I’m surprised you thought Rush deserved the supporting actor award over Bale. Rush was good in The King’s Speech, but nothing exceptional, IMO. Colin Firth deserved the leading role though, no doubt about it.
Pretty sure the best supporting award isn’t meant for those who find financing to make movies… if that was the case, Walhberg should’ve won the best actor nod for The Fighter as he was behind that movie from A-Z. In any case, as I said before, Rush was good in The King’s Speech, but the right guy won, Bale was exceptional in The Fighter, and he long-deserved that Oscar.
I hope that ‘Alice in Wonderland’ wins nothing.
Personally I feel that ‘Scott Pilgrim’ got screwed with its 0 nominations.
I’m surprised you thought Rush deserved the supporting actor award over Bale. Rush was good in The King’s Speech, but nothing exceptional, IMO. Colin Firth deserved the leading role though, no doubt about it.
I thought the Academy might recognize Rush’s efforts for his role in getting The King’s Speech financed in concert with the performance he delivered.
Pretty sure the best supporting award isn’t meant for those who find financing to make movies… if that was the case, Walhberg should’ve won the best actor nod for The Fighter as he was behind that movie from A-Z. In any case, as I said before, Rush was good in The King’s Speech, but the right guy won, Bale was exceptional in The Fighter, and he long-deserved that Oscar.
To suggest that politics and money don’t inform Academy voters at all is a little bit naive though, don’t you think?
I’m not saying that these are the ONLY factors. But that they are sometimes factors.
In the case of Bale vs. Rush, it wasn’t a factor.