It is amazing that Julia Roberts was named Best Actress that year. Ellen's performance in "Requiem for a Dream" was one of the best ever put on film. The Academy had long wanted to give Julia an Oscar since "Pretty Woman", and probably figured this was going to be the best opportunity for them to do so. Anyone else agree?
shareThis subject has been discussed ad nauseam on at least three previous similar threads, though IMDb for reasons known only to themselves have seen fit now to delete these.
As with all threads asking for opinions some people will agree wholeheartedly with the OP and others will disagree equally vehemently. That, of itself, of course, is no reason not to discuss the matter again. It's just that we are goind round and round in circles discussing something that cannot be changed. The Academy Awards are history as soon as they are over and their results/choices stand forever.
For myself, I never saw "Requiem for a Dream" so I can't pass an opinion. I will say, however, that the Academy Awards Committee is only a group of individuals who have opinions like anyone else. The only difference is that it is in their power as to whom they award their Oscars. There will never ever be universal approval of their choice in any given year no matter what they do.
I just want to make it clear, before anyone says so, that no actors or actresses "steal" Oscars - which is often stated on these boards. The Academy Awards Committee simply gets their choice right or wrong depending on the point of view of each of us as individuals.
I shouldn't have done that. I shouldn't have done that. No, you were brilliant. (Notting Hill)
There is absolutely NO comparison between the two performances. Ellen Burstyn was truly incredible: heartbreaking, sympathetic, occasionally even funny, and she disappeared into the role. How can you not cry at her fantastic performance and her sad fate at the end of the movie? Julia Roberts was rather one dimensional: she yelled a lot and acted sassy and showed a lot of cleavage, but there was nothing special: it was simply Norma Raye 2. And not ONCE did you ever not think this was Julia Roberts. Her half assed accent didn't help matters. The Oscars have no relevance really.
share[deleted]
I've never understood the big deal about Julia Roberts and her acting out the same level of candy ass roles over and over again . For a few minutes when she was young and had a full head of curly red locks , she was interesting . Those days are long gone .
share
Majorie-
I realize this is the Erin Brochovich board but you need to see RFAD. it is a great, though disturbing movie.
In my opinion Ellen Burstyn's role was a supporting role as no one had a lead in that film. In that regard it is difficult to compare the two. The fault lies with the producers of Requiem for not campaigning Burstyn in the supporting category where I feel she would have won easily over Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock.
share[deleted]
As much as I love Erin Brockovich, Ellen Burstyn was robbed. It doesn't matter if you say she should have won Best Supporting Actress rather than Best Actress. The fact remains that she was nominated against Julia Roberts, and of the two performances, Burstyn was one hundred times better than Roberts. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
Maturity. The very staple of the IMDb message boards.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ellen Burstyn was ROBBED of an Oscar in 2000...
[deleted]
julia is an incredible actress
she certainly deserved the oscar over everyone else
this movie, and her performance are so incredible and amazing
Julia is not a incredible actress, she is a boring, obnoxious actress, the oscar should have just gone to "Julia Robert's Boobs" or the academy should have grown some balls and said "This year, for the "Best Actress" award, we will not be giving it to the actual Best Actress, we will be giving it the "Most Famous" actress, because the public all love Julia Roberts... right?"
Roberts did not deserve this oscar at all, no matter which way you look at it, not a single statement could prove otherwise.
Julia was brilliant but Ellen gave the performance of a lifetime so Ellen should have won hands down.Julia deserved it more for STEEL MAGNOLIAS.
shareAnd not a single statement could prove that she DIDN'T deserve it. It's all a matter of OPINION, not fact.
shareIt is a matter of fact when you can act like Ellen, and totally out-act the idiot who won the oscar
shareYet another opinion. Having an opinion about something does not necessarily make it a fact. If you're going to throw your opinion out there and declare it a "fact", it would help your argument if you had some other facts out there with it to bolster your claim.
share
It was an opinion, but I don't fault OP indirectly (im presuming) indirectly being rubbed a little bit the wrong way over the Academy's politics.
Julia Roberts is popular. She gave a good performance, but I didn't see it and say "GIVE HER THE DAMN OSCAR RIGHT THIS SECOND!"
I bet if Julia Stiles had done that role people wouldn't be saying that, even though Stiles appeals more to the teens.
The bottom line is (and I know im contradicting myself for asking in another thread WHY did Roberts get lauded so so so much for her performance) that politics prevailed. If the Oscars in 2000 didn't become the Gladiator/Julia Roberts show, I guarantee you Burstyn would've had a shot.
Keep in mind, the oscars love to award past nominees that are "survivors" in the industry and still churn out good work. Look at Michael Caine. he got an Oscar for his body of work with his win in Cider House Rules.
It wasn't because of his performance apparently, it seemed more like "Michael Caine is a great actor, he deserves it and he's due.
BTW, this is coming from someone who loved Julia Roberts' performance. It was fun and made me giddy and cheer for her like she was a female Rocky. It just didn't make me lose sleep for 3 months writing the AMPAS like some people.....
I've seen both films and I honestly prefer Julia Roberts performance over Burstyn's one.
Just my 2 cents.
I used to be one of those championing the smaller films and riskier performances for years till I realised that I was indulging in a sort of inverted snobbery of sorts.
Three great mainstream works have been dismissed in this argument as nothing. Norma Ray - an outstanding movie/performance, Rocky an other excellent film - way different from it's successors, and Julia Roberts in EB.
Julia didn't just do sassy with an artificial cleavage - she played the whole gamut of emotions (though one could wish some scenes and lines didn't play so obviously to the gallery).
Sally Field blew my head off in Norma Rae. Not for a second did I remember that she's a popular actress (post Smokey) - she was that convincing as a true blue factory worker, and the emotions she portrayed stayed with people for days.
Rocky was a fairy tale that had a surprisingly realistic treatment. It wasn't the huge fight scenes that made Rocky great but the very real little slice-of-life moments. A real gem.
Stallone ruined Rocky's legacy with some bad sequels, Hollywood ruined Norma Rae's legacy by re-awarding Sally Field for Places In The Heart, and Julia Roberts has often ruined her own chances at being taken seriously by making too many overcute star vehicles. But taken in isolation, all three deserved a bow.
Out of the three, only Rocky deserved to remain a nominee - sp. considering it was up against Taxi Driver, All the President's Men and the amazing Bound for Glory. But Rocky was a great film, nonetheless.
@ jemimakahn
Did Roberts play more than a 'Sassy woman with artificial cleaveage'?
I'm not here to disarm you of your opinions but why is supporting 'smaller films' Inverted snobbery?
America lacks originality in films today, it has for years. It is the 'Smaller' independent films that are a breath of fresh air in American Cinema; Films not made for popcorn eating entertainment seekers, but films to affect or express the willing.
All that upsets me is that the Academy strives themselves on awarding people for cinematic achievement, where was Roberts?. I know where Burstyn's was, it shone through the screen the whole movie. Burstyn put herself in a place not many American actresses dare put themselves, into the depths of ones downfall. That is a cinematic achievement & one of the reasons i have lost all respect for the Oscars.
I love Ellen Burstyn, but thought Julia's performance in Erin Brockovich was outstanding and Oscar worthy. With all due respect to Ms. Burstyn, I did not see her film so it would not be fair for me to judge. Just had to say though that I felt Ms. Roberts did give an Oscar worthy performance.
shareShe only won the Oscar because the committee probably thought this is the only time shes going to be nominated for an Oscar so might as well give it to her. It happened before and has happened since. Its disgusting but who cares. I do not measure someones career based on whether they won an Oscar or not. Stanley Kubrick NOT once ever won an Oscar and he is considered one of the greatest directors of the 20th century.
_____________
When A Man Lies He Murders Some Part Of The World