Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

GRAND THEFT OSCAR!


wordmaster
 Share

Recommended Posts

This topic may, I hope, encourage some lively discussion/debate/dialogue/diatribe ["these are words with a "D" this time..." - give me a PM if you know the song I quoted].

 

Now, to our topic: I just watched "The Snake Pit" last night and enjoyed it very much, for many reasons. The main reason I would see this film again would be to marvel at the work of Olivia DeHavilland as Virginia Stuart Cunningham. "Tour-de-force" almost captures the scale of this performance. In my eyes, there is hardly a false note worth mentioning in her portrayal throughout the film.

 

The thief in question is Jane Wyman. My recollection of her performance in "Johnny Belinda" is also of some fine work but... does it overtake the accomplishments of Olivia? I would say no. It could be argued that we have a dead-heat/photo-finish here but I think the scales of justice were skewed, in some way.

 

I am sure that others will provide much-needed context in this particular case, as it should be when we are talking about the weird world of awards.

 

I just thought I would open the discussion with this example fresh in my mind. Others can provide other, more egregious examples of grand larceny, I'm sure.

 

Please begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that reminder, path.

 

With that in mind, people can give this topic a pass, if they feel it's been talked out. I don't mind.

 

For those of us who might want to know, let me know what FWIW is...I'm sure it's not insulting but I can't place these initials to words at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW means For What It's Worth;-)

 

I think you'll find that MANY (most?) classic movie topics have been discussed here before, though sometimes the titles change (I think yours is very creative). The reason I frequently post links to one or more of these older topics (even though my intent may at times be misinterpreted) is to let the OP (original poster) know that there is a treasure trove contained within these boards, from participants past and present, with discussions on their topic. If the OP is interested in what others have said previously, or wonder why they aren't getting a lot of feedback, the link will may give them the information they seek.

 

You can always use the search function to find the older threads, and add your thoughts to those discussions (which brings them 'to the top' for newer persons to see and read). If more people did this, there would be fewer threads, but ALL the topics would be easier to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just seen that yesterday, TMN, it is fresh in my mind and I tend to agree with you. It should have been recognized as one of those "out of the blue" performances that leaves a lasting impression on the viewer. It certainly leaves a more indelible impression than Melvyn Douglas's performance in "Hud" [although the work in that film by everyone is nothing to sneeze at...].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I heard last night that The Godfather II won the BestPicture Oscar over The Conversation . . .

 

What a joke, in my estimation.

 

While The Godfather II is a good film, I think it is simultaneously, highly-overrated.

 

While The Conversation is, in my estimation, Coppola's chef-d'oeuvre with Apocalypse Now a close second.

 

I think Allen's, Brando's and Scott's past contempt for the oscars is valid and honourable.

 

It's all about fiscal success not artistic accomplishment (though, granted, the latter can and does occur despite the former), and all within a shameless, self-aggrandising, mutual-appreciation-club ambience. Blechh! :P . . . as Alfred E. Neuman might say.

 

And speaking of elephant talk . . . ;-)

"Elephant Talk" is a good theme for message boards what with their

arguments, agreements (Fights), answers and articulate announcements which ultimately is only talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't even begin to talk about Hackman getting robbed of at least a nomination for his performance [!].

 

Meaning no disrespect to those Academy members, if any, on these boards, the process is a mystery wrapped in an enigma - too many variables and not enough transparency.

 

.........doubletalk, doubletalk............ ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi my BC friend,

 

I agree with you in a lot of cases and on a lot of occasions, BUT:

 

I am glad Jane Wyman won the Oscar for "Johnny Belinda" and I thought she deserved it.

I have always loved and enjoyed Olivia and thought her "Snake Pit" performance was great. But, I thought Jane's was better.

Olivia already had an Oscar and the Academy thinking was probably that Jane should get one too. And, Olivia won the next year for the best performance of her long career. Most people I knew back then were hoping Loretta Young would win again for her nun's performance. As I was a kid at the time, I hadn't seen any of these pictures so was peeved that Loretta lost. Now, of course I can't ever see her winning over Olivia.

Jane's Oscar allowed her to go onto a much better career than she had previously.

 

 

As far as Melvyn Douglas winning over Bobby Darin: it probably was a case of Melvyns been around for decades and let's just give him one. Bobby can wait; but of course, Bobby died shortly thereafter, didn't he??

Don't know much about Bobby Darin, really.......

 

Larry

 

Message was edited by:

vecchiolarry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there Larry,

 

I thought that you would be able to add some context to the Olivia/Jane case, and you have. Thanks very much, and taking into consideration that Olivia had won a couple of years earlier for "To Each His Own" and that Jane had been nominated in the same year for "The Yearling", and then turned in a star performance in "Johnny Belinda", makes the picture a bit clearer. I still think that Olivia's performance is better by a whisker, though.

 

Olivia's work in "The Heiress" does outshine Loretta's in "Come to the Stable"; I haven't seen "Pinky" with Jeanne Crain so I can't comment there.

 

Your explanation in the Douglas/Darin case is plausible; Melvyn did have a body of work to honour and Bobby was just starting out, and then taken from us too soon. Life and justice don't always go hand-in-hand.

 

Thanks again for your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again,

 

In retrospect, can you imagine if Loretta Young had won in 1949???

She had won for playing an upright, goody-two-shoes congresswoman in 1947; and then played the virtuous ministers wife in "The Bishop's Wife"; and then win for playing a saintly nun who does good works.

My God, her halo would have been securely cemented on and there would have been no living with her. She was impossibly Catholic already!!

I had to attend Mass with her et al for too many Sundays as it was. I would either have become a priest or a mass murderer had she won.

As it was, her career wound down after 1950 and she went into TV. That kept her busy after 1953 and I was able to skip church pretty much all the time.

As much as I loved her, she was too saintly for me and finally Nell blew up at her and her husband (a first class a--hole) and dropped them. I managed to stay friends with her though.

 

Just a few more thoughts in passing as I am remembering that time in Oscar history........

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't get over the fact that Humphrey Bogart didn't even get a nomination for his outstanding role in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre". Nominated for best actor that year was Dan Dailey for something called "When My Baby Smiles at Me".

Always thought that Jean Hagen should have won the Oscar for her ditzy role in "Singin' in the Rain" instead of Gloria Grahame for "The Bad and the Beautiful".

And poor Thelma Ritter with 6 Oscar nominations and not one win. It's criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mom, from whom I inherited my love of old movies, only voiced one opinion about the Oscars, and that was that Judy Garland should have won for A Star is Born, and not Grace Kelly for The Country Girl. Was that the common opinion at the time? Anyone who was around then, please respond. Larry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dan,

 

Yes, your mother was quite correct. For days on end most people wondered how Judy had been overlooked. She was a 'comeback' darling and the movie was very popular everywhere. Also, she was in the hospital pregnant at the time, so everyone considered her a shoo-in!!!!!!!

I must say that Grace Kelly did handle her win 'gracefully'... She posed for pictures and then went to Europe to film "To Catch A Thief". She did not contribute to any controversy.

I like Grace and most of her movies, but this one was dull and boring. I have never reseen it after the first viewing. I don't particularly care for Bing Crosby - take him or leave him. I do like William Holden but not in this.

 

Yes, your mother was right - Judy was robbed.....

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies, TMN and Larry. Mom never did take the Oscars seriously, as much as she loved movies. Now I know why. She loved Judy, but didn't have much to say about Grace Kelly other than when this subject came up. And were it not for this subject, I don't think I ever would have even heard of The Country Girl.

Link to comment
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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...