Return to the Circle Theater Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Poor Marty
| | |
Posted by moongirl0719 (My Page) on Mon, Feb 28, 05 at 13:36
| Anyone have any particular feelings about this? I was kind of surprised, I figured they'd give director to Clint and Aviator would be Best Pic, just to be diplomatic. But a friend of mine insists that the Academy "just doesn't like Scorcese." Does anyone agree with that?
You gotta feel sorry for him. At least he's in good company...Altman and Hitch. |
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| Why doesn't the Academy like him? |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| He is obviously successful and very rich, so no I don't feel sorry for him! Pat |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| I heard on one of the morning shows today that he was quoted as saying at one of the post Oscar parties, "It's okay, I finally got the message." I'm sure I was not the only viewer who was very disappointed for him. What he makes is art from the heart, he may not win popularity contests but he has to know that when it comes from within and manifests itself onscreen so consistently and exquisitely over the years that the end result is a prize in and of itself. I don't know why they don't like him but in my opinion, the academy voters only made themselves look small if that's the reason that he didn't win. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| The way it was expressed to me, and bear in mind this is someone's "take" on it, is that the actors are the ones who are liberal, but the Academy is comprised of all the old-school, stodgy, conservative producers, agents, etc. (These would be people who voted Arnold into office but that's another story.) These are the ones who do the voting. They like the old-school films made by old-school types like Eastwood. They don't like the liberals like Scorcese or Warren Beatty (hmmm... are they punishing Annette?) Anyway, this could be one take on it. Of course one could argue if they are basing votes on such things, how can you justify Tim Robbins winning for Best Supporting? Who the heck knows. It is a popularity contest and it is all politics, in many respects. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| If that were the case, why would Michael Moore ever win anything? I would think Marty considers himself an artist, and real artists create for art's sake, not for money and fame. That's a very nice side benefit of doing something you love and doing it well. Recognition of the mastery of your craft is important so we should feel sorry for him in that regard. I really don't know much about him personally (to know who would be offended), but professionally his resume is more impressive than most. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| Haven't seen these movies yet, but it does seem like Scorsese is due for the best director award. I've read that since the largest block of voters in the Academy is actors, they tend to vote for other actors who have turned to directing; hence Clint. Maybe Marty will get a lifetime achievement award one of these years. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| The take I heard was that, for many years, Scorsese snubbed Hollywood by working mostly out of NY. Now he needs to be punished. I was hoping that they would split Best Director and Best Picture. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| Or maybe, just maybe, the voting members actually thought "Million Dollar Baby" was better directed than "The Aviator". Just because someone is a good director and hasn't yet won an award is no reason to vote for them if you think someone else should win. I mean I think Kate Winslet deserves an Oscar over Hilary Swank, and Leonardo over Jamie Foxx, but I wouldn't vote for them just because of their past performances and history. No matter who wins, it seems people have to blame it on politics or a lack of popularity, but there seems too many exceptions to really buy that all the time. Just look at Roman Polanski! It's just like with any other election, people seem to want to speculate "why" someone won or didn't win. Maybe it wasn't personal or political, maybe the Academy just didn't think Marty was the best director this year, period. It's not that hard to imagine that people may have really preferred "Million Dollar Baby". |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| I agree with carla. It's not as though he lost to a lesser director of a lesser film (I mentioned that in the other oscars thead). Jamie Foxx became Ray Charles and it was often difficult to distinguish between the two when watching that movie. However, my mom says "The Aviator" was horribly miss cast because Leonardo DiCaprio cannot begin to have the style or charisma of Howard Hughes. I mention this because I couldn't make a good comparison since I've never seen Howard Hughes except in photographs. It takes someone like my mother to know. Perhaps the academy feels the same way. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| Well let's all agree that when we say politics we don't mean American politics, we mean Academy politics. They always seem to like sweeping epic films like Ghandi and Out of Africa and all that. That's why I thought for sure that Aviator would win, bc it is kind of sweeping, rather than an intense character drama like MDB. Well any way you slice it they seem to snub Scorcese. Why? We don't know and we may never know. I also think that Scorcese's heyday may be over. Maybe one day they will give him a lifetime achievement Oscar. |
RE: Poor Marty
| | |
| Scorcese made one of the best and most unappreciated films of the current decade in "Gangs of New York". In my mind it was the best film of 2002. |
|
|
|
|
