Why did she get an Oscar?

P

Pics

New member
Had a look through and cant find a thread on "Monsters Ball". I know its not a new film but I just saw it this weekend. It was ok but hardly Oscar material, many reviewers seem to think Halle Berri got the oscar as some sort of political statement and there seems to be a lot of obsessive racial stuff about it on the internet.

I would be interested to read peoples opinion on the film.
 
Like many Oscar winners, MB was okaaay. A bit heavy-handed and melodramatic, and patently a vehicle to push Ms Berry. Halle's normally pretty wooden, so in fairness she does put on a great performance (for her). Overall, hardly worthy of the accolades it got - but few Oscar winners ever are IMO.
 
There does seem to be a kind of planning that goes into gaining these otherwise bimbo/average actresses the plaudits (and presumably the fees) that go with being an oscar-winning actress.

It's probably got a lot to do with looks being more important than acting ability for leading ladies and also the fact that in all the acting awarRAB Oscars seem to be given on the basis of script rather than what the actor actually does with the material given.
 
Monsters Ball was very good and Halle Berry gave a good performance but she was not oscar worthy at all, Billy Bob Thornton and Heath Ledger gave far better performances


On the subject of why did she win an oscar

How did Gwyneth Paltrow win for Shakespare In Love? worst win of all time, all 4 other nominees were better than her and there were even non nominated performances that were far better
 
She won it -

a) because they wanted to make a big statement of two black actors winning the Academy Award

b) because of the sex scene (upon seeing that scene you just know that all the male Academy voters chose her instantly. Admittedly she does give a great acting performance in that scene, probably because screwing someone senseless is something she actually knows how to do, unlike delivering dialogue in a believable way...)

c) because they probably couldn't decide between Judi Dench, Rene Zellweger and Sissy Spacek (all who gave great performances) so instead they thought hell we'll give it to Halle instead

d) At that time they perhaps wanted to push Halle as the next big thing.
 
I've found it hard to find any really decent movies in the past few years which have had roles for really strong female leaRAB.

Part of the problem with rewarding the Best Actress Oscar seems to be that there just aren't many films around which have really good female lead roles.

In fact, how many actresses can you think of who can regularly give performances worthy of an Oscar? Where is the modern equivalent of Meryl Streep? The only worthy winner in the 21st century so far (IMO) was Charlize Theron in "Monster"
 
The Actress catergory has always impressed me but on a few occasions a slip through the net such as Halle Berry gets through. This year with the five nominees we have for leading actress- whoever wins won't be a bad winner- all great performances.
 
I can't. People only question the motivation of her award because she was a rather bad actress getting an Oscar for a slightly above average performance in a passable movie. The girl even got a Razzie for 'Worst Actress' a couple of years ago.
 
Well it was probably one of Halle's better performances, but I don't think it was Oscar worthy. However, I don't think it was a great shortlist that year either, in all fairness. Judi Dench is the only one (from knowledge of the films that were shortlisted) I would have picked to win, but I'm quite intrigued over Sissy Spacek getting a nod that year. I never caught "In the Bedroom" but she doesn't strike me as the sort of person who automatically gets a nod because of who she is so I imagine she put in a good turn.
 
Back
Top