Monday, January 16, 2006



These award thingees get old, quick. Sure, it's nice to see some of the winners win (I like Clooney and was happy he won) but it's like, everyone jumps on these bandwagons and suddenly Phillip Seymour Hoffman HAS to win all the best actor awards. And Heather Ledger or David Strathairn, Viggo Mortenson, Hayden Christenson (JESUS CHRST, I'm KIDDING) etc, are left with nothing. It's silly to allow ONE winner. And although I enjoy seeing Clooney win, that means Matt Dillon (a revelation in CRASH) gets, well, nothing?

Out of all the movies, and after all the screeners and marketing (for those companies that can afford to remind people of the movies they released) goes out into Variety, etc, we have decided to agree that Phillp Seymour Hoffman is worthy, and the others sucked balls.

Guy Who Makes Sense: What about Bill Murray in Broken Flowers? Can we vote for him?

Hollywood: No, no, they released that movie a long time ago.

Guy Who Makes Sense: It was 2005 though, right?

Hollywood: Yeah, but we've decided not to think back that far. We're gonna give it to Seymour Hoffman this year. It's just easier that way.

Guy Who Makes Sense: He's got my vote!

And Ang Lee is the best DIRECTOR OF THE YEAR (well, he HAS to win Oscar, right, because he won the other awards), while the hacks that directed Munich, Gardener, Jarhead, Kong, Good Night, etc, get to go home holding their cocks.

Now, am I saying Seymour Hoff doesn't deserve his kudos? No, of course he does. And Ang Lee is a terrific director (should have won for The Ice Storm, too). I just don't agree with dismissing the others.


writergurl said...

Just remember the immortal line from Highlander (which incidnetally never won a thing)...

"There can be, only one."

At least they're not decapitating the "losers".


taZ said...

I don't really think that way. I mean, after all they're still nominees, wich only that is pretty big. Think of those who didn't even get to be nominated!

All where good, only not as good as Phillp Seymour Hoffman. That's all.

Patrick J. Rodio said...

But it's all subjective. How can you say Hoffman was BETTER than say Ledger? They PLAYED DIFFERENT ROLES.

And writergurl, no they're not decapitating the "losers" and I'm sure it is nice to at least be nominated. But you guys can't tell me handing out one award in a year (also in years past) that there are NUMEROUS GREAT PERFORMANCES. Yes, Hoffman is good and is deserving. But that means Mortenson is NOT? Strathairn is NOT? If Phoeniz loses out on Oscar to Hoffman, that means Hoffman is BETTER? HOW???????????????

You have to agree that it really isn't the best way to acknowledge these great performances.

taZ said...

No, I suppose you have a point there. The awards IS subjective. You can never tell who is best unless they play the same role.

But then again, I don't know how they judge every nominee...

ScriptWeaver said...

At least at the Globes, they have TWO winners, so guys like Leo (last year) and Joaquin can actually win something during years everyone drools over Jamie Fox and PhilSeyHoff.

Patrick J. Rodio said...

That's right, SW. I think it works better that way.