OSCARS OUTRAGES POLL - VOTE: Worst of best actress?
"Worst robbery since Brink's!" cried Groucho Marx when Judy Garland ("A Star Is Born") lost best actress of 1954 to Grace Kelly ("The Country Girl"). But Groucho was wrong. It was worse than Brink's.
Also criminal was the outcome of that same category four years earlier. No offense to Judy Holliday, who did a fine job as a gum-snapping tart in "Born Yesterday," but, come on, she beat two grande dames at the top of their talents: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") and Bette Davis ("All About Eve").
Now consider these other Oscar outrages in the same race. What's the worst?
Faye Dunaway wasn't nominated as the magnificently monstrous Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest," but Crawford won for portraying a poor angelic mommie squashed by her spoiled daughter in "Mildred Pierce."
After losing best actress for the greatest performance of her impressive career ("Moulin Rouge!"), Nicole Kidman won for having one big scene while wearing a big plastic nose in a movie called the worst of the year by Time Magazine ("The Hours").
Even if you're a fan of Sally Field and/or Hilary Swank, you must admit that it's outrageous that they both not only won two Oscars, but they never lost while poor Deborah Kerr and Thelma Ritter got snubbed six times and Rosalind Russell five. Wrap all of that up into one consideration and the collective outrage probably counts as a felony, too.
What an article. The best. Expresses everything wrong with the world (in regards to Oscars, and actress acting in a lead role).
But, if we were ever to learn anything about Oscars, is that it's all about TALENT, HYPE and CAREER; well that's what I hope (minus the hype part, of course).
Indeed, everyone has their favourites on which actress/actor/picture/director should have won instead of X, Y and Z. But this article sums up the worst Oscar crimes/felonies in history very remarkably.
1950- Gloria Swanson should have won - the great dame of silent cinema tragically replaying herself in a sound-motion picture. Bette Davis had already won twice in the 30s.
Faye Dunaway should have at least been nominated.
Nicole Kidman did a fine job in "The Hours" and was sort of due for one with her loss in 2001. But 2002 should have gone to Julianne Moore who was restrained and moving in "Far From Heaven".
2001 - Halle Berry was deserving to be the first black actress and she channelled her own personal sufferings into the role and it was seen. But still I have a soft spot for Sissy Spacek who delivers a great, late career performance in "In the Bedroom"; I understand the Oscar's need to populate the gene pool with the new and so I accept Spacek's loss and Berry's win.
Sally Field and Hilary Swank are just plain damn LUCKY. In most cases they were deserving of their 2 oscars. Definitly for the first time; Sally Field as the hard-working unionist in the important "Norma Rae" and Swank in the gender-blending humble role of Brandon Teena in the extremely remarkable and very very important "Boys Don't Cry". So the Academy must have a soft spot for Swank. I think Boys Don't Cry should have been even more celebrated, and love Swank for that film. But in 2004, the Oscar should have gone to Kate Winslet for "Eternal Sunshine" she was superb in this drama-comedy. She is so underrate and so overdue for an Oscar! And in 1984; Field's 2nd oscar should have gone to Judy Davis or Vanessa Redgrave (maybe)? Indeed it is a crime with Thelma Ritter and Deborah Kerr, but why are we blaming unrelated victims, they weren't even nominated the same year or decade.
BUT WAIT...
THE OTHER CRIMES TOM O'NEIL FORGOT!
1997 - Judi Dench over Helen Hunt's mediocre, boring and bland performance in "As Good as it Gets"
1998 - Cate Blanchett's remarkable performance in "Elizabeth" over Gwyneth Paltrow.
2000 - Ellen Burstyn losing over Julia Roberts. Burstyn's acting in one scene blows away Julia Robert's bimbo-gone-smart acting in "Erin B" as well as anything else in her whole damn career.
2005 - Felicity Huffman losing over to Reese Witherspoon; we know Witherspoon was America's Sweetheart but c'mon. Just like Robert's crime; the Academy showed it's sad homophobic side too many times that night. (Brokeback Mountain losing Best Picture).
Posted by: MatthewCai | December 28, 2008 at 06:14 AM
was shocked when daniel day lewis did not win best actor for gangs of new york..no offence to mr brody but damn man daniel was simply bloody awesome in that movie. the way he potrayed the butcher, his mannerisms, the way he walked and especially that scene where he's sitting on a rocking chair with the american flag draped over him was just magical man..bloody good flick!
Posted by: manqoba | October 25, 2008 at 05:51 AM
Helena Bonham Carter was robbed for the Best Actress Oscar for "The Wings of the Dove." She won many of the critics prizes, and garned much acclaim, but lost to Helen Hunt for "As Good as it Gets."
Posted by: Mike | July 06, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I chose none. Grace Kelly was not good but the best performance of the year belongs to Dorothy Dandridge. I never liked both Kelly and Garland. If Field and Swank have two oscars each, it's just a question of luck, not injustice. I didn't like Kidman in Moulin Rouge, she was better in The Others from the same year. Halle Berry was much better than her. Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest is overacting. Davis and Swanson were better than Judy Holiday but there is worse cases like Gwyneth Paltrow over a lot of best actresses.
Posted by: VHS | October 25, 2007 at 03:21 AM
Judy Garlands peformance in A Star Is Born will remain forever in the annals of motion picture history as one of the greatest female performances ever put on screen. Ask someone who is familiar with the film about all the famous moments they remember fifty three years later and they will list quite a few. Ask someone the same question about Grace kellys peformnce in the Country Girl and I bet peole will really have to scratch thir head to remmeber. Its simple, its easy to forget that performance Judys can and never will be.
Posted by: Gary | October 22, 2007 at 09:29 AM
The 1954 Academy Awards forever marred the integrity of the Oscar event when Judy Garland was passed over for "Best Actress" by Grace Kelly. Watching Judy in "A Star Is Born" as she deftly bridges the chasm between high drama (the "unveiling" at Norman's funeral) to charming slapstick (getting caught in the turnstile on her first day at the studio) is a reminder to all of us in the present day what great acting talent really is. The film's most gripping moment (and there are many in Cukor's masterpiece) is watching her emotional meltdown in the dressing room just before going back to the set to complete a strikingly upbeat musical number. It's simply one of the single most memorable scenes in motion picture history. By contrast, all I can remember about Grace Kelly's performance is that it was synthetic and stiff. And while we're at it, Ray Heindorf's amazingly modern score for the film has never gotten its due. It makes the competing scores resemble something out of a low rent carnival (which is what Hollywood really is upon closer reflection).
Posted by: Gary Lee Smith | October 09, 2007 at 02:36 PM
I agree with Armando. Some of these people you're pointing out deserved to win despite that other people think they don't. There are few absolute winners who really didn't deserve it ("Crash" come to mind - over "Brokeback," "Munich" and "Capote.") The cycle will never end.
Halle Berry deserved her win. (Spacek was good but then she disappeared for the last 3rd of "In the Bedroom"). Kidman's performance in "The Hours" was excellent. I also liked her in "Moulin Rouge" but Halle and Sissy were so much better that year and Kidman's Virgina Woolf brims with angst. Jennifer Hudson made "Dreamgirls" a good movie. No one else was better that year (I also love how people call her a singer who shouldn't have won and praise Kidman in "Rouge." Neither of them have released an album, who is more of a singer? Should we take Rita Moreno's Oscar away too?)
Lastly (I promise), I loved Helen Hunt in "As Good As it Gets." I don't even remember the other nominees. When she kisses Greg Kinnear and tells him she loves him while walking away from meanie Jack Nicholson, it was called perfect acting. Just because she was on a sitcom (which she was great in as well) people want to hate. I also thought Jackie Earle Haley (yes, I had to look it up) was better than Eddie Murphy and Alan Arkin but he wasn't a big enough name to win.
Posted by: junior | October 09, 2007 at 12:38 PM
The Oscars in my opinion have lost all their "importanc" since the political loss of Judy Garland. Her role is the showcase of a lifetime. She is simply The Best....period.
Posted by: Thomas P. Smithers | October 08, 2007 at 08:36 PM
Mommie Dearest? You are definitely joking about that.
I have been to this site in months and now I know why. Everything is total high drama.
Outrage! Shock! Horror! I feel like this is perezhilton doing awards.
It's quite a shocking outrageous horror around this site. Drama... yawn...
Posted by: Michael | October 08, 2007 at 08:03 PM
Loretta Young beating out the other nominees for the Farmer's Daughter.. Halle Berry was deserving of her Oscar...Sissy was good and pretty much ties with Halle...more crimes...Helen Hunt beating out the other nominees (because she was the only American nominated???)...it was a role straight from her sitcom Mad About You...Gwyneth Paltrow??? why was she nominated to begin with...Judy Holliday's win had more to do with votes splitting two very deserving performances of Ms. Davis and Ms. Swanson and even Ms. Baxter...Judy Garland's loss is the ultimate crime! Glenda Jackson beating out Ellen Burstyn...there's more...but I'm exhausted...
Posted by: Frankie R. | October 08, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I still can't get over Judi Dench losing to Helen Hunt and then to Halle Berry.
Posted by: Tom | October 08, 2007 at 01:58 AM
Hollywood giving Grace Kelly the award after seeing Judy Garland's performance in "A Star Is Born" is absolutely unforgivable. The Academy really screwed up that year to be sure. "A Star Is Born" is probably Judy's greatest film effort. She really showed them she had the chops to handle it all. Drama, Comedy, Dance, Music.....she was brilliant! Over fifty years since "A Star Is Born" premiered the public still remembers Garland as an amazing artist and the world's greatest entertainer.
Posted by: Bobby | October 07, 2007 at 07:51 PM
well, it looks like 'the bests' never win at the Oscar race... it's the same story year after year after year....
Posted by: Armando (Caracas, Venezuela) | October 07, 2007 at 04:46 PM
I'm sorry but I second the Halle Berry win. I really DO NOT think she should've won that year. Sissy Spacek pretty much cleaned up everything else that year, except for maybe the SAG and then Halle Berry won. That whole evening just seemed so unbelievably contrived (Sidney Poitier winning, Denzel Best Actor, Halle Best Actress). They should've just waited a couple years when, sorry to say, Jamie Foxx EARNED the best actor award he got.
Posted by: Tristan | October 07, 2007 at 04:18 PM
1) Crash instead of Brokeback Mountain winning picture. Runnerup: Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan.
2) Halle Berry winning in Monter's Ball. Runnerup: Kim Basinger winning in LA Confidential.
3) Tom Hanks NOT winning in Cast Away. Runnerup: Tom Hanks winning in Philadelphia.
Posted by: Lee | October 07, 2007 at 03:20 PM
Judy Garland should have won. Period. "Chariots of Fire" was a magnificent movie and deserved the Oscar. "Crash". "Crash"? Gimme a break. Adrien Brody was fabulous but Daniel Day-Lewis was the best and should have won. It's because the Oscars are based less on merit and more on politics that we stopped watching a few years ago. Plus, the movies out there are truly terrible, unless you're a fifteen-year old boy, are into aliens, computer graphics and comic books.
Posted by: Muddy Waters | October 07, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Judy Holliday's win makes sense. Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis both gave the performances of their lives as divas, one from film, one from theater. So they split the "dramatic actress" vote and Holliday, who cleaned up all the votes from people who prefer comedy, came out the winner.
Posted by: Lee | October 07, 2007 at 01:09 PM
You left out the worst best actress win of all time -- Halley Berry in Monster's Ball. Bad movie. Worse acting.
Posted by: Bob | October 07, 2007 at 12:02 PM
i am more upset by Dorothy Danridge loosing to Grace Kelly than Judy Garland.
Posted by: Boidiva02 | October 07, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Judy Garland's loss for "A Star is Born" was nonsense!!! It's one of the greatest performances ever put on screen. Grace Kelly was the "flavor of the day", and she won the Oscar, which happens a lot in Hollywood, BUT she also won the N.Y. Critics Award that year. What were they thinking? I'd love to hear a comment from anyone who might still be around from the NY Critics that voted for Grace that year. I'd be most interested in hearing why they voted for her.
Also, "Crash" may not be the worst movie ever to win Best Picture, but it's right down there fighting for the title along with "Braveheart", "Chariots of Fire" and the OVERRATED "Kramer vs. Kramer".
Posted by: Larry | October 07, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Judy Holliday (sp?), in Born Yesterday, gives one of the great comedic performances in film history. Watch it again, and be reminded. Clearly, Bette and Gloria canceled each other out that year. But to say that Holliday's victory is the most unjust in the history of Best Actress is a huge and unfounded insult to her unbelievable talent. Shame on anyone who voted for that option on this silly poll. And Tom, isn't it you who is always bitching about the Academy not taking comedies seriously? Careful.
Posted by: richard | October 06, 2007 at 11:38 PM
"Her acting simply isn't weak"
...?
Posted by: AJ | October 06, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Well, I think you should include on this list the triumphs of Julia Roberts (she beat Ellen Burstyn and Joan Allen) and the most terryfing of all: Gwyneth Paltrow, best actress for Shakespeare in Love, in a year where we had the impressive perfomances of grande dames such as Fernanda MONTENEGRO (Central Station), Cate BLANCHETT (ELIZABETH) and Emily WATSON (HILLARY AND JACKIE). Think about it, folks!
Posted by: Calirai Hayek | October 06, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Well, Judy Garland losing to Grace Kelly was a joke. Kelly was absurd in that performance, wrong casting, over.
But there are other Oscar omissions that are absurd:
(1) CATE BLANCHETT losing to GWYNETH PALTROW! Well, that was a real joke! Paltrow was the least impressive in the best actress category that year!
(2) RENEE ZELLWEGER winning for COLD MOUNTAIN! She didn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with an Oscar nomination or awards at all...
(3) HILARY SWANK being double winner. We all know that she sucks in all her films with the exception of these two... She really isn't much of an actor. But she has luck.
(4) RUSSELL CROWE winning for Gladiator. Well, Bardem, Ed Harris and Geoffrey Rush gave more impressive performances. And non-nominee Michael Douglas (who usually isn't good at all) is much better than Crowe.
(5) CRASH winning best picture was the biggest absurd in years!
(6) JENNIFER HUDSON was a joke. She's a singer. Her acting simply isn't weak. And you give her awards for that. Rinko Kikuchi, Toni Collette, Lola Duenas, Maribel Verdu were more deserving!
(7) ADRIEN BRODY! All due respect, but DANIEL DAY-LEWIS deserved it!
(8) JENNIFER CONNELLY! Really?! The least impressive of the five? In such a bla-bla-bla performance. When Helen Mirren was absolutely brilliant in Gosford Park. Maggie Smith was a showstealer. Kate Winslet did a fine job. And you give it to Connelly?
(9) CUBA GOODING, JR. Well, he was fun, but not deserving...
(10) JACK NICHOLSON winning for As Good As It Gets. Well, he's a legend, but he won for an unremarkable performance, while Robert Duvall and Peter Fonda were more deserving..
ABOUT KIDMAN. Well, I don't think she was the most deserving that year. In my opinion Sissy Spacek and Halle Berry gave the best performances that year...
Posted by: Ross | October 06, 2007 at 03:06 PM