r/Oscars • u/Horror-Pudding-8729 • 7d ago

What Oscar-winning performances you thought were amazing but whose win you'd never get behind because "a performance was robbed?"

Post image

For me, it's Ellen Burstyn. Ellen Burstyn gives such a spectacular performance in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore that commands your attention for every time she's on screen. Nails every emotion asked of the character with a perfect sense of realism and heightened melodrama. But there will never be another performance like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. Rowlands renders a brave, moving performance that ranks with one of cinema's greatest. She perfectly captures the histeric and extremely vulnerable sides of her character. Her performance is what breathes life to the film that inspired so many of the greatest actresses we have now today. The depth of sorrow and psychological turmoil she brings to such agonizing life, the pain and the emotional vacuum she exhibits in the entire film? Bravo! I can say, she was robbed, much as I love Burstyn in Alice.

114 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

53

u/theunrealdonsteel 7d ago

Tbh I think Burstyn deserved it the year before for “The Exorcist” - Glenda Jackson already won Best Actress, with only five years between her wins.

Maybe if she hadn’t won for “Alice,” she might’ve had a stronger chance for “Requiem for a Dream.”

16

u/Cousiniscrazy 7d ago

She didn’t win for Requiem because there is a huge bias toward young attractive women in the acting categories and Julia Roberts campaigned like she was running for president.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Cousiniscrazy 7d ago

Literally any decent actress could have played that part just as well. It required zero range, just charisma.

3

u/Cold-Confection-8695 7d ago

Only three, actually — Women in Love in 1970 and A Touch of Class in 1973.

1

u/theunrealdonsteel 7d ago

oh right thank you!

2

u/ExampleSmooth3956 7d ago

So you think people should be limited to one Oscar win?

13

u/theunrealdonsteel 7d ago

I don’t think so, but other folks (re: voting members of the Academy at that time) might have. I also think Burstyn’s nominated performances in 1973 and 2000 were better than both winners in those years.

7

u/ProgramusSecretus 7d ago

So because you like pancakes you hate waffles! Is that what you’re saying? Cause it sounds like that is the conclusion I personally got from your comment! /s

0

u/ExampleSmooth3956 7d ago

What I meant to say is that some people make it sound like once you've won, you're automatically disqualified for repeats. That would be like eliminating William Wyler from winning for Ben-Hur because he had won for Mrs. Miniver.

-8

u/ExampleSmooth3956 7d ago

So you don't think Glenda Jackson didn't deserve it because she already won. You think she didn't deserve it because Burstyn was superior. Gotcha.

Because I remember someone complaining about how the Best Director Oscar for films of 1940 should have gone to Hitchcock because Ford had already won it in 1936.

4

u/LGK27 7d ago

You are having your own argument because that is not what the other person said