Why didn't he get nominated? {Leo missing from Oscar nominees list}

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread

Why didn't Leonardo DiCaprio get nominated? He had an excellent performance! Better that the ancient Peter Fonda! I have seen both movies. (and when I say that Leo was better, I am not saying that because I am an adolescent girl!) Also, I think that Billy Zane was a very good Cal. He added a bit of humanity to the role that I think was very hard to achieve. Does anyone else agree with me?

-- Natalie (mlent@erols.com), February 14, 1998


Response to Why didn't he get nominated?

I was thinking about it, and the Golden Globes gave the movie a slight dig when nobody won. I didn't think about it at the time, but the fact is, nobody (character/people-wise) has won any awards. Do you think this signifies that the "judges" are saying that the movie was best only because of it's scale and epic merit? And that it doesn't matter who was playing the roles, it still was best because of these qualities? This is a way out there opinion, but it is possible. Any opinions?

-- Natalie (mlent@erols.com), February 14, 1998.

Response to Why didn't he get nominated?

Jack was Jack Dawson and Jack Dawson only. Rose was Rose DeWitt Dukater, Rose Dawson, and Rose Calvert. Yes, the love story was about both of them but only Rose's life was changed. Jack got on as a poor artist and died the same way. Rose got on as a first class passenger and got off as a steerage. Most important point, Kate was able to mask her accent.

-- Rose (rose364@earthlink.net), February 15, 1998.

Response to Why didn't he get nominated?

Altough Leo didn't make it, I still believe his performance will not be forgotten. They will be looking for his next films and I'm sure he will start getting awards. I agree with Rose. Although he is a very good actor, his role was not so difficult and complex when compared to Kate's role. It was more her drama than his. He died as a good guy, doing everything for her transformation and safety. He just played it naturally, while critics look for "crazy" roles and special performances...We'll have to wait for "The Man in th Iron Mask". He might get something with that movie.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@ccs.carleton.ca), February 15, 1998.

Response to Why didn't he get nominated?

It is true that Kate's role is the most obvious choice for "more difficult role in Titanic." However, DiCaprio stated himself that this was a very challenging role for him. In the past, he has portrayed tortured youths (with DeNiro and Streep, for example). In this role, he had no inner darkness or confusion to fall back on. He admitted that it was alot of work to appear as an open-book individual without any deep, tragic secrets.

-- Rose (rosemarie@hotmail.com), February 15, 1998.

OK,I'm sorry(really),but can we forget about Leonardo DiCaprio for a minute.I mean,the guy's great(really),but there were many parts in the movie where you can totally tell that he was acting.I hope I'm not the only one who feels this way.That's why I feel that he deserved his Golden Globe nomination,but an Oscar nomination is just a bit to much. BILLY ZANE,on the other hand gave an incredible performance and he AT LEAST deserved a Golden Globe nomination for best supporting actor.Just my opinion...Hope I didn't offend anyone.If I did,I'm truly sorry and if Leonardo read this then I'm REALLY sorry and I didn't mean a word of it.

-- Ana (foo@bar.com), February 19, 1998.

I have to agree with Ana. Don't get me wrong - Leo did an excellent job with his role. Billy was outstanding though. And it is Kate's performance that sticks with me the most. Between the performances of Leo and Kate, I liked her much better. There are so many of her lines and actions that are my favorites. Yet I can't think of one scene of Jack's that absolutely stands out in my mind.

-- Donna Sadoway (donakyle@oanet.com), February 19, 1998.

Just out of curiousity- what parts in particular did you think he was just acting? i agree with you to a certain extent and it would be interesting to see what you thought.

-- chris (angelee426@aol.com), February 26, 1998.

Well, Leo WAS just acting. He was excellent as usual. However, I think the part of Jack was fairly limited. Leo even said himself he wouldn't take a role like that again. Jack's character was so one dimensional. He was all good. Billy Zane's character, Cal, was all bad. It's hard to show excellent acting skill when all you get is one dimension to play in. I think Cameron let go of a lot of dialogue scenes that would have allowed the actors to embellish their characters. He chose to focus much more on the FX

-- c.rieger (crieger@rogers.wave.bc.ca), March 02, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ