SubscribePOLL - VOTE: Will the Oscars finally forgive Russell Crowe?
Russell Crowe used to be a darling of Oscar voters. He was nominated for best actor three years in a row (1999-2001), winning for "Gladiator," which also reaped best picture.
The next year he was clearly out front again — looking like he could pull off a Tom Hanks or Spencer Tracy (two in a row!) — for "A Beautiful Mind," which went on to claim best picture too. But this time Russell didn't get to go along for the ride. When he attacked a British TV producer for having the audacity to prune his flowery poetry recital at BAFTA, Russell tripped himself up in the best actor race. Oscar voters may have been amused in the past to read about his brawls with fellow hooligans in sawdust-scattered saloons, but when he turned on fellow fancy folk at BAFTA, the fanciest of all — those uppity academy members — turned on him.
Russell has not been nominated since. Not for "Cinderella Man" or best picture nominee "Master and Commander." Both performances earned him Golden Globe bids, so it's clear that Oscar voters have singled him out. Meantime, two years after "M&C" and just weeks after the debut of "Cinderella," he hurled that phone at a hotel clerk in Manhattan and threw away whatever hope he had for an Oscar comeback in 2005.
Now how long will voters' boycott of Russell last? Will he be forgiven this year when he could potentially reap two Oscar noms: one in the lead race as an oh-so-charming villain in "3:10 to Yuma" and/or one in supporting as — this really proves his acting chops — a cop even more goody-goody than Andy Griffith and St. Bernadette in "American Gangster"?
If you do believe he'll be forgiven this year, then vote again below.
Who cares if the party crowd forgives him? He may end up being the best actor of his generation.
Posted by: Janet from Tucson | October 26, 2007 at 03:39 PM
I've never been a big Denzel fan, but I actually "voted" for him over Russell that year. I thought Denzel did such a great job portraying this evil guy. I also thought ABM was overrated and should not have won best picture, although Russell Crowe's performance was really impressive. It was close between the two of them for me. I think his bad-boy antics may have contributed to his loss, but I also think that the fact that he won the year prior hurt more. Giving someone an Oscar two years in a row is still pretty rare. For the record, I personally think that NONE of this SHOULD matter of course, and voting would be based solely on performance. As for the question of this poll, "will the academy forgive Russell this year?", I think that's silly....the question carries with it a presumption that Russell SHOULD be nominated and if he isn't it's because the academy hasn't forgiven him......Let's wait and see who is nominated before we decide they got it wrong.
Posted by: Steve | October 26, 2007 at 12:38 PM
The Academy Awards is being eclipsed by the Golden Globes which is a much more honest award for spectacular acting in a film. When the Academy awarded Denzel Washington an oscar, for Training Day while A Beautiful Mind garnered all the awards and ignored the best actor award for Russell Crowe, it was obvious that the Academy had hit a new low. Just poll the 'man on the street' to see which they remember, Training Day or A Beautiful Mind. The Academy has lost all credibility. Their voting system is flawed and until they come up with an honest award system they will continue to lose viewers. After all, why should we watch a joke award.
Posted by: Lorraine Shaw | October 26, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Now I question other past Academy Awards. Was their acting the reason they won, or where they the most likeable?
Posted by: Mary Ann | October 26, 2007 at 10:40 AM
One more thing... the words "bad boy" and Russell Crowe should never be used in the same sentence! GET OVER IT!!!!
Posted by: satex | October 26, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Since the Academy has proven time and time again that winning the Oscar is much more about who attends who's parties, it has lost respect and is pretty much a waste of time. ACTING is about the character in a story and NO ONE can portray characters better than Russell Crowe. Other actors entertain us but they all seem to be themselves just saying lines. Russell grabs our hearts and makes an impact in our own character. He's so good at his characters that when I have watched some of his older movies, I sit there wondering where Russell Crowe is... when he's right there on the screen in front of me! He is the most amazing actor I've ever seen.
As for his private life and troubles, which are fewer than reported, I respect him for owning up to his faults and apologizing for his actions. He's never tried to weasel out of them. He's a passionate person which is what has lead him into trouble but that is also what makes him a great actor. As many negative things he's done, he's done SO many more wonderful, generous things. He has a great big tender heart. It's too bad that so many people refuse to see that and give him the honor he so richly deserves.
Posted by: satex | October 26, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Russell is one of, if not, the greatest actor of his generation. If the academy no longer votes on performance and has lost its soul, then shame on it.
The continued harping on Russell's supposed past missteps has become tiresome. All actors have history and many make Russell's look pale in comparison. When one does not grow and move on, one is destine to be left behind. I would suggest that the constant living in the past is not a healthy endeavor.
Posted by: Eva | October 26, 2007 at 09:14 AM
How I wish we could get over our obsession with celebrities. I think once we get over the notion that actors should be a celebrity, and consequently pristine in character, perhaps then we may get back to focussing on whether or not they can actually do the job they are supposed to do namely act. Mr Crowe can act and having watched his many different performances am in awe of his talent and skill in chosing such myriad roles. I don't care what he does off screen. In fact I admire him more for his non compliance with the dictorial roles that are enforced on actors by the press. Who cares what he does off screen when he can bring John Nash to our screens? And i think the moment that we recognise this the Oscars will, once again, be actually worth watching. At this moment I think they're a glorified celebration of nothingness... with the voters most likely to vote for the politcally correct and/or the best dressed. Do I think Crowe will get a nomination... probably not. Does he deserve one - well shame on the Oscard board for NOT giving him one for Beautiful Mind or Master and Commander.
Posted by: Nel | October 26, 2007 at 09:04 AM
Russell Crowe is the best actor working today, hands down. The Oscars have long since ceased to be anything meaningful. I mean, come on, Denzel in "Training Day" beats out Russell in "A Beautiful Mind"???? It was patently obvious that the Academy was punishing Russell for his perceived trangressions that year. This type of thing should have absolutely no place in Oscar voting, but it does. And the Academy wonders why fewer and fewer people tune in to watch their awards ceremony each year? Russell is the only reason my husband and I even go the theater any more. He should have at least one, if not three more Oscars by now - for A Beautiful Mind, for The Insider, and for Cinderella Man.
This year, he already deserves a Best Actor nom for "3:10 to Yuma" - he was magnificent in that. And I expect he'll be just as magnificent in "American Gangster", for which he should probably get a Supporting Actor nom. But will the Academy do what's right ,instead of impose more arbitrary and completely unrelated standards in their voting? I'm not holding my breath!
Posted by: Teresa E | October 26, 2007 at 05:03 AM
If giving a math test... it would be unfair to quiz on language.
the academy should only vote on performances. if the academy cannot show some ethics, then the oscar should not hold any weight on a resume.
Posted by: Micah Claire | October 26, 2007 at 03:16 AM
I don't think the Oscar's are important or significant at all. They've never been. They're just a bunch of fuddy-duddies giving an award to someone who some people think is "the best actor".
And then there are the other "important persons" who walk the red carpet and tell idiot reporters what designer made their clothes.
Why don't they skip the awards and let the industry just have one big party?
Russell Crowe is a fantastic actor (right there with the top three of all times if you look at what he can do to a character) and I don't give a sh... wether he gets another one of those litlle figurines or not.
Posted by: Rainer | October 26, 2007 at 03:16 AM
They may nominate him, but he will never win another Oscar because he is not American. Have there been any foreign actors that have won more than one Oscar? Russell Crowe should have 4 Oscars by now, L.A. Confidential, The Insiders, A Beautiful Mind and also been nominated for Master and Commander and Cinderella Man. Denzel Washington is a fine actor, but I always feel it is Denzel playing Denzel. For all the criticisms of Crowe, you never feel he is playing the same role in every film, from Romper Stomper to 3 : 10 to Yuma.
Posted by: sarah | October 25, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Crowe doesn't need to be forgiven for anything. I have never understood O'Neil's personal animosity towards Crowe, but it's been embarrassingly obvious in many of his comments for some time.
Whether or not one personally "likes" Crowe, it cannot be denied that he is a complete professional when working and an amazing actor who lends a special imprint to each and every role, never repeating himself, never "phoning in" a performance. [sorry, I couldn't resist]
Posted by: Mimi | October 25, 2007 at 09:31 PM
I won't comment on whether the academy voters would forgive him or not. If the academy members aren't into politics, then they should stick to the acting chops and nothing else. I enjoy Russell's acting and his movies like A LOT! He's a marvelous actor and one of the best of our generation. I won't be ashamed to say that he's the reason why I still want to go to watch movies at the theater these days, alongside Christian Bale (who's a genius as well). 3:10 To Yuma is a match made in heaven for both Crowe and Bale. Bless James Mangold for that. And now American Gangster will arrive. I can't wait!! Denzel and Russell? How can they go wrong? Russell is not too concern about his appearance because he thinks he's just an average guy. He's an actor, a worker, a husband, a father, not a 24-hr model who always want to look good all the time. Acting is his job, and that's all there is to it.
Posted by: Francisca Susi | October 25, 2007 at 08:58 PM
No. They are NOT going to forgive him, I don't think EVAH. Why should they? He's already got one Best Actor Oscar which is the Academy is going to think is QUITE enuf, if not too much already.
Posted by: Stephen Holt | October 25, 2007 at 07:43 PM
my husband was one of those hooligans russell used to fight along side, and at times against. my husband has grown up considerably since those years as has russell. russ is an amazing actor, whether he's got a temper or not. he's a real person who is who he is, and works extremely hard at his craft, and at his passions.
Posted by: annie | October 25, 2007 at 07:37 PM
"Forgive" him? I'm just imagining what his knee-jerk response would be to this silly, condescending poll.
Posted by: Dana | October 25, 2007 at 05:15 PM
If the Oscar voters would get off of their political high horse/bandstand and actually vote for the best performances, credibility might again return to the Academy Awards. Snubbing probably the finest actor of our time and using the excuse that he was a 'bad boy' reeks of a jealousy that makes excuses for itself through childish reasoning. They don't snub Russell because he is a 'bad boy', they snub him because he is not a hypocrite and doesn't prostitute himself to that surreal Hollywood hype. To me, he brought the gift of a passion for movies I hadn't had in a very long time. Russell has done nothing to be 'forgiven' for. His sincerity and dedication to his roles and fellow actors should be lauded. Not to mention how he adores his wife and children. It would also help if the media would stop beating the proverbial 'dead horse' and let the past lie in the past. I eagerly anticipate all of Russell's movies because I know that for a couple of hours I will be entertained by an amazing performance that doesn't seem a performance because he is truly a great artist in his craft.
Posted by: Judy J | October 25, 2007 at 05:01 PM
I should add that "Yuma" is likely to be eclipsed by "The Assassination of Jesse James..." or at least be really damaged in votes syphooning... people would be voting Pitt rather than Crowe.
Posted by: Jesus Alonso | October 25, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Crowe won't be nom'd given the competition in Supporting. Bardem (No Country...), Phillip Bosco (The Savages) and Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton) are going to be nom'd and will be fighting for the golden guy - I think. Then we have Sweeney Todd growing and with it, the problem that we have 2 big musicals with Alan Rickman and John Travolta being praised and both due... and if Travolta faints, Sacha Baron Cohen is still said to steal the show in his few minutes in Sweeney Todd AND he was snubbed last year in the right cathegory... And still you have Max von Sydow from buzzed foreign "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", Benjamin Bratt in the ultra-baity role of Dr. Juvenal Urbino in "Love in the Time of Cholera"... and more... with Crowe in Supporting - which is clearly a cathegory fraud - I doubt he'll be nom'd but certainly he has a chance. But I just have it as "alternate" with plenty of doubts.
Posted by: Jesus Alonso | October 25, 2007 at 04:16 PM
If every actor was judged on a personal basis - for personality, fidelity, honesty, bad behaviour, uncooperative with media, well, according to the so-called "punishment" to Russell in the form of withholding truly earned oscar nominations, I suspect there would be many who would not ever be nominated. I don't go to movies on the basis of whether I approve of their private lives, which I am sure I never know the truth about. But, rather, I go to see a master actor at work. Whether the movie is produced or directed by a very worthy person, makes no difference. It is the acting - stupid - that I go to see. Never ever have I been disappointed in the job of acting that Russell Crowe does. He is a magnificent artist and his portrayal in Gladiator is and will remain forever untouched by another actor. His portrayal in A Beautiful Mind was awesome and heart-rending, His Master in Master and Commander was so far ahead of any previous actors who played in similar roles. I always see all of his movies and have never been disappointed. I have intentions of seeing 3-10 to Yuma and American Gangster because I know that whatever the story-lines are, I will see a great performance from Russell. How dare you minimize his brillance by the nuances in his personal life. Wow, what are the awards supposed to represent? Good acting or whether you like his personal life decisions?.
Posted by: Evelyn | October 25, 2007 at 01:43 PM
check the text of the article again -- it says lead actor race for "Yuma," supporting for "Gangster"
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | October 25, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Why would have "both" be an option....you can't be nominated in the best actor category for 2 roles in the same year, yesh!
Posted by: Jamie | October 25, 2007 at 10:06 AM