Flickgrrl

Denzel to Russell: "The first rule is: No throwing phones."

Denzel to Russell: "After two-and-a-half hours, at last we finally get to do a scene together in this movie, Bro! Let's go for it."

If Denzel Washington wins an Oscar for this, you won't be nearly as annoyed as I will. It bothers me a whole lot that in order for him to win the Best Actor Oscar, he's got to be a sociopath.

Well said, Denise. At least the Oscar he got for "Glory" was for a man resisting authority.

Many actors win their Oscars for movies that aren't, shall we say, their best work. Pacino was denied on "The Godfather" films and "Serpico" and won for that tub of schmaltz, "Scent of a Woman." The thing about Washington, though, is that he kills -- literally and figuratively -- in "Training Day" and "Gangster." But those performances don't move me emotionally like "Malcolm" and "Hurricane."

Joe's comment made me think about Charlize Theron getting an Oscar for "Monster" the year after Michelle Pfeiffer was deinied one for "White Oleander". I thought Pfeiffer was remarkable in the role but, since she made no radical changes to her appearance and had the guts to play evil as beautiful she was denied the recognition given to actors who go through great, usually physically unflattering changes for a role: Halle Berry, Theron, Robert DeNiro.

True, Rick. Gaining and/or losing weight (De Niro in "Raging Bull", Theron in "Monster" or beauty dowdified (Grace Kelly in "The Country Girl," Theron in "Monster," Berry in "Monster's Ball") are time-honored ways to go for the gold.

Well unfortunately we can't go back and give Denzel the Oscar for "Malcolm X," although if we could, then we could take Al Pacino's Hoo-Ahh Oscar (a make-good if there ever was one), and give it to him for "Serpico." Which means taking the Oscar from Jack Lemmon... maybe we could then go back to 1961 and give him one for "The Apartment." Which then takes one from Burt Lancaster... whew, all these make-goods have made for a big mess. I have an idea. How about not worrying about the big picture, and rooting for the best performance to win the Oscar... even if it's for another antiheroic role?

"Malcolm X" was Denzel Washington's greatest masterpiece of a performance!!

"The Hurricane" was his 2nd greatest.

Well, first I'd dispute Pacino's win for "Scent" was strictly a "make-up". People recast that race now, but at the time there were several things in Pacino's favor : his film was a hit, (Washington's wasn't), his film was fresh in the voters minds (Washington's wasn't), his performance was quite outside any type of role he had done up until that time (Washington's too, but Pacino's screen persona was more established), his performance whether you like the pitch it's set at or not, has a virtuoso depiction of blindness on a technical level (a sure hook with Academy voters.)

Pacino is pretty brilliant in "Scent", and the fact that the performance has been mimicked and parodied (in some cases by Pacino himself), shouldn't distract from that. The script is fairly ludicrous and what he does with that character would be outside the grasp of all but a handful of actors who have his gift of playing big and nuanced simultaneously (Depardieu, Finney, etc.)....Did he "deserve" the Oscar more than Washington that year? Maybe not, but there was more to the context of how he won it than it just being "make-up", that's too simple.

Now, regarding Washington in "American Gangster" - I really don't think the performance has a chance to win an Oscar. Frankly, I don't think he's that good in the film - don't get me wrong, it's good, solid work in a pretty good picture, but it's not more than that to me. It's a big, charismatic star turn. That's it. Would anyone say, as a piece of acting it's as vivid as Philip Seymour Hoffman's in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"?.

I wouldn't even think the Washington performance is a lock for a nomination, although I do think he's "likely" to get one.

But a win? Nah.

While I think David's comment is very funny, I'm not sure it's as big a problem as he suggests-- all we really have to do is move Pacino over a category in that same year, and give him the supporting actor award for his brilliant performance in "Glenngary Glenn Ross," which is wonderfully sustained, and far more riveting than the work in the "Hoo-HAH!" movie (yes, that would mean denying the always-fine Gene Hackman his award, but those are the tradeoffs, I guess) (unless we want to give it to him for his charmingly oily lawyer in 1993's "The Firm," where he's paradoxically the most sympathetic character on the screen).

Terrific article, Carrie. I enjoy how you pose your readers questions instead of forcing your opinions on them.

I'm curious why so many intelligent people still take the Oscar telecast so seriously. It's like, if Daniel Day Lewis or someone doesn't win an award, they take it personally. They're emotionally invested in it.

Movie studios and producers are invested in the awards show for a bump in the box office. That I get. Audiences, I don't quite understand why people care so much, but they do. There are entire websites devoted to handicapping the Oscar race now.

From what I understand, a majority of Academy members - who are supposedly bestowing recognition for the best in motion picture arts and sciences - simply give their votes to their spouses because they didn't get the chance to see the films in contention. This is how things like Shakespeare In Love end up being named Best Picture.