Why did Andrews win Oscar?
She has mazing screen presence...yes
She´s very talented yes...
but Mary Poppins is witty, kind, singing magical woman...
not much of a range there..
She has mazing screen presence...yes
She´s very talented yes...
but Mary Poppins is witty, kind, singing magical woman...
not much of a range there..
The reasons you gave is the reason she won it.
shareThey felt she was owed something simply for existing. Undeserved Oscar, as we all can agree.
shareNot me she was and will always be deserving that oscar.
shareNo Oscar for being well-cast. I'm surprised she was even nominated; so many other women were not even nominated. Everybody at the ceremony were laughing, including Andrews.
shareYes bc she was happy ive watched that clip were they anounce her as the winner she was happy and gratefull
I know she said in her speech its ridicoules but it was said in a joking manner .
Being happy and grateful about winning, does not mean it was a deserving win. If another "more" deserving actress had won, they would have been happy and grateful too.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
"Undeserved Oscar, as we all can agree."
No, we can't all agree.
Kim Stanley was the true worthy winner of the nominees, but Audrey Hepburn gave the best female performance of that year. It was politics that she didn't get nominated for "stealing" the Eliza role from the one who originated it, Julie Andrews, so they gave her the Oscar as pity. Andrews is a good actor but she didn't deserve this.
Want three steaks?... My mistake. Four steaks.
Julie herself thought that Anne Bancroft would win for The Pumpkin Eater. However Anne had already won an Oscar in 1962 and I get the impression that the Awards committee liked to spread the awards around, "to encourage the others". If Julie had not won for Poppins she would probably have got it for The Sound of Music the following year, where she was nominated but Julie Christie won for Darling.
shareI get the impression that the Awards committee liked to spread the awards around
99.999999999% of characters/actors in Hollywood movies display no range.
I.e. Just look at Tom Cruise, he plays almost the exact same guy in every single movie he has ever done and he displays close to 0% range. Yet for decades he has been and still is one of Hollywood's top A-list stars. And that is a typical example.
Yeah but he is just a "star type" of an actor...
His range is extremely limited but I will say he balances it by his determination and he is doing his own physical stuff and that is admirable...
here are these actors...Will Smith, The Rock...almost every single most paid actor in Hollywood is not as talented as those who are sidelined by their star power...
My understanding of why Andrews won the Oscar--or the suggestion by many of why--was because of Audrey Hepburn being cast for "My Fair Lady" instead of Andrews for a role she'd made well known on Broadway. Producers chose Hepburn because they felt she'd bring in a larger audience. Because many felt Andrews deserved to be cast in "Lady"--although it's common for recasting from Broadway to Hollywood--the Oscar votes went to Andrews, even though it might not have been deserving of an Oscar. Personally, I don't think neither Andrews nor Hepburn deserved the Oscar that year, but I liked Andrews' performance in "Sound of Music."
shareI get the feeling that people think characters from certain genres shouldn't be Oscar worthy.
Take Mary Poppins for example. A children's film full of singing and dancing.
But Julie Andrews brought legitimacy to what could have been a playful role. Her characterisation of the children's nanny was packed with heart and emotion.
She goes from a happy singing nanny to a cross nanny and sometimes a confrontational one.
There's plenty of range in the character. One doesn't simply have to be in a drama and shed a tear to exhibit 'range'.
I agree. Her win really was unprecedented when you think about it.
share