Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Why'd Bette Davis only get two Oscars?

and they aren't even for her most famous films....

by Anonymousreply 6105/04/2013

OP, we've been over this before. Do try to keep up.

by Anonymousreply 105/03/2013

Why did Katharine Hepburn win 4?

Did Bette Davis and Joan Crawford really hate each other?

Why was Judy Garland robbed of her Oscar for A Star is Born?

by Anonymousreply 205/03/2013

She got robbed for All About Eve!

by Anonymousreply 305/03/2013

I lost my notes r1....

by Anonymousreply 405/03/2013

In my opinion, Davis should have won at least four: Of Human Bondage, Jezebel, All About Eve, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. If I wanted to be extra generous, I'd throw in one for Now, Voyager. She is perfection in all of the above films.

by Anonymousreply 505/04/2013

What r5 said! I totally agree!

by Anonymousreply 605/04/2013

I thought "Jezebel" was pretty well-known, OP. "Dangerous", not so much, no.

by Anonymousreply 705/04/2013

That cunt made up for it in Dicks.

by Anonymousreply 805/04/2013

Did she stand a chance at winning for Baby Jane? Anne Bancroft is good in The Miracle Worker but I'd rather they had waited and given it to her for The Graduate.

by Anonymousreply 905/04/2013

Not Baby Jane. Replace that one with "The Letter".

by Anonymousreply 1005/04/2013

[quote]Why did Katharine Hepburn win 4?

Because I was better than Meryl will ever be.

Click click click.

by Anonymousreply 1105/04/2013

Of all the nominations Bette lost, she most thought she was going to win for 'Baby Jane'. It seemed to be the one she most regretted not getting.

by Anonymousreply 1205/04/2013

Hepburn deserved Oscars for Alice Adams (definitely NOT Morning Glory), The Philadelphia Story, and The Lion In Winter. Certainly not for the mawkish Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and the overly sentimental Golden Pond.

by Anonymousreply 1305/04/2013

Bette lived like another 35 years without a nomination after Baby Jane.

by Anonymousreply 1405/04/2013

Bette deserved Oscars for The Letter and All About Eve. Jezebel yes. Dangerous, that was really a make-up Oscar for her losing for Of Human Bondage.

by Anonymousreply 1505/04/2013

I think her performance in The Little Foxes was worthy as well, even with the ghoulish make-up.

by Anonymousreply 1605/04/2013

Bette's biggest Oscar nomination snub was for Burnt Offerings.

by Anonymousreply 1705/04/2013

Cause she isn't as good as me.

by Anonymousreply 1805/04/2013

I think she should have gotten an Oscar nomination for "The Corn Is Green".

Odd that the Oscar nominations for that film went to the Supporting Actress and Actor, but not her.

by Anonymousreply 1905/04/2013

To answer OP's question, concisely: political reasons.

Katharine Hepburn was one of the worst actresses of all time, she didn't deserve a single Oscar.

by Anonymousreply 2005/04/2013

Political reasons … along with incredible competition.

The 1962 best-actress Oscar race was a great example. None of them would have been a poor decision.

The quality was so much better then. Now it's a medicore that Daniel Day-Lewis has three best-actors in part because he didn't have strong enough competition with two of his winning years (2007, 2012).

by Anonymousreply 2105/04/2013

Davis should've won three Oscars for: "Of Human Bondage", "Jezebel" and "All About Eve".

[quote]Political reasons … along with incredible competition.

Davis' first win had reasonable competition, her second didn't.

[quote]The 1962 best-actress Oscar race was a great example. None of them would have been a poor decision.

Hepburn was awful, as per usual. Davis didn't deserve a nomination for "Baby Jane". Crawford would've been more deserving of a nomination for "Baby Jane", than Davis.

The Best Actress category is really an embarrassment nowadays.

by Anonymousreply 2205/04/2013

How'd Anne Baxter get in to the lead actress race for Eve?

by Anonymousreply 2405/04/2013

Because we're old, bitter and haven't been laid since Carter was president.

by Anonymousreply 2505/04/2013

Ah OK. Understand.

by Anonymousreply 2605/04/2013

What do you mean "only" two? Some people can't even get one, dammit!

by Anonymousreply 2705/04/2013

She insisted to be put in lead R24, in keeping with her character and thus splitting the vote and allegedly robbing poor Bette.

But who cares, neither were as good as me.

by Anonymousreply 2805/04/2013

And yet, you still didn't win did you Gloria.

by Anonymousreply 2905/04/2013

I don't think anyone voted for Anne over Bette. I loved Judy in Born Yesterday...

by Anonymousreply 3005/04/2013

The movie is called All About Eve, not All About Margo. Eve is the eponymous heroine.

And Eve is the larger role, with more screen time. Anne Baxter could not logically have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

What's crazy is Anne Baxter being nominated for anything.

by Anonymousreply 3105/04/2013

The part of the movie Bette is barely in movie, She's almost written out like poor Birdie...

I think Anne was very good in movie...

by Anonymousreply 3205/04/2013

last

by Anonymousreply 3305/04/2013

R31, it's true that the name of Ann Baxter's character was in the title, but that's not always a guarantee. Does anyone remember the name of whoever played the title character in "The Trouble with Harry"? ("Weekend at Bernie's" is a more recent example, but I don't remember that entire movie.)

by Anonymousreply 3405/04/2013

Cause she can't act.

by Anonymousreply 3505/04/2013

But she could before she died, R35.

by Anonymousreply 3605/04/2013

[quote]The movie is called All About Eve, not All About Margo. Eve is the eponymous heroine.

Oh please. though in this case you are right because there is no doubt Eve Harrington is a protagonist, the title character is not to be used as the marker.

by Anonymousreply 3705/04/2013

Yeah. I assumed the reason many performances with low screen time were put in lead was cause they were the title character.

[quote]The quality was so much better then. Now it's a medicore that Daniel Day-Lewis has three best-actors in part because he didn't have strong enough competition with two of his winning years (2007, 2012).

That's cause with the exception of Viggo the 07 nominees were pitiful, despite it being a very strong year with many great performances.

Again in 2012 early buzz fave John Hawkes tremendous performance left out in favour of lesser actors and Joqauin Phoenix was just as strong (though unrealistic and not Academy friendly).

Amongst actors though DDL was always going to be the one who got 3, he also had Gangs of New York which lost due to a split vote and for once there was a surprise winner.

by Anonymousreply 3805/04/2013

[quote] The movie is called All About Eve, not All About Margo.

Vanessa Redgrave won a supporting actress Oscar for playing the title character in "Julia."

Elliot Gould and Dyan Cannon were nominated for supporting actor Oscars for playing 2 of the title characters in "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice".

It's not about the title.

by Anonymousreply 3905/04/2013

No one watching "All About Eve" could possibly walk away thinking that movie was 'about' Eve Harrington. Eve was a catalyst for the action, but the movie was about Margo Channing. It is her story, start to finish.

by Anonymousreply 4005/04/2013

That is a matter of opinion, r40.

by Anonymousreply 4105/04/2013

I am 40 years old and have had to look up 75% of the people mentioned on this thread. What age are you guys?

by Anonymousreply 4205/04/2013

[quote]Yeah. I assumed the reason many performances with low screen time were put in lead was cause they were the title character.

Not always the case. Not even a rule of thumb.

Julia

The Accidental Tourist

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

How I Met Your Mom

Saving Private Ryan

Dr. No

Goldfinger

Octopussy

Tron

Waiting for Godot

Chasing Amy

The Third Man

The Hudsucker Proxy

The Big Lebowski

The Lord of the Rings

Rosemary's Baby

Dr. Strangelove

Cookie's Fortune

Throw Momma From the Train

Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence

To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar

and...

...The Wizard of Oz

by Anonymousreply 4305/04/2013

"The Great Lie" (1941) was recently on TCM -- Davis & Mary Astor -- Astor won the Oscar for Supporting Actress, deservedly -- Davis should have won one too, either in a tie with Astor or as Best Actress.

"In This Our Life" (1942) was also recently shown on TCM -- Davis & Olivia de Havilland -- no Oscars -- they should have tied for Best Actress.

Davis definitely should have won for "The Little Foxes" & "The Letter" -- & "Old Acquaintance" (1943), Davis & Miriam Hopkins.

by Anonymousreply 4405/04/2013

Hepburn may have been overrated, but her performance in LONG DAY'S JOURNEY is worth 4 Oscars by itself.

by Anonymousreply 4505/04/2013

R43 what do you think about Fargo? That is the most extreme example I can think of, but since she was the female character and the story revolved around her/she had a big effect on it = lead? I never get this. The Silence of the Lambs on the other hand, yes.

by Anonymousreply 4605/04/2013

R42 you'd be surprised, honestly. There are people who are like 12 and major film buffs and know all this old shit and saw thousands of films and most of the film buffs are Oscar loons.

I'm not an expert on Golden Age at all and am more into post 70s stuff, but cause of my interest in Oscars know all the names, even if I haven't seen all the films. I get where you're coming from though and I'm younger than you.

by Anonymousreply 4705/04/2013

r43, the majority of the names in your film titles aren't even characters in those films, so you haven't really made your point.

by Anonymousreply 4805/04/2013

No, R48/R41/R31, [italic]you're[/italic] wrong.

by Anonymousreply 4905/04/2013

Her sttitude might have put the academy off.

by Anonymousreply 5005/04/2013

[quote]the majority of the names in your film titles aren't even characters in those films, so you haven't really made your point.

REALLY?!

I can count at least 10 that were characters in the film.

You're an idiot who just enjoys being a contrarian. What a surprise in DL.

by Anonymousreply 5105/04/2013

"The name of this picture is HELLO, DOLLY, not HELLO, WALTER."

by Anonymousreply 5205/04/2013

R43 is just a List Queen.

by Anonymousreply 5305/04/2013

I think Bette Davis, while admired by much of the Academy, was not particularly liked by much of the Academy. (Ditto Judy Garland.) This would explain Davis' failure to win more than two Oscars. Davis also had the reputation, like Streisand, of telling the director how to direct. Male members of the academy definitely do not appreciate this in a woman.

Hepburn intimidated other actors with her extroverted, mannish personality and intelligence. People were in awe of her and so voted her awards she didn't deserve.

Garland was 'punished' by the Academy for her drug habit even though she was obviously the best actress of 1954.

by Anonymousreply 5405/04/2013

True, R54. Although I have to dispute this:

[quote]Garland was 'punished' by the Academy for her drug habit even though she was obviously the best actress of 1954.

I don't think she was being punished for her drug habit per se, but rather for her bad behavior, (even if it was partly drug induced). Her unprofessionalism burnt bridges, and she shouldn't have been rewarded for such.

Nor, do I think she was the Best Actress of 1954; I thought she was hammy and miscast. I would even go as far as to say, it's one of the most overrated performances in cinema history.

by Anonymousreply 5505/04/2013

And yet Steve Spielberg says Garland's ASIB one of the greatest performances in screen history. And he's one of the biggest Hollywood directors of all time.

by Anonymousreply 5605/04/2013

[quote]And yet Steve Spielberg says Garland's ASIB one of the greatest performances in screen history. And he's one of the biggest Hollywood directors of all time.

Would you like to have a serious discussion about Garland's performance in "A Star Is Born", R56? Or is everything Spielberg says fact and not up for discussion?

by Anonymousreply 5705/04/2013

It's a shame ASIB had that scene at the Oscars! I saw it recently and LOVED it, not just Garland but Mason was amazing and happened to be in the worst possible year.

Nonetheless, I wish they had and would cut it back down to its old edit, those still insertions made you pull your hair out and stopped it dead. The musical numbers were shockingly blah as well for a musical, a bit of that could also be cut. But luckily it was mostly James n Jude.

Btw, was the award in Eve a metaphor for an Oscar rather than some theatre award? ASIB made a big deal of getting the rights to the Academy Awards, I'm sure it was referred to in previous pictures cause it was ALWAYS a big deal.

by Anonymousreply 5805/04/2013

Where did I say that everything Spielberg says is fact and not up for discussion? I gave him as an example of the many, many instances you can find of Hollywood actors and directors who think Garland's performance is excellent in ASIB. I love Judy and think her ASIB is very good--definitely the best of the year--but I also acknowledge that it could have been better. I am perhaps one of the few who thinks that Cukor was not the best choice for the film. I think he made a film that drags, is overly long, and he lets Judy get away with some tics and mannerisms that a director who was more of a taskmaster, such as William Wyler, wouldn't have let her get away with. I think WYler would have made a better film. But in terms of being real and giving a no-holds barred performance, Judy did that and deserved the Oscar, IMO.

by Anonymousreply 5905/04/2013

I think Judy was much better in I COULD GO ON SINGING than she was in ASIB.

She doesn't have to cover every single showbiz trope in one picture; she's more relaxed as a result of it. She doesn't have to be an ingenue, she can be what she was - a middle-aged star.

Her hospital scene is what the backstage scene at the end of STAR should have been and what Cuckor obviously wanted.

The songs are better too, and more suited to Judy. Well, except "The Man that Got Away."

by Anonymousreply 6005/04/2013

[quote]And yet Steve Spielberg says Garland's ASIB one of the greatest performances in screen history. And he's one of the biggest Hollywood directors of all time.

[quote]Where did I say that everything Spielberg says is fact and not up for discussion? I gave him as an example of the many, many instances you can find of Hollywood actors and directors who think Garland's performance is excellent in ASIB.

Fair enough. But this, I disagree with:

[quote]And yet Steve Spielberg says Garland's ASIB one of the greatest performances in screen history. [bold]And he's one of the biggest Hollywood directors of all time[/bold].

Just because someone successful says something doesn't necessarily make it true. Just as say, Kristen Stewart being an A-list actress doesn't make her a good actress. Success and quality are two (oft different) things.

[quote] I love Judy and think her ASIB is very good--definitely the best of the year--but I also acknowledge that it could have been better. I am perhaps one of the few who thinks that Cukor was not the best choice for the film. I think he made a film that drags, is overly long, and he lets Judy get away with some tics and mannerisms that a director who was more of a taskmaster, such as William Wyler, wouldn't have let her get away with. I think WYler would have made a better film. But in terms of being real and giving a no-holds barred performance, Judy did that and deserved the Oscar, IMO.

I agree, the movie is overwrought and overlong. Cukor usually got such great performances from his leading ladies, but not in this case, so perhaps Wyler would've be better.

by Anonymousreply 6105/04/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.