For any actor or actress, an Academy Award nomination is a career-defining achievement. Forever forward, Vera Farmiga will be introduced as “Academy-Award-nominated actress Vera Farmiga.” (Until she wins one, of course.) Recognized actors often insist it’s the nomination, not necessarily who wins the Oscar, that is the true honor. After all, the best performance, whatever that might mean, doesn’t always win.
But I wonder if they really mean it. Put another way, whose career would an aspiring actor prefer: Kevin Spacey’s or Peter O’Toole’s? Both are supremely accomplished, but with at least one notable difference. Two actually. Spacey has two Academy Awards for acting (The Usual Suspects, American Beauty), while O’Toole has none*. But O’Toole has been nominated eight times, six more than Spacey. O’Toole’s career is certainly lengthier and it includes one of the most iconic roles in all of cinema (Lawrence of Arabia). Spacey is a superb character actor who proved himself equally adept as a leading man. Eight acting nominations might tip the scales towards O’Toole, but the Irish actor never experienced the thrill of rushing onstage to seize the trophy, to thank his loved ones in front of millions of people, to have that moment when the whole world is listening. For an actor, I assume that moment is something special. So I’m truly curious how other actors would answer this question. Would Peter O’Toole swap five of his nominations for one of Kevin Spacey’s Oscars?
For now, I’ll settle for you, my fellow laypeople. Whose acting career would you prefer? How do you measure acting greatness?
* O’Toole was presented with an honorary award at the 2003 Oscar ceremony.
Photo Credit: Spacey: Wild1/PR Photos; O’Toole: Sylvain Gaboury/PR Photos
You said “Peter” and “O’Toole”, hehehehehehehehehehheheehhe….
You’re an O’Toole.
CHER has an oscar. CHER! This proves that the oscars mean nothing.
Hilary Swank has 2 Oscar’s and she’s not even 40 yet. That says something too. Yet Julianne Moore has none.
Oh and that’s why I hate when people who should have gotten an award earlier in life get some sort of “it’s your due oscar” for a performance any other year they would not have gotten. lame.
Julianne Moore should have never even been nominated once. She is terribly overrated and I can’t stand to watch her “act”
Agreed. Hilary Swank won twice before Kate Winslet won her first, and Julianne Moore still has none. And Swank has the same amount as Meryl Streep. Frustrating.
I’m not sure why that’s frustrating at all. Swank has proven herself to be a fabulous actress and has had some plum, perfectly-casted parts thrown her way. She deserved the awards. And to the original article, Spacey has plenty more life in him to garner some more nominations or even wins.
Hilary Swank won both of those Oscars for brilliant performances. It’s not like she didn’t deserve them, so get over it.
Cher deserved an Oscar for Mask- plain and simple.. she won for Moonstruck as a consolation… Dont hate. Once upon a time, she was an excellent actress.
Oh lord. Paige, my least favourite poster on this site said something I agree with. I hate to admit that own a copy of Mermaids and even worse, I LOVE IT!
i love Mermaids also… she was also amazing in Silkwood too- sorry to dissapoint you with our agreeing
ok whoopi has an oscar yes whoopi
deservedly so too…
must agree with Paige, when Whoopi got one, she earned it.
so tony, your point has not been made.
It’s REALLY easy to forget now, but there was a time when Whoopi (and Cher) was a legitimate actress.
In a semi-related story, I have a strong feeling that 20 years from now, some commenter on FuturePopWatch will say something like “The Oscar mean nothing! Mo’Nique has one!”
It just reinforces my opinion that the Oscars are less about the overall greatness of a performer and more about a pefect storm of luck, politics, timing and a singular strong performance.
“The Oscars* mean nothing…”
Judy Garland does not have an Oscar, and she is one of the greatest screen legends, where as Nicole Kidman has one. Now lets say 30 yrs from now, who are you going to remember?
Actually I’d remember both assuming I don’t lose my marbles.
you picked a bad example, Nicole Kidman will be remembered
Judy Garland actually had an Academy Juvenile Award for Wizard of Oz, but that has the same kind of whatever-ness as an Honorary Oscar.
Who’s Judy Garland?
Some of you said you will remember her, but for what her marriage to Tom Cruise, it certainly cannot be for the Hours. My point is her celebrity dwarfs her accomplishments on screen. Judy Garland will forever be remembered for ‘Meet Me in St. Louis’, “Easter Parade”, “Wizard of Oz”, “A Star is Born”. I will go far as to say her one pure dramatic role “The Clock”, which had no singing or dancing, is a far better movie than anything Nicole Kidman did, certainly her ‘oscar worthy’ performance with the prosthetic nose.
I think that’s ridiculous. Nicole Kidman will be remembered for something other than her marriage to Tom Cruise – in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s forgotten! She’s become a great actress in her own right and “The Hours” is an amazing film and she gives an amazing performance in it, she thoroughly deserved her Oscar. I know a lot of people who love the film and we won’t forget it.
It also seems strange that out of everyone who’s ever won an Oscar you’d pick Nicole Kidman for this example. What about Reese Witherspoon, Helen Hunt or Gwyneth Paltrow? Surely whether they deserved to win Oscars is more debatable than Kidman winning one?
Cher, who cares about cher?
to prove they mean NOTHING lets look at the winner for a movie lauded as one of the most significant of all time, but later was proven to be a sham completely based on erroneous data and lies. Yes, I AM talking about Al Gore.
Your an ASS. Cher is a tremendous talent, for many years. What’s your claim to fame. D wad!
I love the Oscars – I love watching the show and I totally get sucked into the hype of Oscar season (I may or may not have been a little late to work because I was watching the nominations on the Today show yesterday morning.)
However, Oscar nominations (or even the trophies themselves) don’t really have anything to do with whether or not an actor is great. Sure, the recognition is nice, and it gives movie nerds like me something quantifiable to latch on to, but at the end of the day they can’t really determine than one actor is greater than another.
Also, if being nominated for an Oscar is really the true honor and an acknowledgement of greatness, I would say this: Gary Oldman has never been nominated for an Oscar. Gary Oldman is a great actor no matter what. Case closed.
(P.S. I’m a big fan of Spacey, but I’d rather have Peter O’Toole’s career because of the legendary performances and the legendary stories about how he partied in his heyday – and because he was never in “Fred Claus.”)
You make a ton of good points. Each voter giving is essentially only being subjective, because how could one be objective about which different performance was best? And with all the hype and other award shows, it’s so easy to be swept up with who’s the favorite, who’s due to win, who you know and like… It certainly doesn’t always mean it was really the ‘best’ performance, because how can that be quantified?
As a “recovering actor” (as I used to want to be a professional one, but I am MUCH better now!), I’d take O’Toole’s career, eight nominations and that iconic performance in Lawrence of Arabia ANY day. To paraphrase one of my favorite movie moments, from one of O’Toole’s nominated performances in My Favorite Year: Spacey is an actor; O’Toole is a MOVIE STAR. And as such, they don’t get much bigger or better than Peter O’Toole.
You said it, Mothra. He’s amazing.
No. Johnny Depp has never won an Oscar and he is the best actor working today.
Gary Oldman has never even been NOMINATED for an Oscar and he is one of the greatest actors of his generation.
Barbara Stanwyck, that’s the measuring tool. She was able to get it right with a vast majority of her roles and has left an undeniable body of work filled with excellent performances and doesn’t have an Oscar to show for it.
I think it has to do with knowing your strengths, like Bette Davis, John Garfield, and (I hope in the near future) Hilary Swank.
An actor doesn’t need to win an Oscar to be “great.” Leonardo DiCaprio and Ewan McGregor are two examples.
Agreed – Ewan McGregor often is the best thing about any movie he’s in.
I like Leonardo DiCaprio, but he still looks SO YOUNG in all of his movies. Not his fault, great actor, but it’s hard to get over.
It’s probably totally correct that for actors: nomination = award enough. Peter O’Toole is a great example and if I were an actor I’d probably prefer to have O’Toole’s career (not that Spacey’s career is anything to sneeze at).
I think the win is more important to marketing teams (as seen by the packaging that every award-winning movie gets….and if a movie has won an award…it’ll always be the highlight of the packaging over the nomination) and the fans themselves. Nominations are swell, but I know that I was thrilled when Adrien Brody won for The Pianist. It might be that fans see a win for their personal faves as a reward for their great taste.
So to recap, Nomination are king for actors (and directors, editors, costume designer, etc.) and wins are king for the marketing departments and fans…in my humble opinion.
Let’s see…hmm….Cary Grant. Case closed.
And Richard Burton. One of the all-time great Oscar travesties was Richard Dreyfuss for “Goodbye Girl” over Burton for “Equus”. Still convinced that the presenter screwed that up and the academy rolled with it…
I don’t necessarily think that having an oscar equates being a good actress or actor. It just means people voted that your INDIVIDUAL performance that year was good. At this point, we all know these awards aren’t even based on merit at times. Come awards season, it’s mostly about timing. For example, at the 78th Academy Awards, Reese Witherspoon won Best Actress, but her category that year wasn’t that competitive as opposed to the Best Actor category, which was alot more competitive. And look at Kate Winslet. She’s phenomenal in everything and according to some, she only won for The Reader b/c she already have 5 nominations. I measure acting greatness by range, diversity, and longevity. And I respect the careers of Kate Winslet, Jeffrey Wright, Meryl Streep, and Dustin Hoffman.
Was I the only person who hated The Reader? Kate Winslet’s a good actress, but that was SO a make-up Oscar. Kind of like Russell Crowe’s for Gladiator (he should have won for The Insider).
he shouldve won for A Beautiful Mind, but that went to Denzel for Training Day, who deserved it for Malcolm X, but that went to Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman, who deserved it for sooo many other movies before he got lazy
No, I disliked the Reader as well – I thought it was the weakest of Kate’s nominated performances (and I can’t believe this was nominated for best picture!)
“Little Children” was her best role, IMO. But as the examples in this blog prove, it’s all about timing and politics.
Robin Williams, Helen Hunt & Mira Sorvino have Oscars yet Donald Sutherland has never even been nominated. The whole thing is a joke.
Love Donald Sutherland! he has wondeful range in acting
People need to stop naming actors or comedians they don’t like (Whoopi, Cher, Robin Williams, etc.) who have been awarded Oscars as if not being known for being a great, dramatic artist means you can’t have a fabulous performance. Case in point: Mo’Nique this year. Don’t judge the recipient by the general image of them you’ve developed – judge that performance. Williams was great in Good Will Hunting, Helent Hunt was perfect in As Good As It Gets. These actors may not have an Oscar-worthy performance in each role, they may not own that reputation where everything they do is potential Oscar bait, but they performed their winning roles brilliantly – which is why they won.
Peter O’Toole, Richard Burton, Deborah Kerr, Cary Grant, Garbo, Dietrich… never won. And the great Myrna Loy was never even nominated. No, you don’t need an Oscar to be “great”
Good call on Myrna Loy, GHB, she’s a true Hollywood great.
An Oscar, while certainly nice to have, doesn’t guarantee a long, vibrant career. It’s very much an “of the moment” sort of honor, won by the actor who happened to capture the fancy of the voters at that particular time, for reasons that often extend beyond the performance.
“People”!!
Jeff’s question was simple: O’Toole or Spacey – whose career would you prefer?
Okay, I’ll answer the question. I rather have Peter O’Toole’s career. He is a great actor plus he has lived such a lively life with great colorful wonderful people. Drinking buddies & close friend of Richard Burton & Richard Harris. Acted with Katherine Hepburn and considered her a good friend. He is still acting & still has much more to offer the world. Even though I think Kevin is a good actor, Peter looks like he is having more fun. He has been there done that has the tshirt
I agree: his life in itself has been a work of art, not to mention his career. I really thought he was going to win a few years ago for “Venus.”
Sandra Bullock is going to win one this year. I don’t think people are going to start calling her a great actress. See Helen Hunt.
i think that people have loved and always will love sandra bullock whether she wins an oscar or not.
Whatever you think of her talents, Sandra Bullock makes movies people want to see – that’s a major accomplishment for a woman, especially at her age. You can’t say that for Nicole Kidman or Penelope Cruz.
So true, Teri. I mean just LOOK at how many people rushed out to see “All About Steve” simply because Sandra Bullock makes those movies that people just have to see! How much did that film make again?
Teri your point is perfectly made. Just because she had one dud in a year in which she had two HUGE financial successes doesn’t prove you wrong. And more people have seen All About Steve than most of Cruz’s movies. Bullock plays to her talents, and being likable and fun-loving works for her. Performing well in a comedy is an underappreciated art.
Don’t knock Cruz or Kidman. Both of those women take chances with scripts and their ability that Bullock won’t even manage to come close to in this or any other life that Shirley MacLaine thinks she has.
I think the goal of an actor is to be remembered for great roles and unfortunately, most of the time in film that means having an Academy Award for acting. I do think, however, if you do enough roles that make a profound impact (especially if you’re nominated and don’t win), you ultimately outlast most recipiants of the Oscar anyway. Meryl Streep, for example, may have won the Oscar twice but she has been nominated for so many roles because she’s made a huge impact in each of them, even some roles she wasn’t nominated for, and will ultimately be remembered for her strong body of work rather than simply being an Oscar winner.