I posted this in another thread, but I figured I'd start a new thread:

________________________________________________
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why Geena Davis won the Oscar for Accidental Tourist??? This is one Oscar win that I just don't understand. Was it because 1988 was a big year for her?

I watched Working Girl last week and I can't believe both Sigourney Weaver AND Joan Cusack (who were both outstanding) lost the Oscar to Geena Davis that year. Absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

I would've voted for Cusack.

"Six THOUSAND DOLLAS!!! It's not even leatha!"

_______________________________________________

Besides Davis' win, which other Oscars wins are puzzling? Also from 1988, I still can't explain Kevin Kline's win, although he actually DESERVED to win.

Thoughts?

I like Davis in AT myself, but would have voted for Cusack.

When two people from the same film are up against each other, each is a solid contender, each has a strong case for a win, then they can hurt each other. Weaver was due an Oscar (wasn't she also up and competitive for lead that year? had she been up for only one she might have won), to me at least Cusack was better, so there was confusion

Another poster said Weaver probably lost b/c she wasn't good at campaigning. But I have a feeling Weaver lost because people weren't sure which role she should win for. She had momentum for both roles since she won both Globes.

What do you make of Kevin Kline's win that year?

I think Kevin Kline benefited from weak competition.

River Phoenix was too young and too much of a tyro to win; Alec Guinness had won before and his movie was extremely long; and I don't recall being blown away by anything Martin Landau did.

In the end, it came down to Kline or Dean Stockwell (who, if memory served, was favored). 'A Fish Called Wanda' got nominations in other categories (namely Director and Screenplay), while 'Married to the Mob' had failed to get nominations for Best Actress (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Best Supporting Actress (Mercedes Ruehl).

So, at the end of the day, the choice was between a long time veteran and former child star on one hand and a well respected Broadway star in film that had a strong bench of support.

To my mind, that's how Kline prevailed.

I agree with Double D, this is my least favorite oscar win! If i had to choose i would have chosen Michelle Pfeiffer. I thought she was excellent in her role and deserved the BAFTA win. Sigourney Weaver would have been my second choice, i loved her i the role, but not enough.
My choice would have been:

1) Michelle Pfeiffer- Dangerous Liasons
2) Sigourney Weaver- Working Girl
3) Joan Cusack- Working Girl
4) Frances McDormand- Mississippi Burning
5) Geena Davis- The Accidental Tourist

Interesting fact -- Geena Davis and Kevin Kline's wins represent the last time that BOTH of the two Oscar winning Supporting players were neither nominated for a Golden Globe NOR did either one pick up a major film group's honors (NBR, NYFCC, LAFCC or NSFC).

Dean Stockwell deserved a nomination for Blue Velvet.

Great film. At least Lynch got a BD nomination.

My guess is Davis won because she

1. Brought some life to a rather dull film

2. Sigourney cancelled herself out with some votes for her going to Gorillas in the Mist instead.

3. She had a larger role than the Working Girl nominees and really only Pfeifer could compare with her screen time wise.

4. Cusack and Weaver split votes

5. The Accidental Tourist was nominated for Best Picture so it did have a lot of support somewhere.
I didnt think Davis was that bad, I watched her performance a couple weeks ago on Youtube, she was pretty fetching.

I think Sigourney should have won.

One Oscar win I dont get? Maureen Stapelton in Reds. People talk about several undeserving "career" Oscar wins but nothing compares to Stapelton winning for a mere forgettable cameo.

Jane Fonda winning for Coming Home is also unexplainable to me considering her competition.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FGTfan,

quote:

Originally posted by OnMyBirthday:
Interesting fact -- Geena Davis and Kevin Kline's wins represent the last time that BOTH of the two Oscar winning Supporting players were neither nominated for a Golden Globe NOR did either one pick up a major film group's honors (NBR, NYFCC, LAFCC or NSFC).

I'd love it if we go back to the days where the eventual Oscar winners weren't rubber stamped by precursor awards. We almost got that with Viola Davis this year.

Who was the last person to win an acting Oscar with little to no precursor attention?

Marcia Gay Harden really didnt get a lot of precurson attention. Her first major win came at NYFCC.

But you are right, the endles precursors have made the Oscars very dull as there a very few open races that develop. We are lucky if we get atleast 1 hot race a year now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FGTfan,

quote:

Originally posted by FGTfan:
One Oscar win I dont get? Maureen Stapelton in Reds. People talk about several undeserving "career" Oscar wins but nothing compares to Stapelton winning for a mere forgettable cameo.

Jane Fonda winning for Coming Home is also unexplainable to me considering her competition.

Stapleton's was a career Oscar. Nothing more.

Fonda won for "Coming Home" because of its ties to Vietnam. Plus, Fonda had finally undid the damage she did to her career in the early '70s. Had Ingrid Bergman not recently won her third Oscar, she probably could've beat Fonda that year.

quote:

Originally posted by FGTfan:
Marcia Gay Harden really didnt get a lot of precurson attention. Her first major win came at NYFCC.

But you are right, the endles precursors have made the Oscars very dull as there a very few open races that develop. We are lucky if we get atleast 1 hot race a year now.

But Swinton was nominated for every major precursor leading up to the Oscars...she just didn't win any critics' awards. By Oscar night, Swinton's win was a foregone conclusion.

I forgot about Marcia Gay Harden...yeah she'd count. After her NYFCC win, it seemed as if she fell out of the Oscar race thanks to her Globe/SAG snubs.

I remember being pretty surprised at Russell Crowe's Oscar win because he didn't win anything major leading up to the Oscars. He won the BFCA, but the BFCAs were still pretty new.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DoubleD,

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleD:

quote:

Originally posted by OnMyBirthday:
Interesting fact -- Geena Davis and Kevin Kline's wins represent the last time that BOTH of the two Oscar winning Supporting players were neither nominated for a Golden Globe NOR did either one pick up a major film group's honors (NBR, NYFCC, LAFCC or NSFC).

I'd love it if we go back to the days where the eventual Oscar winners weren't rubber stamped by precursor awards. We almost got that with Viola Davis this year.

Who was the last person to win an acting Oscar with little to no precursor attention?

The obvious answer is Marisa Tomei.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OnMyBirthday,

Sorry for typing Swinton, meant Marcia Gay Harden.

I dont think James Coburn was nominated for precursors when he won for Affliction.

The Oscar was the only American individual award of any note that Alan Arkin won for Little Miss Sunshine.

Coburn was SAG nominated for Affliction, Indie Spirit as well. No GG nomination.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by FGTfan:
Sorry for typing Swinton, meant Marcia Gay Harden.

I dont think James Coburn was nominated for precursors when he won for Affliction.

Coburn got both a SAG nod and an ISA nod.

Tomei is the only recent one I can find to have absolutely nothing prior to her Oscar win.

Tomei's "precursors" were a Chicago Film Critics' Association award for "Most Promising Actress" and an MTV Movie Award (handed out POST Oscar) for "Best Breakthrough."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OnMyBirthday,

quote:

Fonda won for "Coming Home" because of its ties to Vietnam. Plus, Fonda had finally undid the damage she did to her career in the early '70s. Had Ingrid Bergman not recently won her third Oscar, she probably could've beat Fonda that year.

I agree. The academy rushed to give Bergman her third (so she could keep up with Hepburn, not exactly sure why) and then were unable to give one to her again so they threw Fonda, who was an okay second in that race, a bone.

However, why the hell did Bergman win for "Murder on the Orient Express"? That is totally unexplainable unless the academy really thought she should be on par with Hepburn in terms of wins.

Coburn got a SAG nomination, but yes his Oscar win was kind of shocking, though he had the best clip on Oscar night.

I really don't think the voters said, hey, Bergman needs to have as many Oscars as Hepburn. Never heard that one before.

The members loved the movie, thought she was funny/different in it. It should have been, as Bergman said as she accepted, Valentina Cortese, but there was some reluctance, apart from her being in a French language film, to award her for a film that had won FL film the previous year and had been seen by most members a year or more earlier.

No kidding on Bergman for Murder.

That award should have gone to Madeline Kahn not just for Blazzing Saddles, but also for Young Frankenstein and how they totally screwed her the year before by nominating her co star Tatum O'Neal in supporting when she was in literally the entire movie.

Diane Ladd and Valentina Cortese would have also been worthy winners.

Talia Shire must have had a good campaign by Mr. Coppola to even get nominated.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FGTfan,