MovieChat Forums > Iris (2002) Discussion > Broadbent's Oscar

Broadbent's Oscar

posted 20 years ago by rayso85
28 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone recall if Jim Broadbent's Oscar win in 2001 was a shock, because it certainly surprised me. This was not because I considered his performance to be unworthy, but simply because he is not exactly the most high profile of actors and he is British, something which, if you'll pardon me for saying it, seems to have disadvantaged some talented performers down the years in their quest for Oscars - I'm thinking here along the lines of Richard Burton, Albert Finney, Peter O'Toole and the like. Was his win and upset and, coincidently, was the movie, Iris, well recieved in the USA?

[–] brendan2006 20 years ago

I dont think it came as a shock to me personally because he won the golden globe and I read alot of rave reviews for his performance.

[–] AutumnSF 20 years ago

It didn't surprise me either, because he is an amazing actor and I had seen his performance. The Oscars are not always right but they were about him. I also thought he was amazing in Gangs of New York. A very different role again from the one in Iris and Moulin Rouge.

[–] Josephine7 20 years ago

Yeah, I remember it surprising me a bit. I'm glad he won, I love him. :)

[–] xavrush89 20 years ago

...mostly becuase of the high visibility of his role in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, but also because of his nomination three years prior for Gods and Monsters. It seemed to be his time. My theory is that many of the older Academy members who voted did not see LOTR, or weren't as enamored with it as the target audience. (Plus, there were some old homophobes like Chuck Heston elligible for voting.)

Then again, there is often at least one surprise in the acting categories. I still remember Daniel Day Lewis's unexpected but well-deserved win, and Broadbent's was equally well-deserved. So this may have been simply a case of the general public in the U.S. not being aware of a film that had Hollywood insiders all abuzz, just like with My Left Foot.

That answers your other question too. The majority of Americans did not see the film, just as most of middle-America missed the outstanding My Left Foot.

Film list in profile: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2736980/boards/profile/

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xavrush89 20 years ago

Just because I was impressed with Ian, as I am with all of his performances I've seen, does not mean I worship at the altar of hobbits and elves. As a matter of fact, I do think the films are excellent, and was hoping they might displace the slightly overrated Godfather films at the top of the chart (but not Shawshank).

I also gave Iris a 10, and I hardly fit the profile of a typical LOTR enthusiast (you can check the films listed in my profile to verify).

[–] Tommy2towels 20 years ago

While I agree that Ian McKellan is an excellent actor, and of all his performances I have seen I have yet to be disappointed, calling the Godfather's Part I and II even slightly overrated, especially in regards to the 7 hours too long yawn that is the Lord of the Rings trilogy is like saying the Holocaust is slightly overrated as a genocidal tragedy.

Not only are the Godfather films a staple in regards to the history of cinema, but they also contain an intriguing story, fantastic acting, and beautiful images. With the exception of 45 minutes of eye candy found in the epic battles of each film, the Lord of the Rings trilogy (alongside with the conclusion of the Matrix) is probably one of the most over-hyped, disappointing cinematic events in recent years.

The film deserved its special effects oscars, and Howard Shore his score for Fellowship. But to give ROTK 11 oscars...just disgusting. Especially Annie Lennox and Jackson's piggie wife winning Best Original Song. While I have a personal preference to A Mighty Wind's "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow," I don't see how anyone with ears can sit there and say that Enya's moaning was better than the infinately better songs from Cold Mountain, The Triplette's of Bellville, or Mighty Wind.

Enough of my Oscar rant, these movies aren't all they're cracked up to be. And to put them on the level of the Godfather is like putting a comedian like Jimmy Fallon on the same level as Robin Williams, George Carlin, or Eddie Murphy.

[–] xavrush89 20 years ago

By "slightly overrated," I meant that, although they are excellent films, I am referring to their perch at the top IMDb's 250--above the best works by Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, Kurosawa, and Fellini just to name a few. I do not subscribe to the rule that one must believe these to be the absolute greatest films of all time in order to be a member.

Maybe I was being facetious when I suggested Jackson's films take the place of Coppola's at the top, but are you saying they (LOTRs) don't have "an intriguing story, fantastic acting, and beautiful images"?!? Maybe to some Jackson's vision of Middle Earth might not hold up to, say, a horse's head in a bed, but it does in my book.

PART II definitely deserved its Best Picture Oscar, yes, but of all time filmdom, I would put a few other achievements before it. And as for the original, yes it has Brando's outstanding performance, but I didn't think the story reached the depths and heights of Part II.

I am, however, in full agreement with you on the song, apart from the insult of Mrs. Jackson. I also agree with you on Jimmy Fallon.

[–] ticrafts 19 years ago

I think many of its oscars were undeserved. Best Adapted Screenplay? Please. The movie would literally have been as captivating if there were no dialogue. The editing was far from innovative as, in all honesty, was the direction. This movie shone like no other in its effects, and visuals, and it deserved all its accolades in the areas of costuming, art direction, makeup, etc. To call it much else other than visual spectacle I think is missing the point. It did not contribute a single literary element or narrative subtext that didn't come from Tolkien. As good as an adaptation is, I think it should be lauded as highly as LOTR was if it improves substantially upon, or at least presents new material than, the contributions from the book. "Return of the King" was a great filmed version of an inspired literary work.

[–] kekotampa23 20 years ago

Well, I think Ethan Hawke should have won that award, his role in Training DAy was magnificent. I think that if they hadn't given the oscar to D. Washington, Hawke would had an oscar in his pocket.

[–] stevecs 19 years ago

I think Broadbent should have won best Actor in a Leading Role and Ethan Hawke the Best Supporting. Would have made much more sense ot me that way... Denzel did not deserve it at all. Additionally, surely Judi Dench's performance in this film is far superior to Halle Berry's in Monster's Ball? Surely! It's ludicrous that she did not win the award.

[–] LizardKing84 19 years ago

As I remember it, a lot of people were expecting Ian McKellen to win for his portrayal of Gandalf.

I never saw this movie, but Broadbent probably was in it enough to justify a lead actor nomination. The academy has made some wrong classifications over the years (Anthony Hopkins' best actor-winning turn in Silence of the Lambs translated from only 20 minutes on screen).

Training Day seemed like complete trash to me and I did not even see it. I feel pretty sure of myself that Sean Penn should've won for I Am Sam.

As far as Judi Dench--I'm sure without even having seen Iris that she deserved the Oscar more than Halle Berry, who is really not a very good actress and makes a ton of awful movies anyhow. I was rooting for Sissy Spacek on Oscar night as I remember. Sometimes the Academy gives out bad decision Oscars, but usually people know when it's going to happen, e.g. Julia Roberts' role as Erin Brockovich was in no way more deserving of an Oscar than Ellen Burstyn's performance in Requiem for a Dream, but most people predicted Julia Roberts anyhow; I'm holding my breath that Natalie Portman doesn't get best supporting this year--c'mon Cate Blanchett (or anyone else for that matter).

[–] xxwinterfirexx 19 years ago

natalie portman is AMAZING in closer and i hope she wins.

[–] the_spanner85 19 years ago

Natalie Portman was brilliant in CLOSER; as I'm sure Cate Blanchett was in THE AVIATOR, which has yet to be released here. STAR WARS prequels aside, Portman's career has been very impressive. It's just she is too closely associated with Lucas's bad writing and mediocre direction of actors (his framing of a shot is fine) that her fine work elsewhere is easily overlooked. Besides, STAR WARS must have seemed a good idea back in 1998 when she signed on to the trilogy without seeing a script but trusting it would have the originals' quality.

Cheers,
The Spanner.

[–] lov3ablelos3r 19 years ago

Personally, I think he should have won for Moulin Rouge!. I thought his performance was terrific in Iris, but (NO I am not bias! I enjoyed the performance more!) I thought he was just better in the other. :D

Cheers!

[–] tomrobb 19 years ago

i love jim broadbent ever since i saw him in only fools and horses, he is a brilliant actor who like tom wilkingson saves every film he's in, but he should not have won that oscar, ben kingsly should've won it hands down for sexy beast, one of the best performances in years, he was ghandi for christ sake!

[–] Koranox 19 years ago

Broadbent was very good but I think McKellen should have won the Oscar for his unforgettable and majestic performance as Gandalf.

[–] ebersole 19 years ago

I was predicting Broadbent all season long, but I KNEW he was going to win it when he won the Globe. All the buzz was with Ben Kingsley, winning awards left and right, but the Globe still went to Broadbent. When McKellen won the SAG, a lot of fans and media types were vested with false hope that it would translate to an Oscar win. Following on from McKellen's SAG win, all the buzz shifted to him, and still, in the end, Broadbent won.

Also of note was the fact that Broadbent was THE supporting actor of 2001, backing not one but THREE Oscar-nominated leading ladies: Judi Dench in "Iris" (playing her husband), Nicole Kidman in "Moulin Rouge" (playing her employer), and Renee Zellweger in "Bridger Jones's Diary" (playing her father). Any Academy member watching the performances nominated for Best Actress would've come across him three times, so really his visibility in the AMPAS voting circle was through the roof, whereas the media and public didn't really know who he was (remember Joan Rivers asking him if he was Australian? Exhibit A.)

Dave

[–] dusan711 19 years ago

Well...technically Broadbent HAD won the majority of the precursor awards, including the Golden Globe which put him in front.

Ian McKellan was the one to beat...but Broadbent had the best reviews from critics and audiences...and really he deserved an oscar more than anyone that year in any category of acting. Moulin Rouge! also had something to do with it.

[–] anthropo 16 years ago

It was probably a shock to the general public but not to movie buffs. He was in 3 movies that year playing 3 completely different characters well. He deserved it.