I think I understood the excuse was that Paltrow played four roles--Viola,
the guy she pretended to be, Romeo, and Juliet. I, too, found that it was
not a particularly deep role. I don't think Robert Carlyle will win Best
Actor for Colquhoun/Ives in _Ravenous_, though that was a role much more
striking. I thought Blanchett should have won without question. I had
never heard of her prior to _Elizabeth_, and I think others may have felt
the same way, and that proved an impact on the votes, if a silly one.
Scott Andrew Hutchins
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Kate Butler wrote:
> Does anyone else think it's strange that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best
> Actress Oscar over Cate Blanchett? I know Gwyneth is a popular choice but I
> don't think she's a very versatile or convincing actor, she was adequate
> for the part in SIL but it didn't seem to be a difficult or deep role.
> Cate's performance in Elizabeth was very convincing and I lost all
> awareness that it was a part she was playing. It makes me question the
> purpose of the award, I know it is driven by studio PR but I thought there
> was some pretence at giving it for the best performance in the films
> Kate Butler
> Kate Butler
> Department of Visual Communication
> RMIT University, Australia
> [log in to unmask]
> "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
> -- Vice President Dan Quayle.
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu