MovieChat Forums > The Hours (2003) Discussion > Did Nicole Kidman really deserved her Os...

Did Nicole Kidman really deserved her Oscar?

posted 16 years ago by i_rool
76 replies | jump to latest

I just want to know what others think about her win that year
Personally, I love her performance in this film and still do, despite all the other stuff she's featured in later on.
One might say that it may be a pity win for her because she didn't win for Moulin Rouge.
I didn't watch the performances of the other nominees that year too, so I can't say much
What do you guys think?
How did she compare to the other actresses nominated that year?
Who else should have gotten the award?

[–] jingizu_z 13 years ago

I loved her performance in The Hours, she was truly outstanding and basically any other year I would have given the oscar to her. But not this particular year, I truly think that Salma Hayek should have won for Frida.

[–] NoraMR 13 years ago

i think she really did deserve her oscar... her performance in this movie was stupendous. very inspiring.

[–] ginda2000 13 years ago

I think this is a two pronged question really. Parking the aspect of whether she deserved the oscar or not, she was nominated in the wrong category. She was not on screen enough to justify her being in best actress and should have been nominated in best supporting actress.

Personally (and just my opinion) I don't think she deserved the win and believe it should have gone to Renee Zellweger or Julianne Moore. Zellweger was the stronger and more deserving performance (in my view) as she literally had to hold 'Chicago' together.

Nicole Kidman has put in some very good performances and 'The Hours' is one of them. However, that year Hollywood were actually voting politically and inside it was always known the academy were showing their support to Nicole for her terrible treatment by Tom Cruise in that previous year or so. With Nicole's win they were elavating her above her ex-husband in the career stakes and making a stand against his shocking behaviour and attempts to manipulate the industry and the publics perceptions of his life. Nicole Kidman had been caught in the middle of this and her winning of an academy award gave her professional independence. She's a good actress ultimately, so before you say it - no I certainly don't believe Katie Holmes will win an oscar at any point let alone next year!

Renee Zellweger was compensated when she won the best supporting actress oscar the following year.

As I said, Kidman's performance in The Hours was good, but not enough to grant her Best Actress listing.

Just remember, a lot of the time an actor will win an Oscar for a body of work and recognition as opposed to that one performance. That year it was a very different political voting playing field.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arasace 12 years ago

What shocking behavior, he just dumped her ass for Penelope. Why does Brad Pitt get a free pass but not Cruise?

What about Kidman making fun of Cruise on Letterman thats cool, if Cruise did that he would be called an ass.

She might've won a oscar and still gets award noms, but all her movies have tanked since Cold Mountain! While Cruise has been one of the top ten biggest stars in the world for over 30 years.

[–] a-2003 13 years ago

I am Australian, and am usually very supportive and happy to see Australian actors get recognition and praise.
HOWEVER...
I think Nicole Kidman is a semi-talented actress. I think her win for The Hours was ridiculous. I have seen the film multiple times, and she is the weakest link by far. The supporting actors are better than her. All her scenes were screaming "I am Nicole Kidman and I am acting!" I thought the train station scene looked over-rehearsed and the emotions appeared forced, from both her and Leonard Woolf (Stephen Dillane).
I have seen all the other performances nominated that year, and think that they are ALL miles ahead of her performance in The Hours, particularly Julianne Moore and Salma Hayek.
Say what you will, that nose did half the work for her.
On repeat viewings, I think Meryl's performance is the best in the film. The relationship between her and Richard (Ed Harris) was heart-breaking and appeared so fragile on the screen, it was exquisite. Embarrassing that she wasn't nominated for this film.

What's truth got to do with anything?

[–] dawesy101 12 years ago

I don't think Nicole is a consistent or versatile actress but I do believe she did amazingly in this film. I thought her scene at the train station was very well done. In comparison to the other actresses up that year, Renee Zelwegger, Salma Hayek, etc, she did the best job out of them. Its not the greatest performance of all time but it was the best out of those 5 nominations and it is the best that Nicole has ever done. IMO anyway. Art is subjective. That goes for people's acting. Can never be unanimous on someone's role in a film.

Homer, you're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly. If a strange man offers you a ride, I say take it!

[–] neof 12 years ago

I love this film - I saw at at the cinema twice which is something I hardly ever do, and Ive seen it so many times on DVD.

But what interests me in Nicoles performance and should she have won an oscar or not, is was Virginia Woolf really like that? Or was she just giving a performance on how we think Virginia Woolf should have been?

Her performance was great, but as Virginia Woolf, or as someone who we are told is Virginia Woolf, in period clothes and made up to look like her?

[–] Shiva116k 10 years ago

I would have her win it every time with that performance.

I sometimes find myself forgetting what a talented actress Nicole is. Maybe it's because I don't see her in things that often, but whereas I've been through stages of being obsessed with Moore and Streep it just doesn't occur to me just how good Kidman can be.

I thought the same thing today when I randomly chose to come back to what used to be my favourite film, after not seeing it for a long time. I thought I wanted to see Meryl Streep, but it's Kidman's performance that really gets me. She conveys so much with such a controlled exterior, I just find it fascinating. The way in which she presents the cool almost dispassionate exterior and yet conveys the struggle beneath is just masterful.

[–] jingizu_z 12 years ago

Honestly, no I don't think she should have won. She was very good of course, but so were the other two actresses in The Hours. This once again bring to the fore that I think the Oscars should include a "Best Ensemble Cast" award, which The Hours should have won.

IMHO, I think Salma Hayek should have won for Frida. She was brilliant in it.

[–] BelleStar82 11 years ago

Sometimes the Oscars get it right and sometimes the winner is chosen because of politics or hype or act as a career award over a single performance.

Kidman should have won for To Die For. I think the movie was too ahead of its time and actually think that if it came out today, the movie/her performance would be more recognized.

She also should have won for Moulin Rouge - she sang, danced, had to be funny, and be dramatic. Halle just overacted. To me, this was one of the Oscar's biggest blunders.

I think Nicole is incredible in almost everything, but not sure if this was her best or if it was really fair when she was really supporting. I'm not the biggest Zellweger fan, but she was really superb in Chicago and probably should have won that year.

Then to make up for that, they throw Zellweger a bone for Cold Mountain, which was a ridiculous performance and probably should have gone to Shoreh (sp?) for House of Sand and Fog.

I'm sure Julianne Moore will win one of these days, but I bet you anything it will be for some forgettable film or 10 minute performance because they will feel like it is finally "her turn."

[–] Crown_vic_7 10 years ago

She deserved it.