Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Oscar Pick Pontification: William Hurt

No real surprises in today's Academy Award nominations, with one exception. How did William Hurt earn a Best Supporting Actor nod for A History of Violence? His scenery-chewing performance as the tough-talking mob boss was more fit for an old "Batman" TV episode. Frank Gorshin would have been more nuanced.

11 Comments:

At 3:40 PM, Anonymous Accidental Tourist said...

I thought Hurt was absolutely fantastic in this movie. I don't understand the disparaging remarks and think this blog should be boycotted. I would suggest you watch a little movie they call "The Big Chill" if you need some perspective.

 
At 4:20 PM, Anonymous Dr., Pants said...

I just spent the entire time he was on screen trying to figure out if that was a real goatee or a fake one, and if it was fake, why didn't they try to put it on straight.

He had such a bit part to get that nod. I would have given it to Ed Harris, maybe, or even Ed O'Neill.

 
At 4:28 PM, Blogger Cassandra D said...

Pish posh.
I'm with Chase on this one. I actually disliked A History of Violence (or at least think it is really overrated) because of the jarring mismatch of tone in the various parts of the movie, particularly evident when comparing the sweet family scenes at the beginning and the silly caricature mobster part at the end. I realize that William Hurt isn't to be blamed for the failures of the screenplay, but I really don't understand all the fawning over this movie. And I haven't even mentioned the ridiculous portrayal of the main character's marriage, particularly demonstrated in the way he relates to his wife when he reveals his true past. Jarringly unrealistic.

 
At 7:26 PM, Blogger Chase McInerney said...

I do think Hurt's tone seemed more appropriate for a different movie. That said, Ed Harris would've been a good choice for best supporting actor. I was surprised Maria Bello wasn't nominated for best suypporting actress. Her scene on the stairwell alone deserved some sort of nod.

 
At 7:53 PM, Anonymous Brick Fuchwahl said...

That's what you call it -- a "nod"?

 
At 10:43 AM, Anonymous turtleboi said...

The Brittish call it a 'wank.'

 
At 11:41 AM, Anonymous gzhapddx said...

Has david Cronenberg ever been noted for his 'realism?'

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger Edward Copeland said...

I too have to defend Hurt's performance -- I thought it was great and the best thing he's done in years. I was pleasantly surprised he made the list because he seemed to have lost the buzz and the role is a small one.

I have all sorts of Oscar minutiae on my film site if anyone wants to read them and see if their heads explode.

http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Chase McInerney said...

Yikes... I had no idea about the depth of Hurt fans out there on the Internet. Let me refine my view on his performance this way: I don't think it fit the tone of the movie, which seemed -- despite the origins of the story -- far from comic-bookish. Hurt's performance, it seemed to me, was just not in keeping with the rest of the picture.

 
At 4:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't you puss out Chase, Hurt sucks and everybody knows it.

 
At 8:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You, along with rudepundit and charmingbutsingle, should check this out:
www.xanga.com/tastefulwhiner
Look familiar? Especially the Jan.20 "Excuses Excuses" entry.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home