Controversial opinion: PC culture and undeserving oscar winners

Tools    





aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
The other night when I saw daniel kaluuya with an oscar, something felt off. Remember the days when sean connery was happy to get a supporting actor oscar after such a long illustrious career ? or even brad pitt last year. You look at daniel kaluuya and he is in barely 2 films worth mentioning....get out and black panther. One is a genre movie and the other is a super hero marvel movie and he has an oscar now ?
What a joke. I can understand the case for female actors given their expiry date in hollywood for juicy roles in 40. But for male actors to get an oscar after such a short career is crazy.

As i said, for minorities to have careers worthy of oscars...we don't need a black brad pitt or tom cruise......all actors are talented..we need black scorsese/spielberg/tarantino. Hope this didn't come off as insensitive.



I can only assume you're trolling.



Welcome to the human race...
What Yoda said. Just look at how many films Robert De Niro had been in before he won his first Oscar for The Godfather Part II.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
The other night when I saw daniel kaluuya with an oscar, something felt off. Remember the days when sean connery was happy to get a supporting actor oscar after such a long illustrious career ? or even brad pitt last year. You look at daniel kaluuya and he is in barely 2 films worth mentioning....get out and black panther. One is a genre movie and the other is a super hero marvel movie and he has an oscar now ?
What a joke. I can understand the case for female actors given their expiry date in hollywood for juicy roles in 40. But for male actors to get an oscar after such a short career is crazy.

As i said, for minorities to have careers worthy of oscars...we don't need a black brad pitt or tom cruise......all actors are talented..we need black scorsese/spielberg/tarantino. Hope this didn't come off as insensitive.

But how was the performance? I know Sean Connery (good actor), I don't know anyone who was nominated, but even if it was his first movie, the best should win, and not these lifetime achievement awards.


I don't think the Oscars mean much in society anymore. I don't remember the last time I saw it and I certainly don't remember anyone mentioning them.. I'll also say I don't think people are very moved by the latest pictures. Long gone are "Dude, you gotta see this movie".. Now I remember. "American Beauty" was the last time I remember. A friend asked if I wanted to see it in theaters, he said it looked good and e-mailed me the trailer. I saw it, but stupidly turned down the invitation (maybe because he had made a recent awful suggestion, 13th Warrior) but I did watch it as a result of the Best Picture/Actor award and think its one of the best American movies made in the last 25 years, which isn't saying much... "Buffalo '66" and "There Will Be Blood" are the only other movies I think have been better.



Professional horse shoe straightener
^ Dude didn't even mention Sicario, Widows and Queen & Slim.

Kaluuya is a heck of an actor. All in his eyes. Watch them when he next performs.



Oooh boy, too much to unpack here, but what does it matter if he's been in "2 films worth mentioning" or if he's been in 100 films through a "long illustrious career"? A great performance is a great performance, and if he brought it, then give him (or whoever) the award.

FWIW, the first film I saw Kaluuya in was Sicario, in which he has a very supporting role, and even in that, I thought he was great. He's the kind of actor that oozes a certain magnetism and energy, regardless of the role. He's been great in anything else I've seen him in (Get Out, Widows, Black Panther), regardless of the film or how big/small the role is.
__________________
Check out my podcast: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot!



This kind of short-sighted, thinly-veiled attitude barely deserves a response, but for the record Daniel Kaluuya, who is thirty-two-years-old, is the seventh youngest recipient of the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. The youngest was Timothy Hutton who was twenty when he won for Ordinary People, which was his feature film debut. It jumps a bit for the second youngest: George Chakiris was twenty-seven when he got his first significant role in West Side Story - he'd done mostly non-speaking parts as dancers and in the chorus of Musicals to that point. Cuba Gooding Jr. and Heath Ledger were both twenty-nine when they won for Jerry Maguire and The Dark Knight, respectively. Jack Lemmon was thirty-one and in his third movie when he won for Mister Roberts and Robert De Niro was also thirty-one when he won for The Godfather Part II. De Niro to that point in his career had appeared in some smaller, cheaper movies like Bloody Mama, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, and DePalma's Greetings and Hi, Mom! but had his first two truly significant roles just one year before in Bang the Drum Slowly and Mean Streets.


But yes, clearly this "inexperienced" 32-year-old kid Kaluuya got the award just because the liberal commie voters are such woke SJW and not because he was frickin' amazing in the movie.




And while Hutton is the youngest winner at 20, he is only the ninth-youngest nominee in this category. Justin Henry was eight when he was nominated for Kramer vs. Kramer, Haley Joel Osment and Brandon deWilde were eleven-year-olds when they got their nods for The Sixth Sense and Shane. The others are Jack Wild for Oliver! (16), Sal Mineo for Rebel Without a Cause (17), River Phoenix for Running on Empty (18), Leonardo DiCaprio for What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (19), and Lucas Hedges who was 20 when he was nominated for Manchester by the Sea.


Schmuck.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



minds his own damn business
i can only assume you are offended
Confirmed Wooley's hunch.
__________________



Orson Welles' performance in Transformers: The Movie was more Oscar-worthy than Citizen Kane because by then he'd had "such a long illustrious career".
I forget, was that before or after his greatest achievement, the Paul Masson wine commercials?



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
I think the Oscars are clearly trying to get minorities more involved. That's a good thing but it's fair to wonder if it's led to any undeserving winners or if it will in the future. I haven't seen the movie that Kaluula won for but he's been great every time I've seen him.



This kind of short-sighted, thinly-veiled attitude barely deserves a response, but for the record Daniel Kaluuya, who is thirty-two-years-old, is the seventh youngest recipient of the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. The youngest was Timothy Hutton who was twenty when he won for Ordinary People, which was his feature film debut. It jumps a bit for the second youngest: George Chakiris was twenty-seven when he got his first significant role in West Side Story - he'd done mostly non-speaking parts as dancers and in the chorus of Musicals to that point. Cuba Gooding Jr. and Heath Ledger were both twenty-nine when they won for Jerry Maguire and The Dark Knight, respectively. Jack Lemmon was thirty-one and in his third movie when he won for Mister Roberts and Robert De Niro was also thirty-one when he won for The Godfather Part II. De Niro to that point in his career had appeared in some smaller, cheaper movies like Bloody Mama, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, and DePalma's Greetings and Hi, Mom! but had his first two truly significant roles just one year before in Bang the Drum Slowly and Mean Streets.


But yes, clearly this "inexperienced" 32-year-old kid Kaluuya got the award just because the liberal commie voters are such woke SJW and not because he was frickin' amazing in the movie.




And while Hutton is the youngest winner at 20, he is only the ninth-youngest nominee in this category. Justin Henry was eight when he was nominated for Kramer vs. Kramer, Haley Joel Osment and Brandon deWilde were eleven-year-olds when they got their nods for The Sixth Sense and Shane. The others are Jack Wild for Oliver! (16), Sal Mineo for Rebel Without a Cause (17), River Phoenix for Running on Empty (18), Leonardo DiCaprio for What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (19), and Lucas Hedges who was 20 when he was nominated for Manchester by the Sea.


Schmuck.
I'm glad to see there are theories out there behind Kaluuya's win because as good as he was, I still think Sasha Baron Cohen was better in The Trial of the Chicago 7



What Yoda said. Just look at how many films Robert De Niro had been in before he won his first Oscar for The Godfather Part II.

Looked it up just for the record, De Niro was in ten features before winning his first Oscar.



Not really. 10 films isn't that many, particularly for a performance regarded as legendary.

Also, that's just features, not features I, an individual person, happen to have heard of, which was the actual criteria (if you can call it that) being used. Kaluuya hasn't been in just two features, he's just been in two the OP had taken note of.



....As i said, for minorities to have careers worthy of oscars...we don't need a black brad pitt or tom cruise......all actors are talented..we need black scorsese/spielberg/tarantino. Hope this didn't come off as insensitive.
That sounds insensitive to me.

So what's your goal here aronisred? To be controversial? To get a lot of attention? Boredom?



There's a lot of reasons why the Oscars have always seemed to me to lurch between one "cause of the moment" or an actor that just arrived and hit a homer. It varies from year to year, but there always seems to be something going on like that, a theme to the awards.

When it comes to something as subjective as best actor, I don't think there's ever been a set of benchmarks or an objective rating scale, so it's always going to be whatever is bothering "The Academy" this year.

So, you have a nominating committee, that meets behind closed doors and comes up with a list of nominees. Then you have a set of voters, who get lobbied by people in "Hollywood", who want to make money and think that a nomination or a win will help with that. They also want to appear like they are the front end of whatever social change is in the news.

What about this could possibly not be objective?

The second question is, how could a circus like the Oscars possibly NOT end up being the glamor, ego and personal virtue moment of the year? Almost everybody gets up there and does their 30 second sermon, until the music starts to play.

Unfortunately, the other question would be how to NOT have this happen. What IS "true" movie virtue? What is an objective ranking? I have not the slightest idea, nor do I have any idea what constitutes the best movie of the year, devoid of all current issues. Truthfully, I just watch part of it so I can try to find the most ludicrous outfit or until I get tired of winners speechifying, then check back later for the final big awards and then groan about THEM.