Movies: What are the Biggest Oscar Snubs Ever?

[hototogisu]

Yeah, come to think of it, he's not in many scenes. I wonder how much screen time he had in the whole movie. Just looked it up. Apparently it was between 12 and 16 minutes. He certainly gave a memorable performance though. Great actor.

The lowest total screen time of any Best Actor/Actress winner in Academy history, I think.

Sometimes it's easy to forget that Silence of the Lambs is one of only 3 movies in the Oscars' history to sweep the 5 major awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay). It's not like its critical standing has deteriorated over time but it's kind of in a "lower tier" of modern American film classics it seems.

I guess so much of winning all 5 depends on your competition in a given year too. SotL's competition was JFK, Beauty and the Beast, Bugsy and Prince of Tides (speaking of snubs, Boyz in the Hood left off the Best Picture shortlist).


(The other 2 movies to sweep were It Happened One Night and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.)

 

[SettlementRichie10]

1. Well, other than the first 20ish? minutes of Saving Private Ryan the movie is bleh (typical Hollywood movie that tries too hard past the 'shock value' of the first part). I have never seen Shakespeare In Love.


2. Apocalypse Now dragged and dragged, Yeah it had good performances but it was far too long and boring by the end (I have tried to watch it many times and it is a bore). Kramer vs Kramer I remember watching and it kept entertained (many years ago when movies came on TV).


3. I am with you there.


4. Never seen The English Patient but I do not get the appeal of Coen Brothers movies (I have tried and while Fargo is 'ok' I do not get them).


5, Rocky was very good - perhaps it does not hold up but it deserved it at the time.


6. A Clockwork Orange is another that I do not get the appeal of (I know I am not artsy/film buff but outside of a few scenes it is a drag like most, actually all Kubrick films).



7. While Pulp Fiction and Shawshank are a couple of my favorite films ever, Pulp Fiction has very little appeal to the masses. Shawshank did but Forrest Gump had much more appeal.


Flame on....

You have the worst opinions.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Saving Private Ryans ending battle is as good as it gets. Preposterous.

 

[snowden]

The lowest total screen time of any Best Actor/Actress winner in Academy history, I think.

That would go to David Niven in Separate Tables in 1958 at 15 and a half minutes. But Hopkins' screen time is super short, though his presence hangs over the film the entire time.

 

[sully1410]

That would go to David Niven in Separate Tables in 1958 at 15 and a half minutes. But Hopkins' screen time is super short, though his presence hangs over the film the entire time.

That's not really acting though. Yes...his prefomance was great and it probably deserved an Oscar. ..in the supporting category.

 

[chaos4]

No Oscar ever for Irene dunne. Ridiculous. Capote was good, and Seymour great, but I liked phoenix for the oscar in walk the line.

 

[Langdon Alger]

That's not really acting though. Yes...his prefomance was great and it probably deserved an Oscar. ..in the supporting category.

But then we wouldn't have been able to see Jack Palance do push-ups on the stage

 

[hototogisu]

That would go to David Niven in Separate Tables in 1958 at 15 and a half minutes. But Hopkins' screen time is super short, though his presence hangs over the film the entire time.

Wikipedia has Niven at 23 minutes in Separate Tables, and 16 for Hopkins

He won the 1958 Academy Award for Best Actor for his role as Major Pollock in Separate Tables, his only nomination for an Oscar. Appearing on-screen for only 23 minutes in the film, this was the briefest performance ever to win a Best Actor Oscar, until Anthony Hopkins win for the 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs, which is a little over 16 minutes.

Some sites have 12 minutes for Hopkins but I think that only counts when he's visually on screen. 16 minutes includes voice-overs, phone calls, etc. So it also comes down to your definition of "time on-screen". Or something like that.

 

[KaylaJ]

There are no real rules as to what constitutes a lead v supporting actor when it comes in Oscars, mostly it is what the studio thinks will win.

Also, as noted Hopkins "screen time" is a bit questionable. A large part of Silence of the Lambs focuses on one character at a time with a build up instead of face to face on screen discussions. When Lecter & Clarice have their meetings you're focused on her reactions with her fear and her lack of self confidence (the camera is often showing his back). Even when he meets the Senator it takes like 30 seconds to roll him out and prop him up while they show her and her aides cautiously approaching.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Social Network and Goodfellas losing are two I'd say are snubs.

What did i miss in The Facebook Movie and why should I care?

 

[snowden]

Wikipedia has Niven at 23 minutes in Separate Tables, and 16 for Hopkins





Some sites have 12 minutes for Hopkins but I think that only counts when he's visually on screen. 16 minutes includes voice-overs, phone calls, etc. So it also comes down to your definition of "time on-screen". Or something like that.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I've always known my Oscar trivia that David Niven was the least amount of screen time. Google seems to bring up 15 and half mins too but I've not ever actually seen his performance. I don't know what they are counting as far as performance.

Normally I'm not a huge fan of small screen times for nominations but I'm okay with Hopkins and Judi Dench because nothing else that year was worth a **** and Judi was great in her 8 minutes. Viola Davis in Doubt is a great representation of small screen time but big impact. She should have won that year. I hate Ruby Dee being nominated for like 9 minutes because she adds nothing but a slap to American Gangster. Just a veteran nomination. There are others I've seen that just aren't that worthy. Kate Nelligan in The Prince of Tides has to be only like 20 minutes and she sucks.

The Oscars are funny.

 

[Langdon Alger]

What did i miss in The Facebook Movie and why should I care?

I saw the Social Network and thought it was ok, but nothing special. If that movie wins best picture, that must be a pretty weak year in film.

For those that liked it, what impressed you the most about it? What is that good, or was it just the best movie nominated in a weak field?

 

[BonMorrison]

For starters, thinking it's just a Facebook movie is very short-sighted as Facebook is just a backdrop for a much more thematically rich film. I personally hold The Social Network in extremely high regard. Everything from the acting to the writing to the direction I think is absolutely marvelous.

 

[Shareefruck]

I thought it was a very well strucured, artfully executed, thematically on point, accessible/entertaining, and relevant/insightful movie, which is more than I can say about 90% of the movies that win Oscars. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, or even that close to being the best movie of that year, but rather than thinking "if it wins an Oscar, it must be a weak year", I'd be thinking "Hey, shockingly, they actually picked a respectable movie this time. Every other year, they pick a weak movie in a year filled with good ones."

 

[Langdon Alger]

I thought it was a very well strucured, artfully executed, thematically on point, accessible/entertaining, and relevant/insightful movie, which is more than I can say about 90% of the movies that win Oscars. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, or even that close to being the best movie of that year, but rather than thinking "if it wins an Oscar, it must be a weak year", I'd be thinking "Hey, shockingly, they actually picked a respectable movie this time. Every other year, they pick a weak movie in a year filled with good ones."

Will people still be talking about the Social Network in 20 years?

 

[DaveG]

Will people still be talking about the Social Network in 20 years?

Depends on how relevant social media stays in those 20 years.

 

[Shareefruck]

Will people still be talking about the Social Network in 20 years?

Probably not on the strength of its quality alone (although I can see it being a social artifact)-- I doubt it will be remembered as a classic that film buffs will seek out or anything. But in my opinion, it's a helluva lot closer to being something that holds up in twenty years than anything nominated that year-- The King's Speech, 127 Hours, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, True Grit, or Winter's Bone.

 

[sully1410]

Probably not on the strength of its quality alone (although I can see it being a social artifact)-- I doubt it will be remembered as a classic that film buffs will seek out or anything. But in my opinion, it's a helluva lot closer to being something that holds up in twenty years than anything nominated that year-- The King's Speech, 127 Hours, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, True Grit, or Winter's Bone.

I would disagree about Inception. Winter's bone will be remembered as Jennifer Lawrence's coming out party...so it will probably be remembered as well.

 

[Shareefruck]

I would disagree about Inception. Winter's bone will be remembered as Jennifer Lawrence's coming out party...so it will probably be remembered as well.

I meant just being remembered for how good it is and not for extranneous connections to things..

I didn't think Inception was that good, personally.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

Will people still be talking about the Social Network in 20 years?

Barely anyone talks about this movie 6 years later, so I don't think it's gonna stand the test of time.

 

[sully1410]

I meant just being remembered for how good it is and not for extranneous connections to things..

I didn't think Inception was that good, personally.

I think your kind of in the minority about that personally. It was the first truly original idea that Hollywood has had in God knows how long.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think your kind of in the minority about that personally. It was the first truly original idea that Hollywood has had in God knows how long.

I'm sure that's true, but I'm not sure what I'm expected to do with that information. An original idea doesn't necessarily suggest a good movie.

For the record, I don't think it's bad or anything.

 

[sully1410]

I'm sure that's true, but I'm not sure what I'm expected to do with that information. An original idea doesn't necessarily suggest a good movie.

For the record, I don't think it's bad or anything.

I think we need to evaluate what makes a movie great tbh. You may not have thought it was great...but there are a lot of people out there that think it was. Does that not give it a better chance at being "timeless" than not?

 

[tacogeoff]

Will people still be talking about the Social Network in 20 years?

Nope bc the film was mediocre at best.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think we need to evaluate what makes a movie great tbh. You may not have thought it was great...but there are a lot of people out there that think it was. Does that not give it a better chance at being "timeless" than not?

I don't think the current perception or popularity of something of something can really be used as an argument for whether or not it will hold up in twenty years, though (That's almost completely counter to the question). It's a "we can't really know" type of question. All I can give is my own impression of how fundamentally strong it is (removed from everything that determines how well received it currently is) and would have to be in order to remain something that people would bother seeking out in the future. I don't think it makes sense for my opinion about that to have to be informed by what other people's opinions on the same thing currently are.