RDJ DESERVED AN ACADEMY AWARD!! - Chaplin (1993) Discussion

At the same time, look at the flack Jennifer Lawrence has taken for winning an Oscar so young. The same thing would have probably happened to RDJ if he had won for Chaplin. Sometimes it's actually better to build up momentum over the years, if you're able.

"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."

reply

[–] ccr1633 10 years ago

Well, not winning the Best Actor award in '92 didn't help RDJ's drug problem any.

reply

[–] Darthmauler_megaa 10 years ago

::shrugs:: Hard to say. I think he might have said in an interview that Oscar success at the time might have been too much to handle. I mean I get the impression a lot of high profile actors have similar drug problems. They're just more successful at hiding it, therefore they don't get the same kind of scrutiny.

"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."

reply

[–] TheAstor 10 years ago

Why? Denzel was absolutely brilliant in Malcom X.

reply

[–] ccr1633 10 years ago

brandon-lamaro wrote:

Why? Denzel was absolutely brilliant in Malcom X.

Channeling the physical comedy of Charlie Chaplin was much more of an acting challenge than all the righteous yelling required of the Malcolm X role. RDJ has far more range than Denzel.

reply

[–] TheAstor 10 years ago

Denzel has much stronger screen presence though. Put RDJ and Denzel in the same scene and everything would just gravitate around Denzel, he just has that power.

reply

[–] ccr1633 10 years ago

That's probably true, but even in his 70s Jack Nicholson could make both of them lick his shoes. But anyway, it's an unfair comparison. Some people have the stare and the arching eyebrows and some don't. It doesn't have much to do with acting range. RDJ has more range than Nicholson too, which is not to say I prefer RDJ, all things considered. Still, it's easier to see RDJ as RP MacMurphy than Jack Nicholson as Charlie Chaplin...

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kungasagar 8 years ago

I mean hey, they nominated him.

reply

[–] jpm4444 14 years ago

I did not like scent of a woman but I think they were reluctant to give it to RDJ. I knew a voter at the time and he said RDJ had some some negative things about the academy before the vote, and he also had some run in's with the law.

He should have won it.

Chaplin is the most talented hollywood entity in the history of motion pictures and RDJ played him to a tee.

Chaplin directed, wrote, produced, did the choreagraphy, wrote the scores, and oh by the way acted in the films. Some films he physically did some music.

No one will ever be like Chaplin.

reply

[–] BelleCBelle 13 years ago

Regarding Charlie Chaplin, oh I agree with you one-hundred per cent! I cannot think of any individual who has ever had his level of genius or who gave the world so much joy...I could go on and on but I don't think I need to.

Human Rights: Know them, demand them, defend them.

reply

[–] Lord-Z 14 years ago

Because there is an Oscar "debt". You see, it is almost a tradition to give it to less deserving winners if they have lost it previously. For example, in 1993, Pacino clearly did not deserve to win for his hamming in Scent of a Woman, but he lost in 1991, 1980, 1976, 1975, 1974 and 1973. That, of course, pushed Downey, a deserving winner, into the long line. He was supposed to win in 2009, but then Heath Ledger, who lost in 2006, died, and he was clearly not going to get another attempt. So, Downey is back in the line, until he is up for another one.

And sometimes they just give up and gives them an Honorary Award, like they did Chaplin and Peter O'Toole.

www.risingabovetheradar.blogspot.com
www.madmanoz.blogspot.com

reply

[–] Echo_in_big_sky 14 years ago

I agree that Downey's performance was Oscar worthy. It is a pity that the awards are motivated by political correctness, etc. But I guess Hollywood haas always been that way.

At the very least, Mr. Downey has given an exceptional performance in the life of an exceptional man, and that will never be forgotten. Students will watch this film as a resource to learn about Chaplin, and perhaps in time, to also witness Mr. Downey's own stellar performance.

"First I dream my painting and then I paint my dream."--Vincent van Gogh

reply

[–] jpm4444 13 years ago

I agree. George Clooney is never going to be considered one of the great actors in history but most in hollywood say he might be the most well liked and popular one in years. Him with an Oscar and RDJ without one is scary.

Shawshank Redemption was another one that should have gotten it but at the time Mel Gibson was so popular. Braveheart was a good film but SR to me is a classic.

I think RDJ is a great actor and one day will get one but even he said he was heartbroken he didnt' win it for Chaplin and it eats him up to this day.

reply

[–] outnabout26 13 years ago

Actually, Shawshank lost to Forrest Gump. Braveheart was the following year.

reply

[–] silentman01 12 years ago

"That, of course, pushed Downey, a deserving winner, into the long line. He was supposed to win in 2009, but then Heath Ledger, who lost in 2006, died, and he was clearly not going to get another attempt. So, Downey is back in the line, until he is up for another one." ------ ARE YOU ON CRACK OR CRYSTAL METH OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH!!!!! DOWNEY MORE DESERVING OF AN OSCAR IN 2009 THAN LEDGER FOR TROPIC THUNDER!!!!!!! I ASK AGAIN... R U ON CRACK????!!!!

reply

[–] veeaddict 11 years ago

Yes I agree Downey was more deserving than Ledger. What was so great about Heath performance; come on.

Never argue with an idiot people passing by might not be able to tell the difference

reply

[–] shane_hardiman 10 years ago

Now hold up here for a second, are you insinuating that Heath Ledger did not deserve the Oscar in 2008, and that the only reason he won it is because he died? Because if so I must strongly stress my opinion that Ledger's performance was one of the most deserved of all time

reply

[–] Lord-Z 10 years ago

My point was that Ledger did deserve the award, but they would have given it to Downey had Ledger not died.

reply

[–] Felixthecat34213 10 years ago

Now hold up here for a second, are you insinuating that Heath Ledger did not deserve the Oscar in 2008, and that the only reason he won it is because he died? Because if so I must strongly stress my opinion that Ledger's performance was one of the most deserved of all time

I actually thought his performance was really lackluster, personally. A lot of him licking his lips and staring wildly into space. Now Health Ledger had a lot of potential as an actor, but I don't think he shined in The Dark Knight, I think he looks like someone who's wildly out of control of his acting. Like Johnny Depp every time he steps forth in a Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

I think 50% of people wanted him to win because it was a posthumous nomination and the other 50% were impressed by him playing a crazy person. Watching over and over again, I found his performance hammy and over the top.

I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me, but I have the right to my opinion.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1558) 3 years ago

Johnny Depp in absolutely everything

reply

[–] trouts 13 years ago

I've heard/read someplace a while ago that the only reason Pacino got the Oscar, was because he had been pulling for one for a long time, and he got it sort of because been cut short many times...

I say **** that and give RDJ his Oscar! He deserves everything.

=============
"Now you got some real tears going.
That's the stuff accolades are made of."

reply

[–] silentman01 11 years ago

reply to "trouts"...Pacino deserved that Oscar because he carried what was otherwise a mediocre film to the only level of greatness it could achieve and that was done through Pacino. If Pacino did not win that Oscar that year, that would have been unforgivable....IMO

reply

[–] Traianus 11 years ago

I think that's fair. Pacino was very worthy of an Oscar for Scent of a Woman.

Fact is, there are lots of years in which multiple performances have been deserving. Only one can get the award.

reply

[–] IsabeauMichelle 11 years ago

I watched Scent of a Woman a couple nights ago and okay, it was a good performance and deserving of an award. I said it. BUT it wasn't as unique a performance as RDJ's Chaplin. I believe the Academy thinks, with young actors, that they can always give them one for their next great performance, but sometimes that actor doesn't get another chance, or it's years later before he gets another chance to be nominated. They could make up for it - this year - the "excuse" to nominate is there, if not the reason to nominate him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In me the tiger smells the rose - Siegfried Sassoon

reply

[–] Andi09 13 years ago

I had watched most of Chaplin's films prior to this movie and RDJ blew my
f ucking mind, he was absolutely PERFECT. He was robbed alright, but I haven't cared for the Academy in a long, long time. Even if he was to receive the gold, proving that he's a great actor, the fact is, we already know he is.

| ''But where's the ambiguity?... It's over there, in a box!'' |

reply

[–] mad_roke 12 years ago

Well.. there are some unfortunate years where you have REALLY awesome movies with astonishing actors racing for the Oscar. For example Jamie Foxx and Leo DiCaprio, Ray and Aviator were awesome and both would've deserved it! Also Micky Rourke and Sean Penn in 08 had both terrific pics.. sometimes it is unfair. So was it with RDJ. But I bet my ass, he will get his AA one day.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] a.lampert 11 years ago

I've just watched Chaplin for the first time, twenty years after it was made, and agree that RDJ was better in this film than Al Pacino was in Scent of A Woman. He may have lost anyway to Clint Eastwood who was probably favourite for Unforgiven that year. I still think Downey was better because Chaplin was a bigger challenge for an actor than either Pacino or Eastwood's parts. One slip and it could have been fatal but he was superb from beginning to end.

reply