Eddie Murphy Oscar smackdown: Read the private emails!
After piping in on the Eddie Murphy hubbub below by recalling his outburst at the 1987 Oscarcast, I got into a looped email exchange with three of the principals I quote in the piece: Jeffrey Wells (Hollywood-Elsewhere.com), Sasha Stone (Oscarwatch.com) and David Carr (New York Times Carpetbagger).
The four of us got into a group dishfest that, of course, triggered further uproar and clash as each of them hit "reply all" on the last group email and got into a fierce debate while I, being the coward that I am, ducked down in my trench, kept quiet and marveled at the loveliness of the volley of mortar shells soaring overhead.
When the battle smoke cleared, I looked back over the exchange and thought, "Wow, this is interesting!" and so I asked permission of all combatants if I could quote their emails in chronological succession.
They said, "OK," so let's go. Sorry that we didn't get Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell to join in the fun. (Next time, kids, we MUST remember to send out invites earlier!) I will begin with the rabble-rouser holding a torch:
JEFF: It's pointless to say this given Sasha Stone's allegations of mental/emotional instability on my part, but I'm just saying what any veteran of this town would acknowledge and then chuckle about at a party, buzzed or sober — Murphy is a pissed-off, very gifted comedian who has never laid it on the line in terms of heavyweight acting, and there's no absolutely way he's laying it on the line in "Dreamgirls" — like (Toronto Star writer Peter) Howell said, he's doing his 'SNL' James Brown shtick. Plus the part isn't written with any third-act payoffs. It's one of the most bizarre and groundless acting nominations in Oscar history. Thanks again — your thing works for today, there's the New York Post story (allegedly) coming out tomorrow . . . but then what? Burnout, most likely.
SASHA (to Tom in response to blog item): I guess you'd have a point except that I agreed with what Murphy said at the Oscars; he was WAY ahead of his time. And it still took Halle Berry's win for a black actress to EVER win in lead. I applaud him for that — took balls, something few in the industry has. I think Wells has his head of up his ass on this one. Sorry.
SASHA (to Jeff): Right, now suddenly it's about the performance? At Howell made it about the performance; you made it about his personality and character. Don't try to wriggle out of it now. That you have taken this on as a "cause" is, well, sad. Why not put all of this energy into something more useful, like helping Obama get the nomination?
DAVID: If churlishness and professional self-absorption was a disqualifier, they would never give out one of these suckers. Eddie is angry man to be sure, but he puts his ID out there for all to see. Just because some other actor smiles and wears beige does not mean they are better human beings, just better AT FAKING IT. and while Jeffrey is objectively a keener judge of the value of a performance, I see nothing criminally ignored. I watched Wahlberg's performance last night, and it's great, but nothing in this category is so spectacular that it can't be touched by Murphy's ability to inhabit the uniform of James Brown to such good effect. He did a good job, styled to the max to be sure, but played the supporting role to the hilt. (An edit for clarity . . . didn't want to suggest they were better actors than Murphy, just better at imitating a human being when they need to.)
JEFF: It's not just the calibre of the performance — substantial character construction and some kind of semi-meaningful arc (or journey) have to be there also. And the writing in the "Dreamgirls" script that would accomplish this just isn't there. James Thunder Early is an amalgam of famous black performers -- barely a character, and certainly not a character with any intriguing turns, deepenings and/or crescendo moments — this is who I am, what I want, what I need, please love me, I don't care if you love me . . . anything along those lines. The Oscar nom is much more of a referendum on Murphy himself — some half-assed notion of a career comeback, his likability in the early to mid '80s, his current a**hole-ishness (see the Razor item), the p.c. positiveness that comes with giving an Oscar to any person of color, etc. And in that light, the thought of him winning the Oscar almost gives me indigestion. I'm serious . . . I can feel the turbulence building in my stomach as I write this. And the Oscar goes to . . . . Norbit!
JEFF: Certainly not a character with any intriguing turns, deepenings and/or crescendo moments — this is who I am, what I want, what I need, please love me, I don't care if you love me . . . anything along those lines.
SASHA: Not true — the character arc or journey may apply to lead perfs, but certainly not supporting — supporting means, they support the lead and/or the story — they themselves aren't the story, or the main story. This is sometimes muddied with the fact that characters get nominated in supporting when they should be leads, and vice-versa — Ethan Hawke, Meryl Streep, etc. Murphy gives a really good supporting performance.
JEFF (to Sasha): Bulls**t — a really good supporting role and performance has the whole universe in it. The gold-standard model for a sublimely written, full-out, touch-your-heart supporting performance is Beatrice Straight's in Network....she was on-screen for maybe 10 minutes, and you knew everything about her, who she was deep down . . . awesome, amazing. Murphy's work isn't in the same municipality, much less the same ballpark.
DAVID: As opposed to the other guys in the category? It's called supporting for a reason.
JEFF: A really good supporting role and performance has the whole universe in it. The gold-standard model for a sublimely written, full-out, touch-your-heart supporting performance is Beatrice Straight's in "Network" . . . she was on-screen for maybe 10 minutes, and you knew everything about her, who she was deep down . . . awesome, amazing. Murphy's work isn't in the same municipality, much less the same ballpark.
SASHA: You mean like Marisa Tomei, Jack Palance, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Joel Grey, Jessica Lange in "Tootsie"? Shall I go on? I could go on, all day. 'Cause there are decades we haven't even touched upon. But I can go there. I agree sometimes great work gets honored — Marcia Gay Harden, Jim Broadbent, but it is the exception, not the rule.
DAVID: Sure, happens all the time, which is why you had to reach across genders and back 30 years to find an anomolous role that makes your point.
You've over analyzed the whole thing when it's so plain and simple...No ONE in that category was better than Eddie Murphy especially the guy they gave it to. What's his name again?
Posted by: john | February 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
The Oscar race is for best actor in a supporting role: Murphy was fantastic in the role of an aging R&B star who couldn't fit into mainstream top 40 music. He should definately win. If the Oscar race was for easiest to work with (Congeniality Award) or best film choices (Best Judgement Award), or any of the other arguements, then maybe not. But he's not up for those categories.
Posted by: L. Rodgers | February 15, 2007 at 08:37 AM
Mr. Eddie Murphy might not b a Bogie, Grant, Van Johnson or Heflin, but he IS an extremely talented actor. The man has enuf comedy/movie/voice over credits 2 his name; he chooses roles that fit him, and always seems to make them his own. Seniority/Experience, to some folks, does stand 4 something.
Posted by: Bld4Alc | February 15, 2007 at 08:37 AM
It struck me that Jeff calling Eddie Murphy an asshole is kinda like the pot calling the kettle "black."
Posted by: Jason Halm | February 05, 2007 at 08:47 AM
The REAL race, if anybody cares, is going to be for Best Actor. Watch Peter draw even in the stretch!
Posted by: Logan69 | February 05, 2007 at 07:05 AM
No character arc is Jeff wells a nut?
James "thunder"Early goes form semi successful artist, gives the Dreams a big break, ctaches some more success by "selling out" and sounding "more white" but slowly realizes the Dreams are the hotness. He watches as The Dreams become bigger than he ever did. he falls deeper into drug addiciton, he tires to make a change by focusing on music with a social concious only to be shot down by Curtis. So he goes deeper into his drug addictio only to lose it in the end and eventually he dies. How is that not a character arc or not good enough for a supporting role?
Posted by: GO | February 05, 2007 at 06:07 AM
I really like how you guys take this stuff so seriously.
But to your credit, you are making a living at this, future contracts are decided by awards like this, and what the hell, The Simpsons has lost its allure.
Now, if you don't mind, my cat has barfed and I have to clean it up.
Now, I'm sure that Eddie Murphy has people to do this stuff, but I don't. However, if Murphy really wants to expand the roles that black actors have proffered to them, he might have to give up his cat barf cleaner upper and take some smaller roles in movies that won't be able to pay his mulit-million dollar demands. That's right. Eddie goes Indie. Eddie stretches himself to take more types of roles, Eddie dumps high maintenance girlfriends. Eddie drives a Toyota. Eddie cleans up his own cat barf.
Posted by: zaragosa | February 04, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Calm down, children. I've said before that I thought Michael Sheen deserved the Oscar more than Murphy, and I'm a "Dreamgirls" fan; though Hudson clearly owned the film, I was more impressed by Beyoncé than Murphy. But there's more of a chance Helen Mirren will lose her Oscar by self-destructing at the BAFTAs (a la Russell Crowe) over their TV wing snubbing her for "Elizabeth I" than there is of Murphy losing.
Posted by: RBBrittain | February 04, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Oh, and incidentally, I disagree with Jeffrey's reason why Eddie Murphy shouldn't be allowed to win. Murphy and Hudson made Dreamgirls what it is... take them out of the movie, even for five minutes, and it quickly dies. Who cares if they're mean and green respectively when it comes to dealing with the press/people? What they did on screen (not the James Brown impression but going from that to this sad worn-out singer having to cowtow to Foxx's manager) are more than worthy of the accolades. The only thing I have issue with is that they should have made the movie more about their chracters and less about Beyonce/Foxx.
Posted by: EDouglas | February 04, 2007 at 01:14 AM
LIke I said elsewhere, this is becoming one of those self-perpetuating non-news stories that keeps getting better as people start getting angrier. I'm just worried that it's going to become so heated that all three of them start kissing and making out and that's where I run away screaming to scrub my eyes out with a brillo pad.
Posted by: EDouglas | February 04, 2007 at 01:12 AM
Jeff can kiss Eddie black ass.
Posted by: Tyler | February 04, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I agree with Seth. You guys are trying to drum something up re this Eddie Murphy thing--perhaps because all the acting awards are slam dunks. It's not that interesting--there are always some nominees that are iffy. The fact is the only real drama in these Academy Awards is best picture--and how many people will stay up for 4 hours to find out?
Posted by: Gilda | February 03, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Malevolent Muse -- hm....sounds familiar.
Posted by: bipedalist | February 03, 2007 at 11:47 PM
I think the logic in this discussion has fallen by the wayside. Maybe a return to earth would help. Let's revisit the "real" question: Was this a high-quality, award-caliber performance -- one that deserves the Oscar? Yes. Eddie Murphy dug deeply into character and was dazzling and revelatory in "Dreamgirls."
Posted by: DS0816 | February 03, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Of course James Thunder Early has an arc! It's just that major sections of the arc aren't seen on film. Just because his character isn't on screen doesn't mean the character isn't living a life.
If there was no arc, we'd have the James Brown schtick throughout the film. But Murphy's character grows and mellows out. The song "Patience" would have been his next transition, but Curtis blows off his becoming a different kind of artist. So his character reverts to what he knows: drugs, which eventually ends his life.
His arc - his journey - his character - was very much supporting to the film. His life was an indicator of just how destructive and driven Curtis (Foxx) is.
While I don't think Murphy's role is the best supporting role ever written, I'd certainly say it was one of the best of the year. And as for Murphy, it was his choice to keep doing films such as NORBIT. What does that have to do with DREAMGIRLS? Robin Williams did RV. George Clooney did BATMAN & ROBIN. Morgan Freeman did BRUCE ALMIGHTY. Michael Caine did AUSTIN POWERS: GOLDMEMBER. Judi Dench did DOOGAL. Cuba Gooding Jr. is in NORBIT. Kevin Spacey is now filming FRED CLAUS. Whoopi Goldberg did MONKEYBONE. You know, I can add to the list all day. Everyone mentioned above is an Oscar winner for a supporting role. Some have done several "silly" films, others very few. They all choose to do them.
If Murphy decides to do those NORBIT-esque films, who the fuck cares? It has nothing to do with DREAMGIRLS in which he delivered a phenominnal performance.
If Jeff Wells' issue is that Murphy plays all his characters the same way, I'd place SEVERAL other actors who have more distinguished reps above him on the list. Alec Baldwin, anyone?
Posted by: Andrew | February 03, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Okay, let me get this straight: a bunch of nobodies whose opinions no one gives a damn about got into an e-mail tiff and you're trying to make it out to be some kind of wonderfully heated debate. I hate to break it to you, but no one cares.
Posted by: malevolentmuse | February 03, 2007 at 08:55 PM
You all really need to let this Eddie thing go and concentrate on predicting Best Picture. That's where the race is.
Posted by: Seth | February 03, 2007 at 08:06 PM