i may be wrong about this, but let me try it anyway.
my understanding is that the academy nominates many people from many different fields, one of which is best actor. nominations, i thought, were based on the actual performances, not who the person is, or what they have starred in previously.
i was recently(twice as a matter of fact) proven wrong. jim carrey, a man of unequal talent, stunned the world with back-to-back oscar caliber performances. now, would it be any actor besides carrey, they wouldve received a nomination without a doubt. but because he is jim carrey, he will not. is it just me or does that sound hypocritical. that because a man was ace ventura, stanley ipkiss, lloyd christmas, chip douglass, the riddler, or fletcher reede(and because he talked from his rear-end at the oscars), he will never get nominated.
but wait, you dont hold every actors past agaisnt them. tom hanks was in "the burbs," as well as "joe vs. the volcano." but he has recieved what 4 noms and 2 statues?
i really think that the academy should re-evaluate their feelings. are all the life long members squeeky clean? have they never done anything that wasnt oscar worthy?
jim is a human. so is everyone at the academy, i hope. to qoute a movie, "may all your mistakes be rubbed in you noses."
Posted on Feb 23, 2000, 2:29 PM from IP address 209.34.40.185