"Crash" won Best Picture. And I lost my office pool.
Posted by Paige Wiser on March 5, 2006 10:26 PM|Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/371
Comments
Why can Rachel Weisz win for best "supporting" actress when she was basically the only actress in the entire movie? Doesn't her status as the lead actress in that movie give her an edge over the legitimate "supporting" actresses, if for no other reason than the amount of time she was on the screen?
And how close was Uma Thurman to having a wardrobe malfunction?
And why doesn't the Full Court Press blog get any advertisements. It seems pretty popular.
Bloscar replies:
Roman, you can co-blog with me anytime. As for advertisements... Whose body would you like the ad department to put with your head?
She was nominated for "supporting" actress because more of the members of the acting branch of the academy nominated her for that award than for "lead" actress. It wasn't some dirty trick by her or her agent.
I know it wasn't a dirty trick by her or her agent. It was a dirty trick by the Academy. It makes the process appear arbitrary. One year, the best "supporting" actress could have been on the screen for two minutes, and the next year she was on the screen as much as any character in the movie. It seems like it's a trick to get a certain actor an award.
And how awkward was Lauren Bacall's moment? I had to change channels, and then unfortunately, I found "Young Frankenstein" was on another channel. One of my favorites. I kept switching. But overall, I thought it was one of the funniest Oscars ever.
Comments
Why can Rachel Weisz win for best "supporting" actress when she was basically the only actress in the entire movie? Doesn't her status as the lead actress in that movie give her an edge over the legitimate "supporting" actresses, if for no other reason than the amount of time she was on the screen?
And how close was Uma Thurman to having a wardrobe malfunction?
And why doesn't the Full Court Press blog get any advertisements. It seems pretty popular.
Bloscar replies:
Roman, you can co-blog with me anytime. As for advertisements... Whose body would you like the ad department to put with your head?
Posted by: roman | March 5, 2006 10:34 PM
She was nominated for "supporting" actress because more of the members of the acting branch of the academy nominated her for that award than for "lead" actress. It wasn't some dirty trick by her or her agent.
http://www.oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule06.html
As to the Uma question: not close enough.
Can I nominate Diana Ossana for "Award winner who most resembles an Oscar statue"? Was that stage fright or was she drugged?
Posted by: Nils | March 5, 2006 11:06 PM
I know it wasn't a dirty trick by her or her agent. It was a dirty trick by the Academy. It makes the process appear arbitrary. One year, the best "supporting" actress could have been on the screen for two minutes, and the next year she was on the screen as much as any character in the movie. It seems like it's a trick to get a certain actor an award.
And how awkward was Lauren Bacall's moment? I had to change channels, and then unfortunately, I found "Young Frankenstein" was on another channel. One of my favorites. I kept switching. But overall, I thought it was one of the funniest Oscars ever.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 6, 2006 8:30 AM