Oscar/Golden Globe Award Winnings

Obssessed_with_Orson · Fri Dec 20, 2002 12:32 pm

i heard on the radio that "it's a wonderful life" had gotten 4 nominations of a one of the mentioned awards. but did not win. everyone say how wonderful or great the movie is, and it should have gotten at least one.

then the man said it didn't win because the villain in the movie, (sorry don't know his name), wasn't punished for his villainy. and added that's why some movies don't win. because the villain is not punished.

and it made me sick when hearing that "rko281"-(the making of citizen kane), i think, had won 4 of an award. and citizen kane had 9 nominations and only received 1.

how is it that movies, that are deserving of awards, not win them?

bye now!

Jeff Wilson · Post by **Jeff Wilson** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 12:52 pm

Because awards shows are usually dictated by studio politics and money, and rarely on the basis on whether a given film is actually any good or not. I don't understand why people moan about the Oscars or any other awards ceremony, when it's pointless and essentially a marketing scheme. Is Citizen Kane not a good film because it didn't win Best Picture at the Oscars? Of course not. I haven't watched the Oscars or any other awards show for years, and see no reason to.

jaime marzol · Post by **jaime marzol** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:12 pm

............

agreed, award cereemonies are a farce, they are a marketing ploy, and an opportunity for the stars to get dressed up and come out of their hidding places.

the cannes used to be great because it was so uncommercialized. it was mass confusion, no one had any idea of what was going to happen, all the contestants were smoking cigarettes. no time limits were set for any one. no one knew where to go, or where to exit the stage. later they all got on stage for a group picture. it was just incredible to watch. then as of late seems like the directors of the cannes have been watching the oscars and adopting the practices that make our sceremony seem like an antiseptic gala, and a lot of the fun, ridiculousness, and confusion is over. conglomeration takes over, and the fun is sucked out of it.

................

Obssessed_with_Orson · Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:17 pm

politics and money?

another political scandal, eh. lies and more liars. maybe the people that won weren't the actual winners. maybe that's why so many that were deserving lost. the person doing the reading of "and the winner is" saw one name, and said another.

guess they do it now because the actors and actresses are bored stiff, after a hard years labor, and don't have anything else better to do.

i can picture them smiling at each other, thinking they are the winners, and then when the nite is over, the smile is still there but with attitude adjustment.

bye now!

Obssessed_with_Orson · Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:29 pm

what about the other awards? like the "life achievement" and others? is it the same way for them too?

bye now!

jaime marzol · Post by **jaime marzol** » Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:20 pm

..............

i don't know, but a good guess is that any award ceremony not dealing with films that are out at the moment is probably more honest. if the AFI decides to honor glen ford, it's not because the producers of his latest film spent thousands because they could gain millions by having the public run out to the theaters and pay to watch glen's lates pic.

it's not that the oscars are disshonest, it's that winning it is not a complete surprise. the fact that you made a great film is not enough. you don't just wake up one day and discover your film has been nominated. the producers campaign for the nomination, buy adds in variety magazines, etc. so that is the grumble about the oscars.

some films that finished their runs at the theaters, when they win at the oscars, or just get a lot of lip service and nominations but don't win, actually come back to the theaters a second time around. it's all a money thing. how much can you spend to try to make more. it has very little to do with wether you made a great film or not.

award ceremonies to me are a big snore.

the few AFI award ceremonies i've seen were totally bizare.

welles' was ridiculous, sinatra with fat jokes, unrelated guests, etc.

huston's, every guest commented on his womanising. it was an ode to his penis more so than to his films.

ford's was totally bizare, it was more about nixon, and danny kaye, than it was about ford. danny kaye did a stand up comedy, and honored nixon, and every one ignored ford!

and merry christmas to all
.........................

dmolson · Post by **dmolson** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 4:58 am

It seems all awards are going that way, Jamie. Last year the big prize for AFI (i think... hard to keep all the bloody hardware from blending in) was Tom Hanks for Lifetime achievement... Not to bad mouth Hanks, who's doing a fine job, but that's a lifetime? In the meantime, people like Anthony Quinn (rip) and Charlton Heston fade away. A big item of contention at the glennfordonline.com site is that their man keeps getting bypassed, and while his career ended nearly a dozen years ago he still was in some pretty big films, a leading man for 30 years. It seems larger-than-life survivors Gregory Peck or Richard Widmark (to name a few still standing) will be able to watch Haley Joel Osmet get his Lifetime award before an oldtimer gets to take that big walk...

Harvey Chartrand · Post by **Harvey Chartrand** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:11 am

It's just another manifestation of ageism. Today, Orson would probably not be considered for a Life Achievement Award from the American Film Institute. Recipients have been skewing younger in recent years. I think it is outrageous that 59-year-old Robert De Niro is being honoured with the AFI's Life Achievement Award in 2003, when veterans like Glenn Ford, Richard Widmark, Deborah Kerr, Jennifer Jones, Marlon Brando, Charlton Heston, Karl Malden and Elia Kazan (heck, even Roger Corman and Christopher Lee) have yet to be so honoured.
Whatever the politics involved, the AFI devalued the Life Achievement Award by giving it to Mr. Nice Guy Tom Hanks (a ripe old 45) earlier this year.

jaime marzol · Post by **jaime marzol** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 2:44 pm

....................

i remember hearing about tom hanks getting the AFI and thinking, "what a crock of shit."

agreed, people like ford, widmark, BRANDO, even the perpetually constipated peck are much more deserving than hanks, and deniro.

Obssessed_with_Orson · Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:27 pm

welles' was ridiculous, sinatra with fat jokes, unrelated guests, etc.

i agree. that was terrible. i read somewhere that he didn't even like the third man theme song.

i still think they did it as a joke myself. i think they were wanting to give it more to harry lime, the third man character, rather than the person who had beautifully portrayed him.

bye now!

Harvey Chartrand · Post by **Harvey Chartrand** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:06 pm

Two more deserving AFI Life Achievement Award recipients would be Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Havilland. Both sisters were blessed with talent, beauty and longevity.
The AFI honoured Gregory Peck in 1989.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 1:25 am

In my opinion, AFI should start honoring more writers and directors than lifetime actors.