Did any of you Oscar buffs watch the Emmys last night?
Did anyone notice how a lot of the acting nominees didn't even attempt to put on a fake smile when they lost? The supporting nominees were especially good at this. Kevin Dillon was visibily p!ssed when he lost Best Supporting Comedy Actor to Jon Cryer. And Vanessa Williams wasn't too thrilled when she lost Supporting Comedy Actress to Kristen Chenowith. You'll see this throughout the evening as they hand out the acting awards.
A lot of us have watched those Oscar clips from the old days and the losers didn't even bother putting on a "gracious loser face." In recent years, awards nominees have gotten so much better at putting on their "gracious loser faces." But it looks like we may be going back to the good ole days where acting nominees didn't care. If they lost a major industry award, they let their true feelings show.
The Emmys are considered low-rent compared to the Oscars, have only a fraction of the world-wide view. People behave differently at the Oscars.
The split screen for the Oscars only started in the 70s sometime as I recall. Since then, the only time I can recall a non-winner looking visibly upset was James Mason (supp actor). Denholm Elliott (also supp actor) I also recall not being able to contain his disappointment.
Originally posted by seanflynn: The split screen for the Oscars only started in the 70s sometime as I recall. Since then, the only time I can recall a non-winner looking visibly upset was James Mason (supp actor). Denholm Elliott (also supp actor) I also recall not being able to contain his disappointment..
Really?
I clearly remember Denzel Washington and Kathy Bates' sour pusses during some of the years they lost.
As long as the losing nominees are respectful, I don't have a problem with the "non-gracious loser face." There's no need to be fake about it.
Ha ha! I remember seeing Kevin Dillon's reaction last night. Chandra Wilson also seemed a little upset (if my memory stands correct) when she lost in her Supporting Actress category, but was happy in her Lead Actress category.
There will always be the ones who put on a smile and there will always be the ones who won't. In the end, "it's just an honor to be nominated," right?
2010 Oscars FYC:
Lead Actor - Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days of Summer Lead Actress - Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire Original Screenplay - Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, (500) Days of Summer
Posts: 4932 | Location: Why Do You Want To Know? | Registered: November 21, 2006
I mean nothing should really shock me anymore but watching these reactions were surprising because, yeah, the nominees do put some effort in masking their dissappointment of losing in their respective category. I'm all for honesty, mind you, but some graciousness does count nowadays. It was almost like a Kanye moment for all of these people.
Posts: 5431 | Location: "Stay Classy San Diego!" | Registered: June 15, 2006
Originally posted by seanflynn: Not going to happen.
The Emmys are considered low-rent compared to the Oscars, have only a fraction of the world-wide view. People behave differently at the Oscars.
The split screen for the Oscars only started in the 70s sometime as I recall. Since then, the only time I can recall a non-winner looking visibly upset was James Mason (supp actor). Denholm Elliott (also supp actor) I also recall not being able to contain his disappointment.
Can't think of any others offhand.
Diane Ladd looked ****ed in 1990 but especially in 1991. Lauren Bacall was clearly rattled in 1996. But I can't really remember any others since then.
I must say Vanessa looked like kind of a priss refusing to join in with the glasses joke last night.
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Originally posted by seanflynn: Not going to happen.
The Emmys are considered low-rent compared to the Oscars, have only a fraction of the world-wide view. People behave differently at the Oscars.
The split screen for the Oscars only started in the 70s sometime as I recall. Since then, the only time I can recall a non-winner looking visibly upset was James Mason (supp actor). Denholm Elliott (also supp actor) I also recall not being able to contain his disappointment.
Can't think of any others offhand.
Diane Ladd looked ****ed in 1990 but especially in 1991. Lauren Bacall was clearly rattled in 1996. But I can't really remember any others since then.
I must say Vanessa looked like kind of a priss refusing to join in with the glasses joke last night.
I read somewhere that Vanessa not joining was actually part of the joke.
Posts: 507 | Location: space | Registered: April 28, 2003
I must say Vanessa looked like kind of a priss refusing to join in with the glasses joke last night.
Chenoweth reported backstage that William's "No" was part of the joke(and probably a nod to the character she was nominated for playing).
I think it's different for the emmys than for the Oscars. At the emmys, you have people like Sandra Oh who lose year after year after year despite being honored by the Globes, the SAGs, and for some the TCA. It's hard sitting there year after year and hearing that you didn't win. That doesn't happen at the Oscars(unless you're Peter O'Toole or Streep), since getting nommed 3 times in a row is rare(has it ever even happened for an actor). They have time for their wounds to heal before their next nom.
And, I think the Oscars have less suprises(at least in recent years) than the emmys. So nominees like this year's Brad Pitt, Hoffman, Shannon, Brolin, and Henson knew they didn't have a chance to win since they go to a ton of these within the span of a few months and hear the same name over and over again.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: G.Penn,
I feel bad for people at the Emmy's like Hugh Laurie or Vanessa Williams who are nominated every year and never win, despite oftentimes winning Golden Globe, SAG or other critics awards and then get crucified in the press for having supposedly "sour faces".
Praying The Daytime Emmys air on TV in 2010!
Posts: 20050 | Location: just outside Providence, Rhode Island | Registered: July 28, 2002
Having a sour face doesn't mean one is a sore loser. It is understandable when one has prepared and rehearsed a thank-you speech in the hope of getting to use it, and then end up not getting to do so. And it becomes worse when the losing becomes a streak. For the Oscars, however, being nominated is already an achievement, so that becomes consolation for those who do not win.
Posts: 873 | Location: Singapore | Registered: February 22, 2005
Here's a novel idea - Why don't the Oscars and the Emmys, et al., just stop zooming in on nominees' faces when the winner is about to be announced?
I only watch the Oscars, and I never saw any value in seeing all five faces in the Hollywood Squares type box setup on the TV screen, and seeing the sad faces or feigned polite loser faces of those whose names were not called, has always been to me, very intrusive. these are human beings whose work for the most part, has been honored by being nominated. Why is it so imperative to see the immediate emotional reaction of the five nominees, and then criticise some of the persons who fail to present a Miss America smile when he/she does not win a most coveted award for their craft?
Like how they used to say 'And the winner is...' (today: 'And the Oscars goes to...') why don't the awards shows demonstrate more compassion to the four people who will not go up on that stage by just immediately zooming in on the person who won?
Compassion? Did I say that? Ooops, this is Hollywood.
It would take too much time to cut from "And the Oscar Goes to..." to the actual winner - you wouldn't get there immediate reaction as it's called if they didn't show all five faces.
question: was Mariksa Hargitay at the Emmy's this year? i recall when they announced the nominees they didn't zoom in or show her face, but Ausiello posted a video with her on the red carpet, so why wasn't she featured when they called the nominees names?
Praying The Daytime Emmys air on TV in 2010!
Posts: 20050 | Location: just outside Providence, Rhode Island | Registered: July 28, 2002
I don't understand why both the Emmys and the Oscars like to show the losers faces right after the winners name is announced. It sort of takes away from the winners moment.
Posts: 3794 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
Originally posted by Boidiva02: question: was Mariksa Hargitay at the Emmy's this year? i recall when they announced the nominees they didn't zoom in or show her face, but Ausiello posted a video with her on the red carpet, so why wasn't she featured when they called the nominees names?
A better question is why is Mariska Hargitay nominated for Emmys at all when all she does is blandly recite exposition in turn with her fellow cast members. She has no personality on that show at all, and she does absolutely nothing special with the role or the dialogue she's given.
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Originally posted by FGTfan: Nick Nolte was ticked when he lost to Anthony Hopkins.
Burt Reynolds was too when he lost to Robin Williams.
Teri Garr looked pretty lukewarm to see co star Lange win.
And who could ever forget Sally Kirkland's eye roll turned to fake smile.
yeah...you're damn right with these list but do you remember or can read Samuel L. Jackson's mouth when he lost to Martin Landau?
I also remember the three faces of actresses who lost the award to Faye Dunaway (Network) in 1977. The only nominee that time who smiled was Sissy Spacek (no doubt after 4 years she was crowned and the three are sights nowhere now).
And oh i remember at the Emmy's when Alan Alda lost the award to William Shatner that he torn his prepared speech and then the next year he won then he didn't attend the ceremony.
123
Posts: 111 | Location: . | Registered: February 27, 2007
And oh i remember at the Emmy's when Alan Alda lost the award to William Shatner that he torn his prepared speech and then the next year he won then he didn't attend the ceremony.
I thought that was a joke on Alda's part.
Like everybody said, at the Emmy there are lots of nominees who's been nominated for, say, 4-5 years in a row and still no win. They're bound to expect their victory someday, especially in their final seasons.
At the Oscar, they know their status since there are precursors. When a clear frontrunner unexpectedly lost, it was hurt.
