Nicole Kidman was awesome as Virginia Woolf in "The Hours" but Salma Hayek deserved the Academy Award for Best Actress. Think about it: How many more chances will Kidman have? Hmmm, let's see, "Cold Mountain" and "The Human Stain." How many more chances will Hayek have? None. This was Hayek's turn and the voters overlooked it.
shareYou make a very valid point. I hope that Salma will get another chance at the Oscar, because she has worked hard to get where she is(2003). She did so much to produce Frida and her other films and add director to her name as well. Salma is a visionary behind the cameras more so than Nicole Kidman. But then again, maybe Nicole will start to produce and direct.
Indeed, Salma may have some bad films to her credit only because the offers Salma Hayek probably receives are few and far between when compared to Nicole Kidman.
I think the Academy gave it to Nicole Kidman because they didn't want a backlash like last year(ie Halle Berry). Kidman is well liked, she has a lot of admirers. If Salma or anyone else besides Nicole had won, I think the winner would have been trashed by many Nicole admirers(very unfairly).
In any other year, Salma would have won hands down, she deserves it and worked hard to get where she is.
Okay maybe not hands down.
I think Kidman was, like, 2% better than Hayek. Kidman was more intelligent but Hayek was more moving.
[deleted]
Kidman won the Oscar because she was white, period. They had to make sure Kidman won after losing to Halle the previous year. America is still a racist hypocrisy. Salma's performance was far better then Kidman's.
share100% Agree
shareHollywood had to prove that there not racist. It sucked because Sean Peen deserved it for Actor but Washington got it and Kidman deserved it for Actrees but they gave it to Berry. And Kidman took the oscar from Hayek who deserved to win. Man sometimes the Oscars suck!!
"Your what Grammy Hall would call a real Jew" Annie Hall
I haven't watched The Hours but Hayek was just amazing in this movie.I used to think her as a glamour girl to add some spice to movies.But in this one she proved me wrong.I cant think of a better femele performNCE IN any movie.
share
They are difficult performances to compare because Woolf was in such bad shape, psychologically, and Kahlo is psychologically very strong and she's very wise at handling her life. But both characters rely heavily on a catharsis through art to stay afloat; both characters go through equally immense pain; both characters greatly love life, although their love of life eventually surrenders to their pain. Kidman had a quality of sort of pooling all her emotions into one quiet frustration of a scene which had a great effect. Hayek had this quality of burrowing deep within herself while still having her external world remainly perfectly clear which also had a great effect. The acting styles and characters are just so difficult to compare.
I also though Zellweger was good in Chicago: though most of Chicago's Oscar nods were for it's fluffy commercial appeal, I felt her nod was very deserved. It was very nice to see a comedic actor taking a character seriously for a change, and I admired her courage in tapping into such a monstrous part of herself, a part of us that most of us, I think, prefer to repress. Hayek and Kidman I think were a bit better than her, but I also really liked her performance. It was very good "Best Actress In A Lead Role" year for the Oscars.
I haven´t seen The hours yet, and honestly I was surprised with Salma´s acting in Frida, I live in México and I used to see her many years ago as any other actress in this country, not really talented, just a "pretty face" and a perfect body, I think that she was specially inspired to make this movie because she never acted like this before. And yes maybe she deserved the Oscar better than kidman, but I think that the Oscars are really manipulated in this days...
shareSalma Hayek has two important Oscar chances next year: Paint, directed by Robert Altman and Ask the Dust, co starring Colin Farrell.
Salma was awesome, but I really don't think she was better than Nicole Kidman in The Hours. She was the same level than Renee Zellweger in Chicago. I havent seen Far From Heaven neither Unfaithful.
Kidman's performance in The Hours was okay wasn't great or special. Salma became Frida and she deserved that Oscar. Salma probably knew though since she is a Mexican actress that they would of course give the Oscar to the white actress Kidman. Kidman did not deserve that Oscar but Hollywood is racist what else is new.
shareKidman did NOT deserve it for Moulin Rouge!. She got completely shafted for The Others.
Hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Emmy Rossum
Also, Jamie Fox took the oscar for his performance as Ray Charles from Joaquin Phoenix for his performance as Johnny Cash. I saw both films and think Joaquin deserved it more than Jamie Fox. Joaquin did it all, his look, his voice, his singing and his guitar playing, all this aside from his acting abilities. Yes, Joaquin did learn to play guitar for the role.
shareThe Oscars is nearly always giving Oscars to the wrong people - Gyweneth paltrow anyone??!!! But here I think they genuinly had a tough choice. Both Salma and Nicole were playing very well known historian feminists. I personally didn't like the film The Hours and I loved Frida, so I would have chosen Salma but hey. That doesn't mean that Nicole was bad. Conclusion? either way. 50/50 chance of winning.
shareGoing along with one of the previous posters...
Everyone knew that Nicole should have won for Moulin Rouge! but because Halle Berry was the first black woman blah-blah blah she won the award. The Acadamy gave it to Kidman the next year because they knew they had cheated her out of it last year.
I agree, though... Salma should have won. She was brilliant.
It's Hollywood.
Kidman is a movie star.
Hayek is an actress.
I am watching "Frida" right now and she is awesome.
Hayek has one thing working against her: she is so amazingly beautiful.
But she and Molina are doing a great job here.
Terrific movie.
i agree that nicole should have won for moulin rouge. i gave up watching the oscers a long time ago, they never seem to go to the the right people at the right time. i loved both the Hours and frida but honistly Salma should have won.
shareWell I think its disgraceful of the Academy to have taken over 74 years prior to Berry winning the Oscar! And what about Oprah Winfery and Whoopi Golberg for the Color Purple, 11 Oscar nominations and zero victories that year! So yes Hollywood is racist and so is the elite Academy of voters.
shareHollywood is pretty much set in it's ways and it shows it's true colours with injustices, such as the one done to Salma.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with you 100%. I can't believe I waited this long to see this movie! I watched it last night and was enthralled. I loved Nicole Kidman in "The Hours" which I saw when it first came out, but, after seeing Salma Hayek in "Frida" there is no doubt in my mind she should have won the academy award for best actress. She was amazing.
shareI thought both actresses did a fantastic job portraying two amazingly talented but troubled artists. I'd have had a very hard time deciding the winner if I were on the Oscar committee. Still, I'll bed Salma Hayek will have another chance soon; she's too great not to.
share>Still, I'll bed Salma Hayek
Interesting slip!
You can say that again! As a fan of both films I would pick Salma in Frida over Nicole in the The Hours. As an artist I really feel that Salma cared more about the role than Kidman did. I don't know Kidman but I really do think that this was another role for her. Salma put her heart and soul into this role and what does she get? An Imagen award. No Oscar, no Golden Globe. Kidman to me only had one or two good scenes in the whole film. Hayak was good throughout the film and had so many great scenes.
I don't like to pull out the race card, but you have to agree that if she was white that she probably would of won. It so unfair and stupid.