I'll be making a male version of this poll a few weeks after this list is unveiled.
But please, I beseech you, do take the time to make a list - it doesn't have to be painstakingly studied or anything - you are a very regular poster and your input would be greatly appreciated.
"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 puxzkkx: Come on guys, make ballots! 493 views and only 9 ballots? That's just sad.
I'm working on mine right now. Hopefully I'll have time to complete it over the long weekend. I found that it's really tough to rank all the performances. Fun, but tough so far.
Thanks for joining in! I'd like to get as many ballots as I can - tell your friends!
PUCIFER, THAT MEANS YOU TOO
"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
I've received ballots from these people: a610guy bocaboy7 Brilliance inmorbid (incomplete - check your PMs) Jake221 jbboy kelemenmarc Mary Queen of Scots moviebuff144 movieman6 (incomplete - check your PMs) pacinofan (incomplete - check your PMs) puxzkkx Try Again URgirlfriendhatesme
That's 13... an unlucky number! Please help me take it to 14 and beyond!
"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
Please send in ballots! I won't be able to make the list without at least twenty to twenty-five ballots.
"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
I've received ballots from these people: a610guy bildo10 (incomplete - check your PMs) bocaboy7 Brilliance inmorbid (incomplete - check your PMs) Jake221 jbboy jdb1131978 kelemenmarc Mary Queen of Scots moviebuff144 movieman6 (incomplete - check your PMs) pacinofan puxzkkx Troy (incomplete - check your PMs) Try Again URgirlfriendhatesme
Two issues that have popped up:
1) Voice-over performances are ineligible for this vote. Because film acting encompasses the use of physicality as well as vocalization, I thought it would be unfair to live-action performances if V.O. performances were counted. But that's a good potential topic for another poll - Best Voice-Over Performances of All Time. (I'm still thinking about whether or not Andy Serkis should be eligible for the Male Performances poll, as he wore the motion-capture bodysuit so Gollum's movements were definitely his own)
2) Films like the Kill Bill and Lord of the Rings films will be counted as separate films, because they ARE separate films. If you nominate Uma Thurman or, god forbid, someone like Liv Tyler, make sure you specify which film you are nominating them for.
3) Under the above criteria, I am counting both "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" as separate films, as they were released separately outside the USA, despite being collaborative efforts between Tarantino and Rodriguez. So, for example, if you want to nominate Rose McGowan for "Grindhouse" make sure to specify whether you are nominating her for "Planet Terror" or "Death Proof".
"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
I raise this point every once in a while, but haven't for a long time, and throw it out there as a thought provoker:
Obviously awards from time immemorial divide up male and female performances, so it perpetuates this division.
But really, except for there being fewer female roles (thus less chance of winning awards), why distinguish between the two?
We don't distinguish between younger and older performances, or by race, or by gender orientation.
Why by gender alone? Why not compare Heath Ledger in BM to Helen Mirren in The Queen?
If there are going to be comparisons, that's the better way, unless one is going to include other differentiations as well. Male acting is no different from female acting. It's acting.
1) Voice-over performances are ineligible for this vote. Because film acting encompasses the use of physicality as well as vocalization, I thought it would be unfair to live-action performances if V.O. performances were counted. But that's a good potential topic for another poll - Best Voice-Over Performances of All Time. (I'm still thinking about whether or not Andy Serkis should be eligible for the Male Performances poll, as he wore the motion-capture bodysuit so Gollum's movements were definitely his own)
I am working on my mine. I haven't yet been able to narrow a group of 35 to 20(25) in a way that I am happy with.
As for the above quote about voice overs, I have to object. It is your game, so clearly you can do what you want (as can, of course, those who choose to participate of not), but I think voice overs should be included. If an actor does so much with his or her voice that she stands up in someone's mind against more-than-voice acting, I think that says a lot more about the quality of the voice work.
Your point is a valid one, seanflynn. The differentiation in the acting categories clearly comes from the days when studios released films with one big male lead and one big female lead, and also days when sexism was the norm. Now, with ensemble casts without clear leads more commonplace and equality between the sexes on the rise generally, I believe it would make sense to have a single category for lead and one for supporting. The "con' argument, I suppose, would be that this would mean less awards. In lieu of gender separation, however, they could create separate categories for performances in comedies, which do differ in many ways from dramatic performances.
I would have the same number of acting awards, but divide between drama and comedy.
None of this will ever happen. But awards, even in the entertainment industry, are not gendered based. The one place where you see separate tracks are sporting events, particularly the Olympics. And there you have valid genetic reasons. But having it in acting (same as Grammys/performing) implies that either one gender is inferior to the other, or that there are different skills involved for each gender.
I think in any event this thread would have been more interesting if it asked for the best performances irrespective of gender. Otherwise, it is no different than asking for the best American acting performances, or the best by blacks, or the best by under 40 year olds.
Sort of. Unfortunately, there is such a masculine bent to much of the film industry that good male roles are so much easier to come by that good female roles. In some years the best female performance would stand up (say, Charlize Theron in 2003), but that is rare. The work isn't different, but the opportunity is very different, as are the standards by which performances and actors are measured.
If you go over the lead winners year by year, and avoid (which one can't do, but for the purposes of this exercise) career/sentimental wins, then try to guess which one of the two would have won head to head, my guess is the actresses would hold their own.
I do agree more men then women likely would be nominated though if the arbitrary distinction were eliminated.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
