how did he qualify for best actor?
im not saying his performance isnt good, but hes only on screen for about 40 minutes if that
Alex Rafalowicz (young david)was on screen longer and i think played a good part, but not even a supporting nomination
[deleted]
It looked fake! HAHAHAHAHAHA Best joke I heared all week.
It was a great performance by rush. Don't care about oscars myself.
But I thought the adolescent David was played brilliantly, the young David was great too, but the adolescent one, is my personal fave.(it's also my favorite part in the movie, so maybe that influenced my opinion. I don't know.
-Henrik, have we established pathos?
- Yes Herr Doctor, and all this in one shot!
If you have a problem about Rush´s Oscar. What about Hopkins for the silence of the lamb, where he appear only 18 minutes. I think both deserved their Oscars, even though Hopkins should have received for best supporting actor.
shareIt is the same thing with My Left Foot, it seems Daniel Day-Lewis is not on screen for half the movie but the time that he is on is brilliant. And the actor that plays Chrsity as child is extraordianry also. Either way their performances, no matter how short in time they are, is what makes it each movie so great. It must be hard to do acting in movies that have young and old versions of the main character, because if one of them is brillinat then the other must be just as good to keep the continuity of the film.
shareDay Lewis is on screen plenty of time for My Left Foot, certanly more than the child actor. i don't know what your talking about really, hes in three fourths of the movie. good thing too. every second hes in is pure magic.
Did you ever want to be anyone else?...I never wanted to be anyone else.
yeah..and what about Judi Dench's Oscar for 8 minutes performance in Shakespeare in Love..
Great performances deserve Oscars. that's just it.
I have to agree that good performances deserve Oscars and Judi Dench was great, but 8 minutes is not really long enough. Judi should definately have an Oscar and should have won for Iris and not Halle Berry, she puts me to sleep! But she shouldn't have won for Shakespeare In Love, Rachel Griffiths should have won for Hilary and Jackie, she was robbed!!
Shine is great, by the way (I went off the subject a little!)
Or Kathy Bates in Primary Colors even.
shareShe won for "Supporting" actress. There are tons of supporting characters in most films, no matter how long their screen time.
I've never seen Shakespeare In Love so I don't know whether she deserved it or not.
WALL-E SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED for Best Picture
Judi Dench won a supporting Oscar for 8 minutes! (I believe) I'm not being antagonistic, I'm just saying that this shows the size of the part doesn't really matter... (At least, in certain situations... )
Four minutes ahead of schedule. Damn, I'm good...
This is kind of off-topic, but do you remember Dench's acceptance speech for that Oscar?
I don't think I've heard a more eloquent, gracious, and well-timed speech in a long time.
Dench's award was an early make-up, since she had to have an Oscar. Her performance was not even worthy of a nomination. I class that as the Academy's biggest error.
As for Rush, yeah I also noticed he was not on screen for very long, but, due to the little interjections of his character in the first half of the movie, I guess he can qualify for Best Actor. It was a good enough performance, if a little over the top at the begining.
It didn't actually occur to me how much time people like Day-Lewis and Hopkins were on screen, and it seemed like longer. Their performances were IMO mesmerizing, and made me forget about time. Rush didn't have quite the same effect, and I did notice he was on screen for a smaller amount of time, but I still thought it was a good performance from a good actor.
I think the Academy felt ill at ease with the choice of the previous year's winner (Hunt - As Good As It Gets) where, really, Dench should have won it. Possibly an apology to Dench? The Academy possibly wanted to show that it wasn't as partisan as it truly is - Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny... Look at the nationality of all other nominees for that Oscar that year (though that Oscar is still shrouded in controversy). But really, Judy Dench is fantastic in anything. The same goes for Hopkins.
I can't really comment on Rush's performance in Shine. When I saw it, I was quite young and thought it thoroughly boring, but this is because at a young age you can't seriously appreciate a film of this kind.
Beatrice Sraight won a Best Supporting oscar for Network, and I think she was on the screen even less than Dench in Shakespeare.
"I've been smart; I recommend pleasant. You can quote me" - Elwood P. Dowd
[deleted]
[deleted]
To be perfectly honest, while Geoffrey Rush acted quite well, it was Ralph Fiennes who deserved the '96 Oscar for Best Actor, I studied both performances and just found Ralph's to be far more complete, it was more satisfying than Rush's performance was, and ultimately a superiour effort.
The Oscars once again stole the Oscar from Ralph Fiennes, after his spectacular supporting performance as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List and the fact he lost out the Best Supporting Actor award to some other chum.
The Oscars are political. In the case of Hopkins, who was previously mentioned, the studios pushed for him to be considered a leading player because they thought the performance was strong enough to win in whatever category it was nominated in, and the producers wanted the film to have the honor of sweeping the Picture, Director, Lead Actor, Lead Actress, and Writing awards (a feat only accomplished by "It Happened One Night" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" before and was almost accomplished by "American Beauty" -- another robbery).
Academy members can nominated roles in any category they want. Someone probably lobbied for Rush to be considered in the leading actor category (possibly Armin Mueller-Stahl, who played David's father and is a member of the Academy and who was pushing to be nominated in the supporting actor category -- perhaps not wanting the competition! He got the nomination but lost the win to Gooding). Or it's as simple as the ads that are run in the Hollywood trade papers that show the movie's ad and says "For Your Consideration" and then lists the people invovled in the movie the producer thinks are worthy of Oscars and what category they want them to be considered in. Also, more politics -- Harvey Weinstein lobbies hardcore for his movies to win Oscars, and that often causes some backlash -- they'll give him Oscars cuz he champions great movies, but enough people can hear him say "Ralph has this Oscar locked up!" and they'll turn on him and vote for an underdog. You're right -- Ralph Fiennes was something in that movie, and it's quite a feat to carry a three-hour movie, much less so that to serve as a 30-minute wraparound charicature of mental illness.
It's too bad too, cuz I think Geoffrey Rush is a brilliant actor -- he's one of my favorites. I think he deserved the 2000 Oscar that Russell Crowe won (that was for "Quills," where he was ingenious as the Marquis de Sade.
And the chump who took the Oscar from Ralph Fiennes in '93 was Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive."
Rush deserved his Oscar hands down. Besides, if he hadn't won Best Actor in 1996, they probably would have given it to Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire, which would have been a horrendous choice. So I'm delighted he won. Rush is one of the best actors in the world, so it's only fitting he won an Oscar at some point in his career. He was spectacular in Quills, as well as Lantana, Swimming Upstream, Elizabeth, Candy, Shakespeare in Love and The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, but Shine remains his crowning glory for me. A great performance.
shareHe was also fabulous as the Marquis de Sade:
share"Besides, if he hadn't won Best Actor in 1996, they probably would have given it to Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire"
God I hope not. I would hope they give it to Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade. I thought he'd be most deserving.
I think Rush should've won supporting actor. I wouldn't have minded him winning over cuba gooding, jr. Hopkins should've gotten Supporting over Jack Palance in City Slickers. And Forest Whitaker could've won Supporting over Alan Arkin, and they could've finally given Best Actor to the most deserving person in history, Peter O'Toole.
No, I think Rush deserved the Oscar for the best leading actor. He had just a few screentime, but his performance made me cry sometimes. Look at his face at the end of the movie, when there was a standing ovation after he'd finished the concert and was crying. I never forget this performance. One of the bests I've ever seen. And I think that Anthony Hopkins was also a leading actor, because he was the most important character of The Silence of the Lambs (I know that he's on the screen for twenty minutes).
shareYes, he probably should have won for Quills. The fact that he portrayed a disability also won much favour among the Academy judges. It was a pleasant role to watch, and unusual, but Rush never really had to push himself. It was atypical, distinct; so they went for it in the end, because it stood out.
37u47uyjnuu7y u34uwuji8kui7du7jmc edcu
I think the whole point here is that it's not "leading actor", but "actor in a leading role". And Rush's was a leading role.
___________________________________________________
"A right must exist independently of its exercise."
- Inside I'm Dancing
I think the whole point here is that it's not "leading actor", but "actor in a leading role". And Rush's was a leading role.
Right. So you answered your own question. The conclusion being that arguably nobody carries the whole film. Or, by that logic, all of them are. But they can't be all "the leading role". Usually the adult is, unless it's like Gloria Stuart in Titanic... You know what I mean, right? His part in the story is relevant enough for him to be considered the protagonist.
_________________
"A right must exist independently of its exercise."
- Inside I'm Dancing
Why does there necessarily have to be a leading role? Rush clearly portrays the main character; all I'm saying is it's arguable he does so in a supporting role (that of the middle-aged Helfgott). Like Atonement (2007) in which the main character, the protagonist, is Briony Tallis, but she's portrayed by three different actresses during the course of the narrative. The character is leading, the actresses are supporting. Same could be said of Shine.
shareI thought Geoferry Rush was perfect as his role. He talked really fast, but he sure did play his part well. Especially when he did his own stunt on the piano. That's a pice of art right there! :)
I think my friend in America got the Special Edition version and it shows him winning his Oscar. He definitely deserved it in my opinion! :)
Yeah on the American dvd over here it showed Geoferry Rush winning the award. It was in the extras on the other side of the disc.
R.I.P. Uncle Steve
[deleted]
And what about Nicole Kidman winning the Oscar for Best Leading Actress for The Hours? As far as I can recall there were three leading ladies in that film, and Julianne Moore, whose role is as important as Kidman's, received a Supporting Actress nom.
As for Geoffrey Rush's Oscar I think he deserved it, but perhaps I'd have preferred that Ralph Fiennes won it.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
Indiana Jones, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
[deleted]