Last nomination in 2007 - humiliated again. See how mean-spirited they are even in different circumstances)?
Kathy, there's one thing to be disappointed over certain outcomes
and another to actually be angry over them. We've all been disappointed
and disagree with decisions over the years, but to think the academy, and
I can't believe I'm going to defend them a bit, but to think they, as a group,
sit there and deliberately are mean-spirited, for example, by not giving
Peter O'Toole the award for that performance in 2007, which he probably
shouldn't have been nominated for anyway--so you
could say they were
being generous!, is a bit far fetched in my opinion. They did not award Jake
or Heath, but no one expected them to. Lead actors under thirty almost never,
Brody excepted, win that award. In 1962 Peter was just 30. Brando was thirty
and probably should have won for his seminal Streetcar performance, but
no one really disagrees that Bogart's African Queen nor Peck's Mockingbird
performances were unworthy. As for Jake, he was up against Clooney, who
was also up for director and whether or not we'd have enjoyed a different
outcome, the outcome was not at all unexpected.
I keep writing about BBM's loss, because we have sufficient evidence
in the way things played out that year, that homophobia was a big factor
in it's outcome. If there had been any evidence suggesting "distinct (or any)
possibility" of another outcome I would have been terrifically disappointed
and disagreeable, but had a modicum of acceptance based on previous
behavior's. (Oscar precursor's and prognostications.) It is evident or
acceptable in most of the cases one disagrees or dislikes an outcome, so I
can still disagree and let it go, but only in the case of BBM, I see no other
options than the disagreeable one. And that is why I do not let it go, especially
if something to the contrary surfaces.
Make sense?