He was nominated (and rightly so), but what do you think? Should he have gotten it?
I think so, seeing as he portrays his character in depth and in a natural way, but finding a good balance between acting and being himself.
[deleted]
[deleted]
True, there were a lot of awfully good performances that year. Perhaps Dexter should have gotten the Golden Globe?
I still can't believe that Round Midnight was only nominated for 2 awards! Obviously Herbie rightfully deserved the best score category. But why was Bertrand Tavernier not even nominated for Best Director? This was such a beautifully made film, I think Tavernier should have at least been nominated. The film also should have been nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, despite the lack of dialogue. And I really think Francois Cluzet should have won for Best Supporting Actor, his performance was sympathetic and wonderful.
As much I as I love the movie, if it won Best Director Oscar, than Tavernier woulda had to share it with Martin Scorsese.....
most of the camerawork in that movie is pure Marty.
No. Paul Newman got it as a lifetime achievement award, but I think Bob Hoskins really deserved it. Gordon was fine. It was a pretty weak year for actor nominees and in many years, I doubt know if Gordon would have even gotten nominated. I can't think of a year in Oscar history that was so weak he would have won.
share1986 was no weak year. Gordon's performance was great so was Hoskins performance. Let's not forget about James Woods performance in Salvador. 1986 was a pretty good year.
shareWhat are you smoking, activeverb? Weak compared to what years? Have you even watched the Oscars this past decade? I can't remember the last year I watched the Oscars (I think the year Dances With Wolves was last one).
If 1986 was a weak year for actor nominees, then wtf do you call this past decade of nominees .. pure garbage maybe?
[deleted]
I'm of the opinion that it was a pretty good year for best actor performances, and while Dexter Gordon was incredible in the role, I think it was unlikely that a musician rather than an actor would get it.
Personally I think it was a great performance, and certainly much better than some that have won it, but '86 was a good year.
As for Paul Newman who did win it, no he shouldn't have. Newman deserved many an oscar for roles in years gone by and the one for The Color Of Money was simply a 'we owe him one' win. Much like when Pacino won his for Scent Of A Woman - great actor, not great film, or role, and it was like the consolation for not having won something years before.
Paul delivered far better performances after The Color Of Money where they could have given him an Oscar, like Nobody's Fool, and Mr and Mrs. Bridge (to name just a couple).
shareJust saw an interview with Tavernier. He tells how he receives a call from Dexter, who tells him that he received a letter from Brando, who writes: "In fifteen years I have not learned anything new about acting - until I saw your performance in Round Midnight..." And Dexter says to Tavernier: "You know, after this, who needs an Oscar...!"
sharethis is the most eloquent answer for the 'oscar question'
just beautiful.
and the other quote I had to think of is from Ozons "Swimming pool":
as said by Charlotte Rampling:
"prices are like hemorrhoids;
sooner or later every *beep* gets one"
& btw Scorsesee was also great …
what a heartful movie RM is …
-- edit
uh, funny how curse words are automatically *beeped* by the invisible block ward of the board …
so let me reattempt:
""prices are like hemorrhoids;
sooner or later every a_s_s_h_o_l_e gets one"
Have you not seen "The Color of Money?"....
share