• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

10 undeserved acting Oscars

J

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
1,711
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I saw this topic done on YouTube, so, having seen a lot of movies in my life, and watched every Oscar show since the 1960s, I decided to take a crack at it.
What criteria did I use?: I had to have watched the whole movie not just clips, & not a movie I gave up on part way through.
Then what sort of qualities did I think the performances have?
miscast actor
very unmemorable--know I watched the movie but don't remember much about the performance
disagreeably memorable performance
in a movie I don't like
bad acting: frequently off key or unfocussed, wooden, or scenery chewing
couldn't forget the actor in the performance, in a way that distracted me from the character
distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated in the same category the same year

Please note: I have not seen every single Oscar-Winning performance: for one thing, I don't watch movies I think I will dislike: so, for example, no performance from Chicago, Cold Mountain, Forrest Gump, Judy, True Grit shows up here.

Process: I reviewed the Wikipedia list of winners and culled out 19 potential performances, 7 of which were certified stinkards, in my opinion. To round out the list to 10 I picked three more more debatable out of the remaining 9. The list is in chronological order.
1937 certified stinkard Best Actress: Luise Rainer in The Good Earth: miscast actor; very unmemorable--I don't remember much about the performance; in a movie I don't like; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Irene Dunne, The Awful Truth; Janet Gaynor, A Star is Born; Greta Garbo, Camille; Barbara Stanwyck, Stella Dallas
1939: debatable Best Actress: Vivian Leigh in Gone With the Wind: in a movie I don't like; bad acting: frequently off key; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Bette Davis in Dark Victory
1950: certified stinkard Best Supporting Actress: Josephine Hull in Harvey: very unmemorable; in a movie I don't like; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Hope Emerson, Caged; Celeste Holm, All About Eve
1954: debatable Best Actor: Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront: in a movie I don't like; bad acting: some off key moments, some scenery chewing; couldn't forget the actor in the performance: Humphrey Bogart, The Caine Munity; James Mason, A Star is Born
1959: certified stinkard Best Actor: Charlton Heston in Ben-Hur: miscast actor; disagreeably memorable performance; bad acting: wooden; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Laurence Harvey in Room at the Top; Jack Lemmon in Some Like it Hot
1966: certified stinkard Best Actress: Elizabeth Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: miscast actor; disagreeably memorable performance; in a movie I don't like; bad acting: scenery chewing; couldn't forget the actor in the performance; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated; Lynne Redgrave, Georgy Girl
1985: certified stinkard Best Actor: William Hurt in Kiss of the Spider Woman: miscast actor; bad acting: frequently off key; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Harrison Ford, Witness; Jack Nicholson Prizzi's Honor
1988: certified stinkard Best Supporting Actor: Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda: disagreeably memorable performance; bad acting: frequently off key or unfocussed {an attempted comic performance that wasn't funny and contrasted unpleasantly with all the other very funny perfomances in the movie]; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Alec Guiness in Little Dorrit
2002: certified stinkard Best Actress: Nicole Kidman in The Hours: miscast actor; in a movie I don't like; bad acting: frequently off key; couldn't forget the actor in the performance; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Salma Hayek, Frida; Julianne Moore, Far From Heaven (Moore also gave a good performance in The Hours--almost enough to make me like the movie somewhat)
2008: debatable Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight: bad acting: frequently off key, scenery chewing; couldn't forget the actor in the performance, in a way that distracted me from the character; distinctly more deserving actor/ performance nominated: Josh Brolin, Milk; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
 
Wait? Where is Sellers not winning in Dr. Strangelove due to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady?

Heath Ledger was great in Batman, I think it became fashionable to object his performance based on how many loved it.

I'll stand and agree that Brando seems terribly over rated.

I'm 1939, Bette Davis already had won the Oscar in '38 for playing a very similar character in Jezebel.

1934 is the robbery with Davis not even being nominated for Of Human Bondage. Colbert was good but Davis was so much better.

Finally 1932/33 Katherine Hepburn wins for Morning Glory, which was a ridiculous film where she acts very well but not for a coherent script, it was almost like we've got this awesome actor, let's get her a Oscar. I don't know what the competition was.
 
I disliked Heath Ledger's performance from the get-go; it seemed to me an audition tape to play Bette Davis' part in a remake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.
Colbert was good without having to chew scenery--which Davis does very well, but Crawford had done a similar role better in another Maugham-derived movie, Rain, a year or two earlier, a movie and a performance even more heavily overlooked than Davis's performance. I have voluntarily watched It Happened one Night and Rain several times, but once through the middle-brow seediness of the 1934 iteration of Of Human Bondage was enough for me.
 
I'm in disagreement with most of the choices in the OP. The Luise Rainer Oscar that makes the least sense is the one she took a year earlier than Good Earth, in The Great Ziegfeld, an elephantine production that she hardly dominates, while having 'lead' status. With Liz T., I think she nailed the Albee dialogue perfectly in Woolf, but her '60 Oscar for Butterfield 8 is ridiculous -- story and script are lurid and putrid, and she can't do anything with the part. (Most cringe-worthy line comes when Liz says to Mildred Dunnock, "Mama, face it. I was the slut of all time!" Try saying that line and making it real.)
My top choice for bad Oscar call is letting Grace Kelly win in '54 for her restrained and decent acting in Country Girl, as opposed to Garland in Star Is Born, who gave you a feast of comedy, song, dance, and straight acting that is amazing today. (Between Country Girl and Star, now 69 years in the past, which film has become legendary for its music and dramatic power?) In all likelihood, the Academy voters were expressing their disdain for Garland's well-known lack of professionalism. She held up more shoots than Marilyn. But that shouldn't get in the way of recognizing a performance for the ages.
 
I also wanted to add, I thought Kline was genius in A Fish Called Wanda. Characters like that are what make me respect actors, like Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, Witherspoon in Legally Blonde, and McConaughey in Larger than Life. Those characters are near impossible to play reasonably. That they are managed and managed well indicates great acting. Tomei in My Cousin Vinny is another, and also controversial. I think the problem is, they play it so well, you forget they are acting.

I think Kevin Kline is under-rated as an actor. He isn't Washington or Bale, but he isn't remotely a Ferrell either. He can do reserved and over-the-top and flat out whacky (in the same film too!).
 
jab said:
I disliked Heath Ledger's performance from the get-go; it seemed to me an audition tape to play Bette Davis' part in a remake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.
Colbert was good without having to chew scenery--which Davis does very well, but Crawford had done a similar role better in another Maugham-derived movie, Rain, a year or two earlier, a movie and a performance even more heavily overlooked than Davis's performance. I have voluntarily watched It Happened one Night and Rain several times, but once through the middle-brow seediness of the 1934 iteration of Of Human Bondage was enough for me.
Click to expand...
My complaint about your complaint is that Heath Ledger isn't playing The Joker, he was The Joker. Every once of him on the screen is the character. Is he overplaying the role? Seeing how the movie is about The Joker taking over Gotham, I think his demeanor matches that plot.

I'll need to try and find Rain, haven't watched it. Honestly, I haven't found Crawford that impressive an actress. Davis is a legend, though she can be a bit overwhelming (see the majority of her films ;)). I like All About Eve because Bette Davis virtually plays herself in it, maybe a little tempered version of herself.

I've seen maybe 3/4 of Lemmon's movies, and while I love Some Like it Hot, I can't imagine him winning an Oscar for that. Much like how the idea of Charlton Heston winning an Oscar for acting being more absurd than John Wayne winning one for acting. Which then takes me to It Happened One Night. I suppose Gable needed to win once, but goodness, he played the same character in 1000 movies. The only movie he actually acted in was Misfits.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
jab said:
I disliked Heath Ledger's performance from the get-go; it seemed to me an audition tape to play Bette Davis' part in a remake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.
Colbert was good without having to chew scenery--which Davis does very well, but Crawford had done a similar role better in another Maugham-derived movie, Rain, a year or two earlier, a movie and a performance even more heavily overlooked than Davis's performance. I have voluntarily watched It Happened one Night and Rain several times, but once through the middle-brow seediness of the 1934 iteration of Of Human Bondage was enough for me.
Click to expand...
My complaint about your complaint is that Heath Ledger isn't playing The Joker, he was The Joker. Every once of him on the screen is the character. Is he overplaying the role? Seeing how the movie is about The Joker taking over Gotham, I think his demeanor matches that plot.

I'll need to try and find Rain, haven't watched it. Honestly, I haven't found Crawford that impressive an actress. Davis is a legend, though she can be a bit overwhelming (see the majority of her films ;)). I like All About Eve because Bette Davis virtually plays herself in it, maybe a little tempered version of herself.

I've seen maybe 3/4 of Lemmon's movies, and while I love Some Like it Hot, I can't imagine him winning an Oscar for that. Much like how the idea of Charlton Heston winning an Oscar for acting being more absurd than John Wayne winning one for acting. Which then takes me to It Happened One Night. I suppose Gable needed to win once, but goodness, he played the same character in 1000 movies. The only movie he actually acted in was Misfits.
Click to expand...
Jack Nicholson was the Joker, so to a lesser degree was Ceasar Romero. They acted over the top and looked like the comic book villain. Truly, when I was watching Heath Ledger I didn't see him as the Joker but as a colourized version of Baby Jane.
 
ideologyhunter said:
I'm in disagreement with most of the choices in the OP. The Luise Rainer Oscar that makes the least sense is the one she took a year earlier than Good Earth, in The Great Ziegfeld, an elephantine production that she hardly dominates, while having 'lead' status. With Liz T., I think she nailed the Albee dialogue perfectly in Woolf, but her '60 Oscar for Butterfield 8 is ridiculous -- story and script are lurid and putrid, and she can't do anything with the part. (Most cringe-worthy line comes when Liz says to Mildred Dunnock, "Mama, face it. I was the slut of all time!" Try saying that line and making it real.)
My top choice for bad Oscar call is letting Grace Kelly win in '54 for her restrained and decent acting in Country Girl, as opposed to Garland in Star Is Born, who gave you a feast of comedy, song, dance, and straight acting that is amazing today. (Between Country Girl and Star, now 69 years in the past, which film has become legendary for its music and dramatic power?) In all likelihood, the Academy voters were expressing their disdain for Garland's well-known lack of professionalism. She held up more shoots than Marilyn. But that shouldn't get in the way of recognizing a performance for the ages.
Click to expand...
I agree that Garland was even better, but in order to qualify for my list the winning performance had to be notably unmemorable or obviously flawed. I didn't think Grace Kelly's was unmemorable or flawed. Same for Rex Harrison vs. Peter Sellers mentioned in another post. Actually, I think Garland's performance in Judgement at Nuremberg was better; but I refuse to see West Side Story, a musical that always struck me as likely to be glaringly inauthentic and square to judge from its trailers, publicity, and all; so I can't say whether Moreno's Oscar was okay. The damaged quality that Garland had in the latter part of her career was more effective in her role in Judgment at Nuremberg than in her "I'm the sane, stable, sober one in this marriage" role in A Star is Born.
I thought Taylor did well, though not great in Butterfield 8, and she may not have made my list at all because the first time I saw the film of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, having studied the play in a lit class and having interacted socially with some faculty wives, I walked out on the, finding it verrryyy long, tedious, and badly acted, especially by the leads. However, 20 or 30 years later I sat through a video till the end, because, after all, the film was highly praised. I found it long, tedious, badly acted, with the overly high-key frumpish deglammed Oscar bait of a performance by Taylor seeming particularly inauthentic in her role. If you want to see a successful deglammed Oscar performance, see Olivia De Havilland in The Heiress.
 
BTW, I'm in agreement with two of your OP picks -- Kidman and Hurt. I like both of them immensely, but Hours and Spider Woman are two films I don't need to see again. Kidman has done what Annette Bening does, and for nearly as long: take on gutsy, challenging, atypical assignments. But The Hours -- meh. What a turgid movie. Kiss of the Spider Woman is so marginal as story and drama that I couldn't find myself drawn to any of the characters. Perhaps Kidman & Hurt did some really subtle, nuanced work in those films that impressed their peers, but, nestled inside those unappealing movies, they couldn't make me care.
 
jab said:
I disliked Heath Ledger's performance from the get-go; it seemed to me an audition tape to play Bette Davis' part in a remake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.
Colbert was good without having to chew scenery--which Davis does very well, but Crawford had done a similar role better in another Maugham-derived movie, Rain, a year or two earlier, a movie and a performance even more heavily overlooked than Davis's performance. I have voluntarily watched It Happened one Night and Rain several times, but once through the middle-brow seediness of the 1934 iteration of Of Human Bondage was enough for me.
Click to expand...
There are probably a few movies I've only seen once, that I thought were very good or great, but I didn't need to see them again. The Day of Wine and Roses comes to mind, Save the Tiger, Hotel Rwanda, Anthropoid, Mutiny on the Bounty (Gable, Laughton version).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom