MovieChat Forums > Singin' in the Rain (1952) Discussion > Why snubbed by Academy of Motion Picture...

Why snubbed by Academy of Motion Pictures?

posted 9 years ago by shulma2002
9 replies | jump to latest

Just realized that this masterpiece was not nominated for Best Picture Oscar; disgraceful! It was much better in all ways than "An American in Paris" which was simply boring. Why was it snubbed? Did it reveal the shameful way the studios treated their stars? Was the Academy embarrassed how the studios were unable to adapt from silent films to talkies? "The Bad and the Beautiful", which also revealed Hollywood secrets, was never snubbed, so why this film? Just 2 Oscar nominations, Jean Hagen and a minor nomination, meant the Academy considered this film much less than a classic. What are fans of this film unaware of?

[–] PillowRock 9 years ago

I don't think that the issue is anything as conspiracy-theory-like as being about the treatment of "talent" or anything like that.

I think that it's just a manifestation of the Academy's long-standing, and much talked-about, tendency to undervalue comedy in Oscar voting. The Bad and the Beautiful was a drama, while Singin' in the Rain was a comedy.

[–] mercury4 9 years ago

I agree with the OP. Singin' in the Rain was only nominated for the music and Jean Hagen was the only actor nominated. To me, that is ridiculous. She was good and funny with that voice. But they nominated her and not such extraordinary talent like Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynolds. The trio of the movie did it all. They gave great performances, they sang, they danced, they made you laugh, and they made you smile. The Academy always has a tendency to goof. They make these off the wall decisions sometimes. The winner was The Greatest Show on Earth. In my opinion, Singin' in the Rain is way better. Even the other nominees like High Noon and The Quiet Man were better. As much as I love High Noon and The Quiet Man, I have to go with Singin' in the Rain. I'm with the OP. For them to not even nominate such an outstanding movie for Best Picture and to snub the best actors in the movie, I think it's a joke.

[–] PillowRock 9 years ago

I didn't say that I thought that it was right that Singin' in the Rain got such little recognition from the Academy. I said that I didn't think that the lack of recognition had anything to do with a backlash against anything such as depicting the movie industry in an unflattering way; just the typical under-valuation of comedy in Oscar voting.

And The Greatest Show on Earth even getting nominated for Best Picture, much less winning, always seemed to be one of the clearer examples of the Academy voters using a "competitive" Oscar as a surrogate for a lifetime achievement award (in this case for Cecil B. DeMille). Every so often the Academy gives that kind of a sentimental vote to someone who has been quite good for decades but had never won an Oscar before. (Again, I'm not saying that I think that's right; just that it has happened much more than once.)

[–] murph24 9 years ago

I'd say you were right on the money.

It's not like there was an uproar when Singin' in the Rain didn't receive a Best Picture nomination in 1953. I'm sure various people at MGM (particularly in the Freed unit) were disappointed it didn't receive greater recognition from the Academy but, as pointed out by the authors of "Singin in the Rain: The Making of an American Masterpiece," there may have been a feeling at the time the film was nothing more than a good, solid studio product; something that was entertaining and enjoyable, but not significant. It wasn't until the 1970s that film historians began to realize just how brilliant Singin' in the Rain actually was.

As for the Oscars, I don't take the cult of the naked golden men too seriously, but it does seem the Academy gravitated toward huge, all-star epics in the 50s; I can't imagine any other reason they'd want to honor sprawling, cinematic banana splits like The Greatest Show on Earth and Around the World in 80 Days - to me, they're just big, empty and tedious. And since the Academy had just honored MGM & the Freed unit the previous year by showering Oscars on the colorful but otherwise inferior An American in Paris, they may have felt they'd already shown enough support for MGM film musicals.

It was particularly baffling 60 years later to watch the Academy fall over itself to honor The Artist, a film that told the same story Singin' in the Rain did - but not NEARLY as well.

[–] sstavsky 9 years ago

The movie was well-received in its own time but did not achieve classic status until years later. It did not make the "New York Times" Ten Best list for 1952. (I believe it was a runner-up.) It came in eighth place in the National Board of Review Top 10 List. It was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical but lost to "With a Song in My Heart."

Most of the performances and pictures that the Academy nominates are well-received in their own time. But tastes do change, and sometimes a movie that doesn't get a lot of recognition in its own time develops classic status years later. ("Vertigo" is another example.)

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

No idean why it was snubbed by the Academy but it deserved more.

Its that man again!!

[–] JaysonT 9 years ago

MGM also was plugging Ivanhoe for their Best Picture contender, which managed a nod. Because the previous year they had given their award to musical An American in Paris with the same leading man, they might have been a bit tired of the Hollywood movie musical at the time. A big travesty though.

[–] stevenackerman69 7 years ago

Originally, it wasn't considered a classic. It did well at the box office, but wasn't considered Oscar material. Jean Hagen got a nod for her role, but didn't win. It became more of a classic over time when it was rereleased with a package of MGM films in 1958. When they were making this film, they weren't thinking about it being a classic, it was put together fast to capitalize on An American in Paris, which won Best Picture the year before and had Gene Kelly in it.

[–] murph24 7 years ago

...it was put together fast to capitalize on An American in Paris, which won Best Picture the year before and had Gene Kelly in it.

Although your post is otherwise correct, this statement is wrong.

"Singin' in the Rain" wasn't "put together fast," and certainly wasn't produced to capitalize on the success of "An American in Paris" - in fact, by the time the latter film had its grand opening, principal photography on "Singin in the Rain" was nearing completion.

The idea for a musical featuring Arthur Freed's songs was put into development at MGM during the period of 1949-50, and studio records show Comden & Green submitted their first draft of the script on August 10, 1950.

"An American in Paris" finished principal photography on January 8, 1951 and premiered on November 11, 1951 - and by that point, filming on "Singin' in the Rain" was essentially over; the final wrap party took place 10 days after "American in Paris" was released.