Barton_Keyes

2017 Academy Honorary Awards

27 posts in this topic

The recipients of this years Honorary Oscars, which will be presented this fall at the Governors Awards, have been announced by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

 

The honorees this year are:

 

African-American director Charles Burnett (KILLER OF SHEEP [1978], MY BROTHER'S WEDDING [1983])

Five-time Oscar-nominated cinematographer Owen Roizman (THE FRENCH CONNECTION [1971], THE EXORCIST [1973], NETWORK [1976], TOOTSIE [1982], and WYATT EARP [1995]),

Prolific Canadian actor Donald Sutherland (THE DIRTY DOZEN [1967], MASH [1970], KLUTE [1971], ORDINARY PEOPLE [1980], JFK [1991]),

And Iconic French New Wave director Agnès Varda (CLEO FROM 5 TO 7 [1962], VAGABOND [1984]).

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just audibly shouted when I saw Donald Sutherland's name. It's about time. And the other three are all terrific choices, too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 6:43 PM, ChristineHoard said:

These are all great choices and most worthy of the recognition.  Well done, Academy.

I wonder if in the future, the Academy will do some type of 'extreme vetting' now to avoid a Weinstein \ Moore \ Spacey type situation (or say giving recognition to someone that made racist comments in the past).

OR are these type of awards based ONLY on their artistic contributions?    (like the NFL Hall of Fame verses the Baseball Hall of Fame where OFF field behavior is a factor E.g. why Rose isn't in the BB-Hall but Ray Lewis is in the Football Hall).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I wonder if in the future, the Academy will do some type of 'extreme vetting' now to avoid a Weinstein \ Moore \ Spacey type situation (or say giving recognition to someone that made racist comments in the past).

OR are these type of awards based ONLY on their artistic contributions?    (like the NFL Hall of Fame verses the Baseball Hall of Fame where OFF field behavior is a factor E.g. why Rose isn't in the BB-Hall but Ray Lewis is in the Football Hall).

I've read that there's a petition going to force the Academy to revoke the Oscar that Roman Polanski won for Best Director in 2002, and there's another petition to ban Casey Affleck from presenting the Best Actress Oscar this year based on his past allegations. If the Academy bows to either demand, you may have your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I wonder if in the future, the Academy will do some type of 'extreme vetting' now to avoid a Weinstein \ Moore \ Spacey type situation (or say giving recognition to someone that made racist comments in the past).

OR are these type of awards based ONLY on their artistic contributions?    (like the NFL Hall of Fame verses the Baseball Hall of Fame where OFF field behavior is a factor E.g. why Rose isn't in the BB-Hall but Ray Lewis is in the Football Hall).

 

Ray Lewis isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame -- yet. But he should be elected in February. He only obstructed justice in a murder case. He didn't bet on baseball -- a cardinal sin in MLB circles -- which is what Rose did. You also have to remember that O.J. Simpson is still enshrined in Canton.

As for vetting honorary Oscar nominees, I wouldn't be surprised if the members of the Academy's Board of Governors already know everything about everyone else in Hollywood. 

There's always the chance of a controversial honoree -- the mixed reactions to the 1999 recognition of filmmaker Elia Kazan (who named names during the blacklisting era) still resonate. Of course, politics will always have an impact on the Oscars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jakeem said:

Ray Lewis isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame -- yet. But he should be elected in February. He only obstructed justice in a murder case. He didn't bet on baseball -- a cardinal sin in MLB circles -- which is what Rose did. You also have to remember that O.J. Simpson is still enshrined in Canton.

As for vetting honorary Oscar nominees, I wouldn't be surprised if the members of the Academy's Board of Governors already know everything about everyone else in Hollywood. 

There's always the chance of a controversial honoree -- the mixed reactions to the 1999 recognition of filmmaker Elia Kazan (who named names during the blacklisting era) still resonate. Of course, politics will always have an impact on the Oscars.

 

So these members of the Academy's Board knew all about Weinstein,  Spacey etc.. and just said and did nothing???? 

Thanks for the info on Lewis; yea, he will get in because for that Hall off-field conduct is NOT a criteria while in the Baseball one it is (as stated in the Hall voting guidelines).   So it isn't about comparing 'sins' but that for one Hall  'sins' don't matter.     My preference is with the Football Halls 'standard'.   

As far as removing people (a point Larry raises);   I don't support that.   People are honored for their contribution to their craft.    What O.J.,  Polanski etc..  did didn't change that contribution.    But I assume that POV isn't supported by most people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So these members of the Academy's Board knew all about Weinstein,  Spacey etc.. and just said and did nothing???? 

Thanks for the info on Lewis; yea, he will get in because for that Hall off-field conduct is NOT a criteria while in the Baseball one it is (as stated in the Hall voting guidelines).   So it isn't about comparing 'sins' but that for one Hall  'sins' don't matter.     My preference is with the Football Halls 'standard'.   

As far as removing people (a point Larry raises);   I don't support that.   People are honored for their contribution to their craft.    What O.J.,  Polanski etc..  did didn't change that contribution.    But I assume that POV isn't supported by most people. 

Well, nobody did anything about Weinstein until recently. Now the floodgates have been opened. 

There are some players who haven't been elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame for off-the-field reasons. Terrell Owens was one of the great NFL wide receivers. But he's been passed over twice by the electors -- probably because of his brash personality and his public feuds with other players and coaches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jakeem said:

Well, nobody did anything about Weinstein until recently. Now the floodgates have been opened. 

There are some players who haven't been elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame for off-the-field reasons. Terrell Owens was one of the great NFL wide receivers. But he's been passed over twice by the electors -- probably because of his brash personality and his public feuds with other players and coaches.

 

So you're saying those board members knew but just did nothing.   Wow,  what enablers!

Funny you mention Owens because he is one of the current "poster-boys" on sports talk radio related to the Hall.  Clearly those with the power of the vote are holding something against Owens and to me that is unfair.   Note that Owens is the father of two daughters and two sons, by four different mothers and has been sued for failure to pay child support.    I wouldn't let any of this 'stuff' impact how I voted but those with the actual vote must feel differently.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just clarify, Rose can't be considered for the Hall of Fame because he was banned "for life" from baseball by one man, then-commissioner Bart Giamatti, father of actor Paul. It's not like it's an ongoing year-to-year active decision to deny him admittance. I think there's been softening of this "for life" thing recently. There was a Pete Rose Day in Cincinnati before a game last year, which sort of stunned me, because I thought his "for life" ban would prohibit him from participating in a ceremony in a major league stadium, but it happened. I think ultimately the Hall of Fame ban will be revoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sewhite2000 said:

Just clarify, Rose can't be considered for the Hall of Fame because he was banned "for life" from baseball by one man, then-commissioner Bart Giamatti, father of actor Paul. It's not like it's an ongoing year-to-year active decision to deny him admittance. I think there's been softening of this "for life" thing recently. There was a Pete Rose Day in Cincinnati before a game last year, which sort of stunned me, because I thought his "for life" ban would prohibit him from participating in a ceremony in a major league stadium, but it happened. I think ultimately the Hall of Fame ban will be revoked.

Apparently, you haven't heard about the latest Rose bombshell. Let's just say he allegedly has something in common with Judge Roy Moore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard about that actually, but I'd forgotten. Well, never mind, I revise my stance. He may have been heading toward reinstatement before that came to light.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the Academy:  should awards already given be taken away (stuck from the record) based on discovering objectionable conduct?     I say no.

But for those that say 'yes';  what type of conduct?    Since this topic is in General Discussions I don't wish to get political,  but deciding what objectionable conduct should result in having an award taken away would get political. 

E.g.  I could envision a protest to remove the Oscars given to Walter Brennan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no Doris Day. Or Liv Ullmann. Max etc... I dont really miss them being dropped from the Oscar show, as so many deserving people never get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hibi said:

Still no Doris Day. Or Liv Ullmann. Max etc... I dont really miss them being dropped from the Oscar show, as so many deserving people never get them.

Those you mention are deserving, but so are the people who received them this year, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hibi said:

Still no Doris Day. Or Liv Ullmann. Max etc... I dont really miss them being dropped from the Oscar show, as so many deserving people never get them.

I would rather see them cut the nonsense out of the telecast to fit the Honorary Oscars in.  They could cut the pointless montages (except for In Memoriam...), the feeble attempts at witty banter, the individual introductions to all 500 of the Best Picture nominees, the unnecessary host stunts, etc. Though I do understand that the Honorary Oscar and Humanitarian award winners do probably get a longer more intimate celebration and ceremony, but I miss seeing the wonderful Honorary Oscar and Humanitarian speeches.  Those were one of the most special parts of the telecast.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

I would rather see them cut the nonsense out of the telecast to fit the Honorary Oscars in.  They could cut the pointless montages (except for In Memoriam...), the feeble attempts at witty banter, the individual introductions to all 500 of the Best Picture nominees, the unnecessary host stunts, etc. Though I do understand that the Honorary Oscar and Humanitarian award winners do probably get a longer more intimate celebration and ceremony, but I miss seeing the wonderful Honorary Oscar and Humanitarian speeches.  Those were one of the most special parts of the telecast.   

Not trying to quote myself, but to add on...

The only one of these "extra" things that I can even remember and enjoyed from recent (well late 90s-early 00s) Oscar telecasts was Olivia de Havilland receiving a massive standing ovation as she presented "Oscar's Family Album" for the 70th & 75th anniversaries (why they did it twice in such a short amount of time, who knows?).  It was so special seeing so many of the Golden Age of Hollywood celebrities who are sadly not with us anymore.  Now, there aren't very many of them left.  The Oscars now are so lowbrow, I almost think it'd be embarrassing to have these Golden Era stars there.  

Both "Family Albums" are on You Tube and they're fun to re-watch and re-visit.

One of my favorite things to watch on You Tube are old Oscar things (from before I was born, so pre-1984), especially the Honorary Oscar presentations.  The Charles Chaplin one from 1972 and the Barbara Stanwyck one from 1982 are especially poignant.  Don't even ask me why John Travolta presented Stanwyck her award however. Along with Honorary Oscars, I also like watching the old Cecil B. Demille and AFI presentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:27 PM, speedracer5 said:

Not trying to quote myself, but to add on...

The only one of these "extra" things that I can even remember and enjoyed from recent (well late 90s-early 00s) Oscar telecasts was Olivia de Havilland receiving a massive standing ovation as she presented "Oscar's Family Album" for the 70th & 75th anniversaries (why they did it twice in such a short amount of time, who knows?).  It was so special seeing so many of the Golden Age of Hollywood celebrities who are sadly not with us anymore.  Now, there aren't very many of them left.  The Oscars now are so lowbrow, I almost think it'd be embarrassing to have these Golden Era stars there.  

Both "Family Albums" are on You Tube and they're fun to re-watch and re-visit.

One of my favorite things to watch on You Tube are old Oscar things (from before I was born, so pre-1984), especially the Honorary Oscar presentations.  The Charles Chaplin one from 1972 and the Barbara Stanwyck one from 1982 are especially poignant.  Don't even ask me why John Travolta presented Stanwyck her award however. Along with Honorary Oscars, I also like watching the old Cecil B. Demille and AFI presentations.

On my "Walls-of-Fame" I have an enlarged & lamented photo of all pasty winners & sadly, circle each winner when they go.

It's from THE 70th ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS-(*even Leonard Maltin got into the shot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spence said:

On my "Walls-of-Fame" I have an enlarged & lamented photo of all pasty winners & sadly, circle each winner when they go.

It's from THE 70th ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS-(*even Leonard Maltin got into the shot)

*Chaplin by far ranks among my all-time "SINS OF OMISSION" in regard to *Oscar. He was at first officially nominated for Best Actor in "The Circus" (l927-28) But, Mayer not only lo0atrhed him, but movie comics in general & had his name withdrawn & they only gave him an honorary statue that first year instead, therefore the very first Best Actor winner went to Germany's *Emil Jannings in both "The Last Command" & "The Way of All Flesh" instead. *Jannings accepted his statue & then immediately ran back to Germany & was an early member of the Nazi party!  He never returned to America either. A tremendous actor though! & then *Charlie did 1 one competitive *Oscar, but 20yrs after it was made. For 1952's beautiful scoring of "Limelight"-(I'll Remember You Eternally")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us