and believe that LOTM was far better entertainment by far. Unforgiving was a horrific, bloody tale.....at least with LOTM, we were taught a history lesson along with experiencing the bloody moments:o)...ann
: : Hi, Ann. Somewhere in last year's archives, I think, is a post naming all the winners of the 1992 Academy Awards, with (ahem) personal commentary by yours truly. I've seen all five of the above films, and my honest opinion is that the winner, The Unforgiven, was the WORST of the lot. I really disliked it, and all of the performances therein. And Al Pacino, who won Best Actor for his completely over-the-top performance in Scent of a Woman, cannot hold a candle (in this film) to any of the leading men in LOTM. How he managed to "Hooo-haaaa!" that role into a winner is beyond me. Personally, I thought the other three movies were each excellent in very different ways, with some very strong performances, but ignoring LOTM in any of the main categories was a BIG mistake. Or a flat-out insult.
: : MMMMarcia
: Better late than never Marcia:o)
: Sometimes, life's distractions:o) cause me to overlook or fail to post an answer and it then becomes lost and sinks to the bottom of the board....just realized that's what happened to your very-interesting message above.
: As regards the 5 oscar nominations for '92, it proves what I've come to suspect about movieland -- there's more than a little politics at play in the oscar process. I missed Howard's End & Scent of a Woman(the latter because other than Serpico, I've usually been disappointed in Al Pacino films. To me, he & Robert DiNiro are men's actors.... women are portrayed in their movies as sex objects, little else(Sharon Stone type actresses). Besides representing a neanderthal-type mentality towards females, it just makes for a boring saga. The much revered "Godfather" movie(s), IMO, was trite & a yawn.
: As far as "The Crying Game", it was unusual & since I was not yet online(chatting daily with the Irish in cyberspace), I found it fascinating. "A Few Good Men"was entertaining but not exactly rivetting.
: Mentioned in another post, I feel that the fact Michael Mann was best known as a TV director rather than a film-maker at the time LOTM was made, might have been the principal reason for the obvious oscar snub. However, there is one other angle to consider: Political Correctness being at its most rampant in '92, could have caused the members to hesitate to vote for a film in which they believed Native Americans were represented in what they might have considered a hackneyed way. Hollywood is nothing if not politically correct conscious.
: It isn't the first time that I've wondered where the heads of the Academy voting members were at oscar nomination time.
: LOTM did beat out "The Little Mermaid" in sound quality....my 7 yr old niece would even argue with that one:o)
Those of you who were smart enough to see LOTM at the theater would know what time of year the film was released. I'm not one of those lucky, smart people.
I have heard that movies which come out late in the year have a better chance of nominations, and that Oscar hopefuls often plan release as late as possible for that reason. The other thing about the Oscars, which has tainted the whole affair for me, is the fact that intense lobbying is done by the studios for the films they are pushing as Oscar contenders. I believe the studios take out ads in the trade magazines, and this can actually be helpful. I got this info from Siskel and Ebert, if my memory serves.
Is it possible that LOTM didn't benefit in from either of these ploys?
Post a Followup