Oscar does not glitter with snub
Campus Times
March 27, 1998
Probably the best film to ever be put on the movie screen was "Titanic."
So, Monday night, when "Titanic" won 11 of 14 Oscar nominations,
not one person in the country should have been surprised.
However, there was one surprising moment that I did not agree with come
that glamorous night. How could Leonardo DiCaprio not be nominated for his
performance in "Titanic"?
DiCaprio did such a good job in "Titanic." He was the main
reason the film did so well. The way he acted was like no other, and he
should have been recognized for his hard work and dedication.
I have seen plenty of movies in my life. I love movies, and from my
movie-going experience, I believe that not one other person could have played
the role of Jack as well as DiCaprio, except maybe, River Phoenix, but that
is something that we will never know, so in this case no other actor could
have done such a great job in that role.
Kate Winslet who played Rose in "Titanic" was nominated for
her performance, and she should have been. She did a great job for a rich,
stuck up girl returning back to her homeland. But to have her nominated
and not DiCaprio, something smells fishy, and we are not at sea.
The whole Oscar nomination process is so political. I bet the Academy
did not nominate DiCaprio because he his only 23 years old. The Academy
probably feels that he is just too young of an actor to be put in the same
category as Jack Nicholson. He is not prestigious enough.
The Academy was afraid that he would beat all his competitors and that
it would be wrong for a child to beat everyone and possibly embarrass his
older counterparts. That had to be the reason, because I cannot think of
any other one, can you?
Nicholson and Helen Hunt won best actor and best actress, respectively,
for "As Good As It Gets."
That movie was great, and Nicholson and Hunt did a wonderful job acting
in it. But do you not think that DiCaprio did even a better job in "Titanic"?
Everything Nicholson puts his hands on seems to turn to gold. And Hunt
is so likeable, that she can do no wrong. But do they really deserve best
actor and best actress?
OK, maybe Hunt did deserve best actress. She did a really great job,
especially when she broke down in front of her mother. That was a really
moving moment in the movie. And to put up with Nicholson's compulsive character
the entire time, she does deserve the best actress award.
Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" just made the cut off line
for the age limit. He is 27, and I'm sure that if he was just a few years
younger, he would not have been nominated either.
Speaking of Damon, he did a great job too. At least he was nominated
for the category. The Academy saw that he deserved to be put in with the
best actors and he was.
Do not get me wrong. Like I said, I love movies, and I thought that
"Titanic," "As Good As It Gets" and "Good Will
Hunting" were all wonderful movies. But the Academy should have recognized
where the talent was this year and they should of nominated DiCaprio. He
deserves at least that much.
The poor guy did not even show up for the Oscar ceremony on Monday night.
There was a bunch of rumors that I heard for the reason he was not there.
One was that he was pissed off for not being nominated and another was that
he was having surgery in Europe.
However, it was confirmed on Tuesday morning when my mom called me at
8:30 and told me her opinion of the reason he was not there. She heard from
the top movie critics (whoever they are) that he is sort of a shy guy. And
the reason he did not show up was probably because he could not of handle
all the attention that the fans would have given him.
Plus, he did not want to be asked a million times by reporters, how
does it feel not to be nominated? His answer probably would have been, "I
do not know why I was not nominated, but I should have been!"
Laura Czingula, a senior journalism major, is editor in chief of
the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at czingula@ulv.edu.
