MovieChat Forums > A Dangerous Method (2011) Discussion > Keira Knightley got robbed by the Oscars

Keira Knightley got robbed by the Oscars

posted 12 years ago by Felonious-Punk
60 replies | jump to latest

(Possible spoilers)

Seriously, the almost complete lack of award recognition combined with the trash people talk on this board doesn't reflect well for the people involved. If you know anything about acting, Knightley gave up a lot to that role. The opening scenes were gut-wrenching, and as the movie progressed we could feel her madness subsiding even while her heartbreak was driving her crazy in a different way. It was intense! I just can't stand it when an actor has crafted this wonderful gift of a performance and audiences throw it back without even realizing that she transformed into a Russian Jew, a sexually abused virginal mental patient, a psychoanalyst, a woman on the side, a woman reborn, a rival, a returner to her bad ways, and a wise but wistful woman. Dude!!! You can't ask more from an actor! There's nothing more to give than that! Ugh!

And for the record, I noticed Anna Paquin, Mia Wasikowska, and Olivia Colman also got robbed out of nominations. Pitiful!

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/list/2dvIwYpAmd4/

[–] samanthabirchxo 12 years ago

Agreed. I was completely engulfed in her performance.

“Où sont les ad men d’antan?”

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Felonious-Punk 12 years ago

I respect your opinion, but are you sure you mean "at its worst"? That seems like a little over-REacting. Also, I hope you're taking into account that she was playing a woman who had severe psychological problems that manifested in very violent, physical ways. I mean, an actor can't exactly play that all in her head. But I'm grateful that you responded because it helped me realize that it was a very physical performance, in line with Lilian Gish's 1919 performance in "Broken Blossoms". I think that type of acting might not be the funnest to watch, it's kind of excruciating, but I don't think you can say it's not honest. Right?

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/list/2dvIwYpAmd4/

[–] rudykawa 12 years ago

I think your comparison was not good.
Lillian Gish was from a time of silent movies. Silent movies requires a more expressive acting, even in serious movies.
In a talking movie, overacting in both actions and voice starts to feel unconfortable.

Unless it's intentional, like normally in most comedies or musicals.

But when there's overacting in a "serious" movie, or vice-versa (a caricature movie played by actors that shows desconfort in playing this kind of characters, ex: Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet), than I tend to think it didn't reached it's potential.

[–] pemberlee 12 years ago

I thought keira knightley was good. Honestly, the oscar nominations this year are really piss poor, if we are going to talk about who got robbed...at the top of the list is michael fassbender for shame--as a whole between Jane Eyre, xmen, dangerous method and shame--what other actor could have handled all those roles believably? George Clooney? Gimme a break---I like him--but hes the same in every movie. Viggo Mortenson should have gotten a nod for supporting actor as Freud. And, Ryan Gosling also put out amazing performances in three films this year and was shut out. Carey Mulligan in either Drive or Shame should have received a nod for supporting actress. I think Keira Knightley is so well known in other films that her playing such a drastically "out of character" role for her, through people off, if she were less known, I think her performance would have been more heralded. A Dangerous Method and Shame, are two of my top films of 2011--yet they chose to nominate "extremely close and incredibly loud" for best picture which has gotten terrible reviews...whats wrong with the oscars this year? Grr!

[–] Myssi from McF 12 years ago

True, I also found it as over-acting. Like clearly said in Tropic Thunder:

Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.

Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?

Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...

[–] Felonious-Punk 12 years ago

Great reference, and an interesting point. I think I personally like "full retard". Check out "She's So Lovely" where all 3 leads go full retard, not literally, but they give really physical performances. Also "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and the title actor in "Psycho" (1960). They could all be thought of as over-acting. But they're really all masterpieces of performance.

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/list/2dvIwYpAmd4/

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ziko-metal 12 years ago

"I thought it was overacting at it's worst."
yes she overacted as she did in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. the acting as a metal patient was really awful.

[–] solmaquina 12 years ago

She totally Nicolas Caged her performance, but it wasn't in a fun, campy enviornment for me to enjoy it ironically.

Plus the accent was off-puttingly awful.

Tilda Swinton was robbed of a nomination at this year's Oscars. Knightley, not so much.

Art is a lie that tells the truth.

http://twitter.com/solmaquina

[–] The-ManWithNoName 12 years ago

Ha,...that's kind of funny..... And I agree

[–] Blitzerg 12 years ago

the score particularly was snubbed of a nomination as well imo. it was great. i also agree that Knightly should have gotten nominated. how is it that Jonah Hill and Brad Pitt get nominated for the atrocious Moneyball and she doesnt? pathetic. overall i am super disappointed in the Oscars this year.

"Long live the new flesh."

[–] kovyvok 12 years ago

There's one thing Knightly could have done right in this movie... take her clothes off. And she even got that wrong. And you want to talk about an Oscar? There is something seriously wrong with you.

[–] irenya 12 years ago

I'm quite in two minds about her performance, actually.
I think she played the first part perfectly. She was over the top, but that's exactly what hysteria was in those days. I read lots of people here complaining about how "exaggerated" she was, but they say that from a 21st century point of view. Clearly, that's not what Cronenberg wanted. Instead, he chose to depict the full blown picture of a mentally ill woman in the early 20th century.
Whether or not his decision was the wisest is a different thing. I think that maybe a more subdued approach might have worked better.

I found her performance on the second part of the movie way too restrained, nearly wooden at times. It's as if Keira couldn't find a way to display "normal" emotions. In some lines ("don't you love me anymore?") she sounds nearly like a school girl in a school play. She's clearly at her best when discussing more academic topics, but all the more emotional parts seemed quite off to me.

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

It looks the same in the 21st Century. Someone I loved came down with it, and everyone thought she was joking--until she kicked the crap of them.

[–] lepper-1 12 years ago

Disagree with OP. She mugged and gurned her way through the film and her crappy accent didn't help matters(seriously, the swiss and austrians don't have face accents, why does the russian need one?). I thought her performance was the weakest part of a wholly unexceptional film.

The rain was coming down like all the angels in heaven had decided to take a piss at the same time.

[–] Shot18 12 years ago

(seriously, the swiss and austrians don't have face accents, why does the russian need one?)

If you think about it for more than a second it's fairly obvious why that choice was made.

[–] SampanMassacre 12 years ago

No she didn't. She was awful. When she jutted out her jaw she resembled a hammy gazelle having a seizure. It was so painful to watch.

[–] Felonious-Punk 12 years ago

Okay, her features distract you from the movie and her performance. That's fair enough. But I don't think that means she didn't turn in a great performance. In fact, her prominent jaw used to turn me off in her earlier roles and interviews, so when I saw this movie and how she didn't hide it or try to minimize its prominence, but rather emphasized it and used it as an extra limb of emotion, I was floored. Bravo! She didn't choose that body, but she sure used that body! And now she's even more attractive in my eyes. There's nothing like a person finding that inner confidence and going smack up against that old reliable tidal wave of criticism. I bow down.

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/list/2dvIwYpAmd4/

[–] grindovermatter 12 years ago

Fassbender, Knightley, and Mortensen all handed in the 3 best performances of the year, and the fact that none of them were even nominated just shows how out of touch the Oscars are.