MovieChat Forums > Boys Don't Cry (2000) Discussion > Sevigny was robbed of an Oscar

Sevigny was robbed of an Oscar

posted 10 years ago by yajji
14 replies | jump to latest

Jolie had a flashy and over the top turn, but the role of Lana was harder because a lot of it was about what was unsaid.

Jolie's characters temperament in Girl, Interrupted was obvious: fiery, angry and flightly. It's easy to act and be impressive with your hands in the air. Of course the Academy loved that, because they rarely award subtle performances. But Chloe Sevigny communicated SO much emotion with so little: it was all in her face, her mannerisms, her movements and never her words, just tiny complicated nuances.

She also had to transcend the hardest barriers with her love for Brandon and overcome that small town ignorance... I think she went from curiosity, to love, to confusion/doubt and love again all within probably 70 minutes screen time. Let's just say it was no easy performance, but she nailed it and thoroughly deserved to win that year.

Call me crazy, but I might even say that she was better than Swank. That's saying a lot, because Swank was obviously brilliant. But Chloe's heartbreaking performance lives on in my memory, 16 years since I first saw the film in the cinema and I think it needs to be championed as much as Swank's.

[–] hgg17 10 years ago

Completely agree except with the Swank comparison. Pretty different roles but Sevigny's acting here is seriously underrated, you're right. Jolie is overrated IMO.

[–] Sauvage_98 10 years ago

Agreed.

~Never Forget. Never Forgive."

[–] KristenStewartForever 10 years ago

No, she wasn't robbed of an Oscar. Her performance was all wrong. The real Lana sued the studio for how they portrayed her. They portrayed her all wrong, so no, she did not deserve an Oscar.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] yajji 10 years ago

Are you deluded? The real Lana has nothing to do with her performance. It doesn't matter how fact-based her character was, it is all dependent on how well it was performed and Sevigny nailed it. Who cares how fictionalised this film was? There was artistic integrity and talent evident in every scene.

[–] KristenStewartForever 10 years ago

The realism has to do entirely with the performance. Lana was a real person. It is a horrible and wrong idea for you to take a real person who lives or lived, fictionalize them and portray them your own way. THEY'RE REAL PEOPLE FOR CHRIST SAKE!! Not someone to Just make fun of by changing them around. No, the realism matters entirely with the performance. Chloe was not robbed of an Oscar. She did it all wrong. Not to mention, those people made money to fictionalize a person still alive. Not to mention, they stole her identity without permission.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] yajji 10 years ago

But how do you know this? Were you an acquaintance of Lana Tisdel in 1993 and during her relationship with Brandon? Did you see the events unfold? How do you know that it wasn't a fair portrayal?

[–] KristenStewartForever 10 years ago

Because the REAL Lana sued the studio for their portrayal. She called it a second murder of Brandon. She said they portrayed her in an insulting moment. She won big money for them. Not to mention, they didn't have permission to use her in the film.

And yes, I was an acquaintance of hers.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] yajji 10 years ago

If there was no permission granted, then why did they let director Kim Pierce interview them for all those years? I mean, I read that Lana was interviewed by Kimberly during the development of the film. So surely Lana would have had an idea that there was going to be something to come out of these interviews. I know you shouldn't believe everything you read, but I've read it in a number of sources.

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 10 years ago

No, she wasn't robbed of an Oscar. Her performance was all wrong. The real Lana sued the studio for how they portrayed her. They portrayed her all wrong, so no, she did not deserve an Oscar.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if she wasn't portraying Lana as the "real Lana"— she portrayed her as she was portrayed in the script, no matter how close or far that was from the truth. Sevigny's performance was phenomenal irrespective of whether or not she was portraying the events as they exactly happened. There were major liberties taken with the story in the script, and most people know that everything in the film is not entirely accurate, but that has no bearing on the quality of the performances.

[–] runawaytrain-79 9 years ago

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if she wasn't portraying Lana as the "real Lana"— she portrayed her as she was portrayed in the script, no matter how close or far that was from the truth. Sevigny's performance was phenomenal irrespective of whether or not she was portraying the events as they exactly happened. There were major liberties taken with the story in the script, and most people know that everything in the film is not entirely accurate, but that has no bearing on the quality of the performances.

Exactly. Saying Sevigny's performance was wrong because it wasn't like the "real Lana", is like saying Julia Roberts' performance in Erin Brokovich wasn't right because she was brunette and the real Erin was blonde. Those minor, trivial factual discrepancies do not matter. What does matter is that an actor has communicated an emotion, a character... that started on paper, and was translated onto screen through talent. This is exactly what Chloe Sevigny did. She brought a soul, truth, heart and humility to what was otherwise a story rooted in lies, deception, ugliness and betrayal. If her performance was wrong, or not good, we wouldn't be discussing it 16 years later. Most people think she was perfect, and they're right. She hit every note.

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

But the script is wrong. That's why the real Lana sued the studio for how they made her out to be. So no, if the person is real, they have to be portrayed the REAL way or it's not right and they can get in trouble that way. Lana sued for that reason. So no, she does not deserve the Oscar. It's wrong. Period. Final.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 9 years ago

Are you twelve?

[–] katekennealykk 9 years ago

Agreed.Sevigney was fantastic & deserving of Oscar.

[–] katekennealykk 9 years ago

Peter Saarsgard was also Oscar worthy.Hes excellent in everything he's in.