Comments on: Recall the Gold: The 1998 Best Actor race

By: chriono

chriono — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:16:19 +0000

EDWARD NORTON Off course!!!!
He didn’t get the oscar for “Primal Fear”
He deserved that one

By: Callie

Callie — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:21:38 +0000

Ian McKellan should’ve had this by a MILE.

By: patrizia

patrizia — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:18:25 +0000

sicuramente Edward Norton!

By: patrizia

patrizia — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:17:16 +0000

sicuramente Edward Norton!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:15:32 +0000

Benigni over Norton is so ridiculous. I would love to hear from any real actor who actually voted for RB.

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:55:40 +0000

I would have voted for Hanks, but the Academy isn’t going to give him a third Oscar. Nolte has never been a favorite in Hollywood, and American History X had so much baggage with the bad publicity behind the scenes, not to metion Norton’s character in the film.
The subject matter of Gods and Monsters probably didn’t do McKellan any favors. So perhaps it was a process of elimination.
With that said Bengini was very good, and Life is Beautiful was a very moving film.

By: Ken A.

Ken A. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:51:47 +0000

Absolutely Ed Norton gets the Gold, one of today’s great actors in the best performance of his life so far. His performance was chilling, and his change so moving and believable. What an incredible performance! As for Benigni, I have tried watching this film again and still find it hard to accept a comedy about concentration camps; besides, his performance was often over the top (just like he seems to be) and not all that impressive. Hanks, McKellan, and Nolte were all more than deserving of their nominations; I would have given Benigni’s nomination to Fiennes for “Shakespeare” or even to Robert Redford for “The Horse Whisperer”. Recall the Roberto clown!

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:10:16 +0000

This race clearly exhibited the emotional immediacy that the Oscar race ends up being. Of course, in hindsight Benigni’s performance looks silly. But at the time, he was still likable; and people really did like “Life is Beautiful”. So don’t hold “Pinocchio” or his recent career against him. He deservedly won – not because of his performance, but because of his personality (keep in mind, at the time the audience liked the fact that he was jumping over them on the way to the podium).
That being said, I find “Life is Beautiful” to be misguided at best, reprehensible at worst. There may be some tragic events you can make a comedy about; I don’t think the Holocaust is one of them. And his performance, which was basically one-note frivolity, was completely out of place at the Oscars.
I haven’t seen “Affliction” or “American History X” yet, but “The Truman Show” really did blow the other three out of the water, and Jim Carrey was great. (Danny, I completely agree with you.)

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:13:52 +0000

Ugh. You know, you think the Academy’s predictable enough. I just don’t like the untold rule that if you’ve won an Oscar before, you basically shouldn’t get another Oscar in your lifetime. Might as well just disqualify everyone who has a role in a nominating year who’s won an Oscar before. Make things more competitive. As if losing to Shakespeare in Love wasn’t enough. Captain Miller is arguably one of Tom Hanks’ greatest performances in a career littered with them. Yet, of course, the Academy wants to remain unpredictable and gave Daniel Day-Lewis another Oscar just this past year. The AMPAS infuriate me sometimes.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:11:01 +0000

Dave, why didn’t you discuss Benigni’s performance at all? Do his antics necessarily mean the performance wasn’t good?