Why no Oscars for Bond? Three answers

The Star has an interesting question and answer about the Oscars with three experts. Here are there thoughts on James Bond:

Why is the James Bond franchise largely an Oscar-free zone? The series is one of the longest and most successful in cinema history, yet Oscar seems to turns up his nose at 007. Any theories on that?


Pavlik [spokesperson for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]: Obviously the members who nominate have been finding five other achievements that they feel better fulfill their requirements for “best.”


[Timothy M. Gray, editor of Variety]: I don’t know why people seemed to ignore Casino Royale. I thought Daniel Craig was spectacular.


[Sasha Stone, of OscarWatch.com]: They don’t seem to like pretty boys as much as they like pretty girls. If Bond should ever, say, become afflicted with a life-threatening disease, go to a war-torn country or fight off Hitler he might have a better shot. But it’s just not “important” enough.

Pavlik’s is a non-answer, but I think Stone’s thoughts are worthwhile.

Read the whole thing.


5 Responses to “Why no Oscars for Bond? Three answers”

  1. To the bonds really act. I think just by the shear fact that they switch bonds so often, is a sign that ANY one can play bond. That in itself is OSCAR doom. An oscar role, should be given to an actor/ress that, that could only play that role, as it was played. Bonds aren’t heart felt characters, seriously when was the last time you connected with BOND. Riiight

  2. Deborah Lipp Says:

    Well, if I didn’t connect with Bond I certainly wouldn’t devote a book and a blog to him.

    But tell me, if Oscars only go to actors who are the only one who can play a role, then that must mean that Shakespearean roles aren’t Oscar-worthy? Plenty of actors have played Hamlet, yet in 1949, Olivier won for doing so. Just last year, Philip Seymour Hoffman won for playing Truman Capote, who has been portrayed several times. In 2002, Michael Caine received the Best Actor nomination for a remake, playing a character portrayed by Michael Redgrave in 1958. In 1994, Nigel Hawthorne was nominated for playing King George III, who has also been played by Roger Boothe and Anthony Cochrane (among others).

    In 1991, three of the Best Actor nominees were playing characters who had been played before, including the winner. That’s DeNiro as Max Cady in a remake of Cape Fear, Warren Beatty as Bugsy Seigel, and the Oscar-winning Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector, who had already been portrayed by Brian Cox.

    So yea, in other words, that’s a stupid excuse.

    Just because more than one person can play Bond (only six in forty-four years, not exactly a stampede), doesn’t mean anyone can. I can’t. Bet you can’t either. Not well, anyway. Not with the brilliance of a Connery or a Craig.

  3. I didn’t imply to win and oscar a role could only be played ONCE, ever.

    Take for instance Hoffman and his prortrayal of Truman Capote, yes, sure it’s been done before, but not nearly as perfectly acted as he did or the ones before would have won the accolades and acclaim. Besides the fact, that he a straight man, playing a gay, character, cahnged his voice, lose weight, I think he nailed pretty well, don’t you. Sorry but Oscar loves the deglamorization of Hollywood (Ie Kidman, Theron etc)

    I guess you misunderstood me when I said “An oscar role, should be given to an actor/ress that, that could only play that role, as it was played”. In further detail I’m talking about when an actor becomes so engrossed in the character, so intune that it becomes difficult to see anyone else playing that role, they nail it perfectly. As in the case with Hoffman, that’s exactly how I would picture Capote, heck I’d perfer Hoffman over the real VERSION.

    With bond films, there’s no deep emotional scaring or conflict, where the character development. I would hardly call the Lusting of a bond girl, a love story. Pllluuusease It’s an action flick for crying out loud.

    With Bond, he’s a dime a dozen. In 2 movies it’ll be someone else, Repeat Heck P. Diddy wants to play Bond. Same Cycle, SPy, secert, Bond Girl, Trapped, Escape.. Repeat. Not saying the bond films aren’t good.

    Griag was good, the film was good. But, I mean at the end of the day, do you really think Criag acted better then Will Smith, Peter O’Toole, or Forrest Whitaker. To each its own, but if you do that would equate you have one convoluted idea of “ACTING”

  4. There is a lot of politics and what passes for Hollywood PC in the Academy. Back in the FRWL,GF/TB day, when the films were an undeniable force, they were recognized for secondary categories. I believe the people who vote today just don’t take the movies seriously enough to assign a best picture or actor nomination. Past history aside, judged as a stand alone flick, CR IMO would hold up in several categories.

  5. Deborah Lipp Says:

    Well, James Bond is a modern mythic figure. When Connery left the role, audiences said no one else could play it because he was so perfect and so iconic. In fact, there are many Bond fans who have never seen the later movies, Connery is Bond to them.

    But Bond is a transcendent role, and each person adds his own stamp to it.

    I think in many ways it is harder to do what Craig did with CR than to have a big, emotive scene as an actor. He had to show what he was thinking and feeling without the crutch of all that emotionalism and dramatic gesture.

    And of course, the argument about acting says nothing about the magnificent achievements in CR in cinematography, editing, musical score, and special effects.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: