Thank you for the emails
about the Oscars; I always get the same complaint about not being
able to put a comment on the site and I am, as usual, at a loss for
the answer. I can put a comment on my mate Jim's blog easily enough,
and when they ask me who I am, or I have to sign in, I put my Gmail
email address and it seems to work.
Well I got a few right
didn't I? I put Joaquin Phoenix down for best actor as it was the one
performance that I found hard to picture myself doing but I think the
hardest one of the bunch would be by Bradley Cooper in Silver
Linings Playbook; believe me, and actors may or may not back me
up, it's harder to be Tom Cruise or George Clooney than any of the
character actors.
Lots of critics over the
years have said that Cary Grant was the greatest screen actor because
he made it look so easy and I know what they mean. I really like Sean
Penn but he failed miserably in The Interpretor and The
Game. I also like Gary Oldman but he has to be
different in each role.
A word about Daniel Day
Lewis; when he does the things he has to do which enable him to give
the performances he gives (with me so far?) the things he has done
(before he even starts work) should be seen on the screen.
In other words when
Robert de Niro put all the weight on to play Jake La Motta we could
see what he had done – the same when someone learns to box (Day-Lewis did this so did de Niro), dance or even play tennis. But to
spend months talking like Lincoln, being carried to the set and being
spoon fed by the crew in My Left Foot, I don't see the need;
what did Olivier say? Try acting! Who knows whether he said that or
not? But there again, as I've said before, it could be professional
jealousy on my part; but what I wouldn't like to see is a young actor
starting out thinking all those things need to be done.
I don't suppose they
stood for it when he was in Gandhi or The Bounty.
Anyway back to the
Oscars – The Academy Awards: It doesn't mean anything. As I said
before, the best actor is your particular favourite. If you don't like
Daniel Day-Lewis it won't matter how many Oscars he wins you won't
like him.
But the difference
between the Academy Awards here in the UK (the B.A.F.T.A.s or as they
have started calling them the Baftas) and the ones in Los Angeles
(the Oscars) is a matter of taste.
The BAFTAs show was a
lot funnier than the bits I saw of the Oscars; the difference was
more literal. Stephen Fry is funnier and cleverer than the fella in
Los Angeles. A lot of people don't like either of them: Fry because
he's too clever and the other guy because he's . . . I don't know;
why don't they like him? Not clever enough? Not funny enough? Bit of
a slob?
Some people do like him but what does that say about them?
Stephen Fry is more like
a modern day Oscar Wilde – nobody liked him either; well not many
people. Professional jealousy again; just like me!
The BAFTAs were, at
least, in good taste as opposed to the misogynistic bits that I saw
in Los Angeles; We Saw Your Boobs wasn't anything whether the
actresses went along with it or not but it was boring! And all the
lip-syncing again!
It's not supposed to be taken seriously - it's a party; parties can't be boring!
I only hope they don't do another movie about Ted
Bundy and offer the role to Daniel Day-Lewis!!