MovieChat Forums > Wit (2001) Discussion > Emma Thompson did not win EMMY for 'Wit'...

Emma Thompson did not win EMMY for 'Wit'? Why?

posted 20 years ago by doncoyotejr
17 replies | jump to latest

Can anyone believe that Emma Thompson did not win the Emmy for lead actress that year! Remember who?.....Judy Davis for her over the top performance as a lip synching Judy Garland! This probably is the greatest injustice ever by Emmy
voters since I can remember. (I was annoyed when James Woods "My Name Is Bill W" won over Robert Duvall's Augustus McCrae/"Lonesome Dove"; not because of Woods' work but he had won 3yrs prior for "The Promise")
Emma Thompson gave one of the greatest performances ever filmed, How could she have been denied an Emmy? Any theroies? Discuss amongst yourselves.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] riverjude89 19 years ago

so i went to a medical conference a week ago and they showed this movie to us...and the counselors were doing their intro to the movie and theyre like "yeh so dont feel like you have to hold in your emotions. if you need to cry,cry cuz i guarantee everyone else will be too" and then they had pple stationed in the aisles to hand out tissues...so i was like *beep* depressing movie...but by GOD it was sooooo good. depressing? HELL YES...people were crying for an hour after it ended...me and my roommate and a friend went back to our room and had a full blown emotional discussion on the whole thing...oh it was terrible..but really good...i finally understood the whole spelling of the movie as “w;t” though im sad to say someone had to sort of explain that one to me...but overall, an amazing amazing movie

Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody. - holden caulfield

[–] ChoirBoyOC 19 years ago

Well, I disagree. Although I thought Emma Thompson marvelous in this role, I also thought Judy Davis was exceptional in the Garland biopic. For full realization of her hard work, you had to watch the other actresses playing Garland at other ages: they were all bad imitations, while Davis got into the soul of her subject. And her lip-synching to one of the most famous performances ever captured on record was so dead-on that I don't see how you couldn't at least respect the enormous effort, even though she was careful to make that the least interesting thing going on.

But the real reason I posted was to point out the subtle irony: years before, in Impromptu, Judy Davis delivered one of the greatest mockeries in all of cinema, lambasting Emma Thompson: "Stupid, stupid rainnn". From what I can tell, they're at least friendly and respect each other. I think you ought to too.

[–] Sugarsnap 18 years ago

I can't comment on Judy Davis's portrayal of Judy Garland as I haven't seen it. Suffice it to say, though, that she's a very gifted actress and won a string of rave reviews and awards for that role, so I'm sure if it beat Emma Thompson's work in Wit it must be something special.

Now as for Ms. Thompson here, I have always liked her a lot as an actress, but Wit was the movie that made her truly love her. Her devastating tour-de-force increased my respect for her tenfold. Emma is no slouch in the acting department - just look at her marvellous work in films like Howards End, The Remains of the Day, Sense & Sensibility, Much Ado About Nothing, The Winter Guest and Stranger Than Fiction. But this has to be the bravest and most uncompromising performance of her career. What she does in Wit is remarkable: she makes us care - deeply - about this tough, cold, aloof, highly intellectual harridan who has silenced her heart to follow her brain every step of the way. Underneath the frostiness, there is a fragility and vulnerability that is just heartbreaking to behold. Thompson's performance reminds us that every human being deserves dignity and compassion in times of suffering.

If Wit had been theatrically released, she could well have won her second Best Actress Oscar for her role here. As it is, I'm happy she at least got Emmy, Golden Globe and SAG nominations for her courageous effort.

[–] Archer-Kane 18 years ago

Hello all

New to the forum, not new to the film - loved it - loved Emma.

I am Australian and Judy Davis is one of our most beloved, and talented exports. I have seen her as Garland and she is magnificent. Whether it's better than Emma's performance - it's hard to say - they're extremely different roles.

They both deserved to win - the competition was just exceptionally strong that particular year. Which is a shame... cos in any other year, Emma could've won hands down.

And as for the comment re if this film had received theatrical release, Emma would've taken the Oscar - well that's a given - the 2001 winner was Julia Roberts for "Erin Brockovich" for crying out loud - no offense to Roberts' fans - its just Brockovich was not the best performance she's given!!!!

That's all from me - love the film - love Emma.

How can I be content to plod when I feel the need to soar?

[–] Clearlylosingit 16 years ago

"Wit" would have been released in 2001, which means she would have had to take it away from Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball".

Pie Ho fo life!

[–] MissMellieY 11 years ago

Hallie Berry won an OSCAR, not an Emmy. WIT was a TV movie, MONSTER'S BALL was a theatrical film release.

"A man's kiss is his signature" -- Mae West

[–] Clearlylosingit 11 years ago

This years old discussion was about if Wit had been a theatrical release would Emma had won the Oscar.

[–] marvelass 10 years ago

That's right. If Wit had been released in theaters in 2001, it would have been eligible for that year's Oscars. Erin Brockovich was a 2000 release. I can see how it's confusing to people, because the ceremony isn't held on the year it celebrates. For example, Roberts was awarded Best Actress at the 73rd Academy Awards which were held on March 25, 2001, but it was honoring the films of 2000.

The 2001 Best Actress nominees (and Thompson's would-be competition) were:

- Halle Berry, Monster's Ball
- Judi Dench, Iris
- Nicole Kidman, Moulin Rouge!
- Sissy Spacek, In the Bedroom
- Renee Zellwegger, Bridget Jones's Diary

(Berry won at the 74th Academy Awards held on March 24, 2002.)

My guess is that Thompson would've bumped Zellwegger out of the lineup. For one, Bridget Jones was a comedy, and, two, Zellwegger was her film's only nomination.

Monster's Ball had another nomination, for Best Original Screenplay (one of the Top Five categories, along with Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Actor).

Iris had three acting nominations (it won Best Supporting Actor).

Moulin Rouge! had 8 nominations, including Best Picture (it won Production Design and Costume Design).

In the Bedroom was also a Best Picture nominee and had two additional acting nominations (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress), as well as Best Adapted Screenplay.

There is no doubt that Wit would've received several nominations. In fact, I think all of its Emmy nominations -- Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay -- would've been the same at the Oscars.

[–] larpine 17 years ago

Good question here. I remember being so blown away by this movie, but remember that the emmys where upstage that year by 9/11. The ceremony was postponed and the the voting was done that year when America was dealing with the aftermath of the the event. The movie , so incredible, but very dark and heavy, aired at a time and moment when acting awards seemed a bit unimportant.

[–] schuhj 11 years ago

She co-laborated with Nichols on the Screen play. Whatever awards she made not have received, I am sure she is pleased that she can point to a very fine piece of work. And it won’t date.

[–] bridellem 16 years ago

I don't think Judy Davis was OOTT at all. I thought she was brilliant. So was Emma Thompson. I think I would have had a tough time deciding myself who to give the award to.

[–] Benedict_Cumberbatch 15 years ago

I haven't seen the Judy Garland film yet (it's on my list), but I love Judy Davis as much as Emma Thompson so I wouldn't doubt she was brilliant as well. Emma at least won some awards and a bunch of nominations for this role, which is probably my favourite performance by hers (which means a lot!), so I don't think we can say it's the biggest injustice ever, when there are brilliant performances that go completely unnoticed by the media and critics awards.

"I did cramps the way Meryl Streep did accents" - Calliope (Middlesex)

[–] marvelass 8 years ago

That same year also saw Hannah Gordon-Taylor's exceptional performance in Anne Frank: The Whole Story, for which she was also nominated for the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series or Movie. Between Thompson, Davis, and Gordon-Taylor, I would've had a difficult time choosing a winner. 

[–] blewellyn 14 years ago

I haven't seen Davis's performance so I can't comment on that but Thompson may have lost because this movie was so very, very sad and even depressing for those of us who have lost loved ones to cancer or are a cancer survivor. The voters (who are they anywho?) may have skipped this movie because they were unwilling to get into an intense emotional state reliving things they'd rather forget.

B

[–] AzaleaRose 12 years ago

It wouldn't surprise me if the post-9/11 mood was what edged Davis out in front - of course, it's impossible to tell with these sorts of things but one can always speculate. While "Wit" and "Me and My Shadows" are both stories of personal tragedy, they do have quite a few significant differences. "Wit" is about an (initially) unlikeable character, who is also a hardcore intellectual - a rare breed in mainstream TV/movie narratives as far as protagonists are concerned. It deals with a realistic subject in a thoroughly brutal manner.

"Me and My Shadows", on the other hand, centres around a public figure that the audience already knows as well as a particular favourite subject of Oscar voters and therefore presumably of Emmy voters - showbiz. It provided the opportunity for some escape into something comfortingly familiar. Though it doesn't gloss over Garland's struggles, the overall tone is a bit more upbeat than "Wit".

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]