How on EARTH was Audrey not nominated for Oscar??
How???
Justice for Treyvon.
I know huh? I believe the answer is, they held it against Audrey because she didn't sing and because they cast her instead of Julie Andrews, duh, look who they gave the Oscar to, Julie Andrews.
Not even being nominated while just about everybody else did (and won) was like them kicking Audrey Hepburn in the crotch. We can argue that maybe she didn't deserve to win (I think she did btw), but not even getting a nomination is a travesty, and obviously nothing other than spite, another case of typical studio politics.
I think they knew damn well that had Audrey Hepburn been nominated she would have won hands down, they obviously didn't want her to win, they wanted Andrews, I believe they were trying to right a wrong, again not casting Andrews. The Academy of Motion Pictures did this all the time (and still do to a certain degree) that is, handing out Oscars for mistakes, too tough to call years, and sympathy awards in years past. Elizabeth Taylor winning for BUtterfield 8 is a perfect example.
"Elizabeth Taylor winning for BUtterfield 8 is a perfect example."
DON'T YOU DARE! Elizabeth deserved that oscar that year! Nobody nominated that year came close to her performance. Second to her I would place Shirley Maclaine and even she can't touch Elizabeth's performance.
I do agree with everything else you said, though
See, Daddy, sinners have soul, too. (The Color Purple)
DON'T YOU DARE! Elizabeth deserved that oscar that year! Nobody nominated that year came close to her performance. Second to her I would place Shirley Maclaine and even she can't touch Elizabeth's performance.
Liz deserved the Academy Award for Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, she was far better than Susan Heywood in I Want To Live!, I think the Academy knew they F'd up and paid her back with an Oscar for BUtterfield 8, and that's my honest opinion. share
Was Hepburn's Before-the transformation as good as the After? That might be a reason,if it aplpies. Also, Hollywood or the AA doesn't need to cater to Julie Andrews because she didn't get cast.
shareThat's basically it. She got the part and took it away from Julie Andrews. Right or wrong I'm sure that's how they saw it. When Disney took a chance and cast the relatively unknown actress as Mary Poppins, I think she got the Oscar to rub salt in Audrey's wounds. It's a tough business, cruel even.
shareI think they knew damn well that had Audrey Hepburn been nominated she would have won hands down, they obviously didn't want her to win, they wanted Andrews
They squared off at the Golden Globes and Andrews still beat her, so I don't think Hepburn had a chance in hell, even if she were nominated for an Oscar. Andrews had too much goodwill and a banner year:
-Mary Poppins was the #1 movie of 1964 and the most nominated film of the year, with 13 Oscar nominations.
-The Americanization of Emily, Andrews' second movie, came out two months after MP and was a moderate hit and garnered two Oscar nods, for Art Direction and Cinematography.
-The Sound of Music, Andrews' third film, was released when the nominations were announced, so by the time the ceremony took place a month later, it had become a smash hit, eventually becoming not only the highest-grossing film of 1965 but of all time, displacing Gone with the Wind, who'd held the #1 position for the past 25 years.
-Obviously, there was also the sentimentality. Many felt that Andrews was unjustly wronged and had deserved to reprise her stage role on film, along with Rex Harrison. Little wonder that they both won Oscars on the same night. It was a My Fair Lady reunion of sorts.
-Then, of course, there was Andrews' performance, which was really good. Many people misremember her Mary Poppins as being sickly sweet, but if you watch the movie again, you'll notice that Poppins is vain, self-absorbed, narcissistic, yet Andrews was able to make her likable. That's no easy task.
-Also, the fact that Hepburn didn't do her own singing was a small factor for her not being nominated and for Andrews winning, especially since Andrews proved Jack Warner wrong that she was photogenic and could carry a picture and, more importantly, had the voice!
So all of the above contributed to Andrews' inevitable win. Even if Hepburn had been nominated alongside her, there was no stopping the Andrews juggernaut!
. share
vain, self-absorbed, narcissistic
I'm sorry but were we watching the same film? Because Mary NEVER came across as such in the film, and I've recently seen just a few days ago. You are describing the book Mary, who was also a borderline sociopath.
Want three steaks?... My mistake. Four steaks. share
Your post sums it up very well why Julie had won, but a couple points may be incorrect.
Mary Poppins was the #1 movie of 1964 and the most nominated film of the year, with 13 Oscar nominations.What do you mean by #1? Top grossing film of the year? If so, that's incorrect. At the time, My Fair Lady was the biggest moneymaker of 1964 with $72 million domestic.
http://www.listal.com/list/top-grossing-films-1964
Goldfinger was 2nd with $51 million, and Mary Poppins at #3 with $31 million (still a big hit against its $6 million budget). Mary Poppins however had 2 theatrical re-releases years later, which then accrued to over $100 million domestic:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=marypoppins.htm
So, at Oscar time, My Fair Lady was the reigning box office champ. The Academy is fond of money, especially back then-- not so much today.
...with 13 Oscar nominations.Well sure, it had 1 more nomination over My Fair Lady with 12, but that isn't really a factor as My Fair Lady won most of the awards that Mary Poppins lost (Best Pic, director, cinematography, art direction, costume, sound, adaptation score etc.). But Mary Poppins received nominations for categories that My Fair Lady wasn't eligible (like original score, original song and visual effects-- none of which My Fair Lady had).
-The Americanization of Emily, Andrews' second movie, came out two months after MP and was a moderate hit and garnered two Oscar nods, for Art Direction and Cinematography.Well researched points. The Americanization of Emily was well received and had grossed around $8 to $10 million ($4 million in rentals) against its $2.7 million budget.
-The Sound of Music, Andrews' third film, was released when the nominations were announced, so by the time the ceremony took place a month later, it had become a smash hit, eventually becoming not only the highest-grossing film of 1965 but of all time, displacing Gone with the Wind, who'd held the #1 position for the past 25 years.
-Obviously, there was also the sentimentality. Many felt that Andrews was unjustly wronged and had deserved to reprise her stage role on film, along with Rex Harrison. Little wonder that they both won Oscars on the same night. It was a My Fair Lady reunion of sorts.
Having a slew of hits around Oscar season is definitely beneficial in the voting process. Like season 1 of True Detective broadcast on HBO around McConaughey's Oscar win, plus The Wolf of Wall Street and Mud in addition to Dallas Buyers Club.
But Audrey Hepburn still did not deserve to be slighted. She gave a great performance. And she actually did sing her parts and even stayed on set working longer to get the studio to reconsider dubbing her voice. She fought very hard but inevitably lost that battle of course. The studio wanted the vocals to reflect the heights of the Broadway musical. But, dubbing the leads in musicals was the standard at the time, as it was with Deborah Kerr in The King and I in '56 (and she still got nominated) and Natalie Wood in West Side Story in '61. Not Audrey's fault that the studios played these bullsh-t politics.
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David share