Page 4 of 7

Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:27 am
by Bog
Hopefully I don't get shot for one more thing...but Affleck is not winning anything, he's not winning Actor, he's not winning Supporting Actor...voters have to see the film for this to happen, but this is a major factor for my crusade for him in lead that has so divided and exhausted various threads (sorry) but he clearly can't beat Bardem or Holbrook...was never gonna happen, ain't gonna happen


hell I'm even tired of this shit as I type it one last time

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:21 pm
by cam
We talk about some injustice in Actor-Supporting Actor every year. I think we should put this Affleck one to bed. He is better placed to have the possibility of a win here in Supporting than there would be in Best Actor. I am sure everyone will concede that BA is going to be Day-Lewis. If Affleck wins this, and there is a Cinematography win for this film, those will be the two awards for this film. A remarkable achievement when you consider the competition this year: No Country, TWBB, Juno, etc.

Can we please discuss something or someone else besides Affleck?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:13 pm
by Eric
The irony of this whole thing (which I haven't seen anyone point out yet) is ... there's arguably more room in Best Actor than there is in Best Supporting Actor.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:30 pm
by Penelope
Personally, the reason I'm vocally upset is that I'm tired of this--let's call it what it is--cheating to get one person a nomination and thus deprive another person of a nomination.

Affleck is fully deserving of a nomination (and, in my opinion, a win), but whatever the reason for pushing him into Supporting (my suspicion is that Brad Pitt's star status is considerably larger than Affleck's and so they campaigned the former for Lead and didn't want Affleck to compete with him there), what's happening is that such a move denies a genuine Supporting Actor (such as Paul Schneider from the same film) from being nominated and puts a potentially unworthy Lead Actor (Ryan Gosling) into contention.

Really, if somebody doesn't raise the issue, it'll keep happening and we'll keep having this outrage. I'm tired of it.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:11 pm
by dws1982
I think the reason that Affleck's placement is such an issue is probably because there's no justification for it; At least in most of those other situations, they were borderline cases (Harden, Hudson), or they were put in Support to avoid going up against another performance from the same film in Lead (Hawke, Griffiths, Blanchett; Foxx was put there to keep from going against himself in Lead). Those situations don't make the performers Supporting, but there's at least a semi-understandable reason why the studio would position them in Support.

Here, Affleck doesn't appear to be a borderline case (I'll have to wait for the DVD, so can't say for sure), and Pitt has no chance at a nomination, there's no Lead Actor candidate from the film for them to avoid putting him up against. It seems like they're putting him there just because it's easier to get him nominated there.




Edited By dws1982 on 1199988766

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm
by anonymous1980
I haven't seen Assassination but I have no trouble believing Casey Affleck is really a lead character in the movie. However, why are a lot of people making a big deal out of this particular case?

Category fraud has been happening quite often: Jamie Foxx in Collateral, Ethan Hawke in Training Day, Rachel Griffiths in Hilary & Jackie and some would say Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls last year and even Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock are all technically lead performances but were relegated to supporting roles for largely strategic reasons.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:50 pm
by Akash
That was beneath you, Greg.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:00 pm
by Greg
Big Magilla wrote:Uri, that was nice, but if you ordered "stake" in a resturant what you would get is a dried up piece of old wood - if you wanted tenderized beef you'd order "steak".

Uri said he prefers well done; so, he indeed wants to order a "stake" and not a "steak."

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:44 am
by Akash
Love it Uri. Love it.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:17 am
by ITALIANO
flipp525 wrote:Personally, I'm finding this "Casey Affleck should be competing in Lead" thing really played out on this board. I mean, I completely agree with the sentiment but, c'mon already, let's just move on! At least he's being recognized at all. How much worse would things be if his performance, clearly one of the best of the year, was completely shut-out and ignored? Let's shift the focus of the discussion to deserving performances that are failing to win or be nominated for anything. It seems like a much more worthwhile topic.

Exactly.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:09 pm
by Uri
Big Magilla wrote:Uri, that was nice, but if you ordered "stake" in a resturant what you would get is a dried up piece of old wood - if you wanted tenderized beef you'd order "steak". And a patron of the resuarant would be a "customer", not a "costumer" or dresser.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

I knew I should have gone for a falafel metaphor.

And as for customers being costumers – on this board, one can never be sure.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:21 pm
by Big Magilla
Uri, that was nice, but if you ordered "stake" in a resturant what you would get is a dried up piece of old wood - if you wanted tenderized beef you'd order "steak". And a patron of the resuarant would be a "customer", not a "costumer" or dresser.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:48 pm
by FilmFan720
Thanks for that great post Uri. One of my favorites in a while.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:40 pm
by Uri
Whenever I'm obliged to order a stake in a restaurant, I want it to be well done, but since I know that rare is the right way to have it, I end up with medium.

This place was established as a nice, upper market diner. Over the years it was hijacked by all those smarmy intellectuals who turned it into this organic food joint (which, surprisingly, does serve quite a lot of liquor). Even its owner, though rather unwillingly, succumbed to this trend. At least he shares with many of his costumers an inherent distaste for Italian cuisine. From time to time an innocent stranger stumbles in, fooled by the big neon sign out there. Others come in and immediately fit in. And then there are some of the old regulars, who get along famously with all these Young Turks, but at the end of the day all they really want is their burger. And though they may taste some of the more mildly exotic dishes, there is no way they'll have the Todd Haynes soup of the day. Good for them.




Edited By Uri on 1199918513

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:52 pm
by Big Magilla
Ashley Judd, OK, Kerri Russell, no. Gordon Pinsent, yes, Steve Carrell, no.

Actually the category I had the most trouble with was supporting actress. Beyond Keener, Ryan and Ronan, everyone else is an also-ran this year. Among the also-rans I considered were Tabu in The Namesake and Michelel Pfeifffer in Stardust. I had more trouble considering Tabu's truly heartbreaking performance in The Namesake supporting than I did Affleck's and ended up replacing her with Kelly Macdonald for that reason. Then I considered her in lead, but went with Jolie at the last minute. Judd and Pinsent are people I considered nominating. I thought the best thing about Waitress was the pies, not the performances, and I haven't seen Dan in Real Life but I can't imagine Carell being better than the five I listed or another five which would include Viggo Mortensen, Christian Bale (3:10 to Yuma), Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men), Pinsent and Mathieu Amslric (Diving Bell).