Over the last 10 days I’ve heard a lot of people, in the Academy and otherwise, bad-mouthing Kate Winslet and Anne Hathaway for their emotional acceptance speeches at this month’s Golden Globes and Critics Choice awards, respectively. Upon sharing the Critics Choice prize with her idol, Meryl Streep, Hathaway — who certainly meant to say this a bit more artfully — said it was “fitting” that she tied for the prize with Streep since she thought the Doubt star was the best actress around. But it came off condescending to all the other actresses in the room, particularly her category-mates like Angelina Jolie and Melissa Leo. The usually composed Winslet, meanwhile, nearly had a heart attack when she won her two Golden Globe prizes. To many people, the reactions seemed over-the-top. Or worse, fake.
Now, I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I understand why Hathaway and Winslet would be emotional about their victories. I can’t even begin to imagine how many times, in interviews and in regular conversations, Hathaway has talked about how Rachel Getting Married seems like her bid to be a “serious” actress. Or how many times Winslet, who worked so hard on Revolutionary Road and The Reader, had been reminded that she’d never won a big award like an Oscar or a Globe. So it must have been overwhelming for both of them to hear their names called. But on the other hand, let’s remember that both of these awards are handed out by groups of journalists, for God’s sake — people that big stars like Hathaway and Winslet usually don’t give a hoot about. Why should they then fall to pieces over what those journalists think about them? Particularly in comparison to Laura Linney, who accepted her Globe for John Adams with such understatement and class, it was very surprising.
But here’s the question: Should award contenders’ speeches at pre-Oscar ceremonies affect how many votes they get from the Academy? Or should it be simply about their performances and nothing else? Regardless of what you think, apparently at least a few Oscar voters are now less likely to vote for Hathaway and Winslet. Maybe Streep did herself a big favor by skipping the Critics Choice ceremony.
Comments (1-30) of 212 Add your comment
this is ridiculous. it should be about the performance.
This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. The fact that Kate Winslet and Anne Hathaway’s performances should be negated because they were excited to receive an award is ludicrous. I wasn’t annoyed with either one of their acceptance speeches and Kate Winslet deserves any and all awards she receives. I would rather seem someone excited and grateful, than underwhelmed and uninterested.
an Oscar win should be about the PERFORMANCE and nothing but. no money should be exchanged (hello, shakespeare in love), political thoughts, or past speeches. forget about that crap and award great performances (see also: adrian brody) and nothing else.
Kate’s acceptance speech was humble, genuine and heartfelt. It should show the academy just how much she would appreciate such an honour as an Oscar. She is also long overdue but that is another conversation. She is a terrific actress and deserves all the accolades coming her way.
This is just ridiculous. First “they” complained that Angelina was too morose and subdued, and now Kate and Anne were apparently too excited. At least Kate and Anne had the consideration to remember that the viewers at home are looking for a little excitement and emotion and that every time a speech features “understatement and class,” we the home viewers nod off. At least these two realized we don’t care who your lawyer and accountant are, we just want a little vigor!
This is just stupid. The best performance should win, no matter tne personality or any other factor of the actor/actress. This notion is really absurd.
Giving awards for art is no different than pinning a blue ribbon on a quilt at the county fair. If the prize pig or peach cobbler makes a speech, who cares? That these people care about these things at all is more than a little ridiculous.
What a dumb article. Of course it should be about the performance, I could care less about anything else. And while Hathaway annoys me a little when she talks, Winslet seemed truly grateful.
The only thing that should ever disqualify a performance from receiving an award is starring in Norbit.
I totally agree with Michelle about this. It should be entirely about the performance and if anything else should influence the outcome, I would not say that emotional speeches would be the first thing that comes to mind. In fact, I’d say that stand-offish and disconnect speeches would play more of an influence. Then again, it’s stupid that acceptance speeches should influence at all.
I 100% agree that the awards, particularly the Academy Award, should 100% be based on performance. However, to think that is the case is a ABSOLUTELY naive.
Other factors, like body of work and the actor’s likability and popularity (which was discussed in this blog), play into who Academy members vote for. So I’m not a bit surprised to hear that Hathaway and Winslet’s speeches have turned certain Academy members off.
By the way, I LOVE Kate Winslet, but I HATED her speeches at the Globes.
http://whatjohnceballosthinks.blogspot.com/2009/01/random-though-of-moment-sure-to-be.html
When I read the headline, I thought this was going to be about saying something controversial (political, etc.) during the acceptance speech. I just can’t see a voter changing his/her mind on casting a vote because an actor or actress wasn’t ‘humble enough.’
Yes seriously, this is the biggest bunch of bs I’ve ever heard/read.
Awarding someone based on their speech for a previous win?? How shallow has the Academy and other isiders become? Gosh I thought Oscars were handed out based on how great the performance of that star in a film.
And Winslet, oh my god, I cried during her speeches. She was wonderful, yes she rattled on too many crew members, but remember this woman has been taking fantastic roles in fantastic films for years, getting nominated for nearly all of them and then continually going home empty. All while being praised “best actress of her generation” by the press etc. So for her to win and win TWICE, she was completely humbled and blow away. Her speeches were the best I’ve ever heard, anytime, anywhere.
She deserves anything and everything she gets. It’s time.
As for Hathaway, well of course she mentioned Streep, they’re former co-stars and friends. One will blank upon all but those they are familiar with.
Sadly, this raises a good point. A big school of thought is that the reason Robeto Beigini won in 1999 was because people loved his speeches at other shows and wanted to see him at the Oscars, not really thinking of the merit of his performance.
And Russell Crowe’s rude remarks at the BAFTAs in 2002 probably cost him the Best Actor award for “A Beautiful Mind.” Sad to say but a lot of times, politics and appeal mix in with the worth of the performance in voters’ minds.
Many nominees campaign for the awards they’re up for. Nothing new. Over emoting upon receiving the award? Julia Roberts, Halle Berry, Roberto Benigni come to mind.
Since when is it: Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role…who gave the best acceptance speech before winning this Oscar. Seriously, if you win the award, it’s yours and you can accept it how you see fit. If we are now letting the televising of awards shape the winners, then the honor is entirely pointless. It should be about the best performance…and since that so often is subjective, adding in remarks made at previous awards galas are going to shape things, I say call off all the words.
How as Kate’s speech fake? In her second speech she said she was sorry to the other women for winning. Who does that ever? I think she meant it.
Plus she has been losing everything under the sun for years, why shouldn’t she get emotional. At least her speech was more interesting than Helen Mirren’s who thanked Queen Elizabeth.
As for Laura Linney, it was obvious she was going to win beforehand and she’s already won an Emmy for the same performance. She knew she had a 90 percent chance of winning. Kate had no real way to know she would win. Both Anne Hathaway and Penelope Cruz were predicated to win the Globes.
I LOVE that you wrote about this and I do think it hurts their chances and reputations. Kate Winslet, hands down best actress of our generation, was THE MOST ANNOYING HUMAN BEING I have ever seen/heard/etc during her acceptance speeches at the Golden Globes. I am not in the Academy, but she has fallen down a few notches for me, as a fan.
Anne Hathaway has always been just completely unlikeable and all-round annoying. She had a great year, granted, but her perf in Rachel Getting HARRIED was annoying, like her
I thought Kate’s “GG” speech was one of the best moments of the recent Golden Globes.
If the emotionality of her or Anne’s speech were to cause them to lose any votes, to me that says more about the character of that specific Academy voter than Kate or Anne.
Infact, Dave, I really have to wonder about your intention/agenda’ in writing such a column.
It comes off to me as someone trying to create ‘negative buzz’ about Kate and Anne where it doesn’t truly exist.
Um, why is this even a question? Of course it should only be performance based!! What a stupid question to even ask! Obviously, someone *ahem* just ran out of stories to write.
I think it’s lame that speeches would affect an award that is supposedly for a performance, but we all know lots of factors play into these things. How liked someone is, whether they have won before, etc. all come into play, so speeches probably will, too.
I totally get people blasting and hating the idea that a person’s performance during their acceptance speech should have a detrimental (or ANY) effect on whether they win an Oscar. I’m one of those people. Like I said before, I HATED Winslet’s speeches, but I would never in a million years hold that against her when deciding whether she should win the Oscar.
However, I don’t agree with people blasting the existence of this article because it brings up the possibility that the bias exists. Like I said before, to think that Academy members don’t find petty, arbitrary reasons not to like someone is naive.
Let’s also not pretend that the way you handle yourself on live TV is completely insignificant. Forget Oscar races: performances on live TV have been a factor in getting people elected to president of this country (JFK vs. Nixon). So who can be surprised if someone sees these speeches, and decides not to go with Winslet or Hathaway?
In case anyone had forgotten, two words for you:
Gwyneth Paltrow.
Her babbling and THAT obviously fake speech (crocodile tears) at the Globes didn’t stop her from delivering an equally mortifying speech at the Oscars.
This won’t hurt Kate, but I would love to see Meryl win just so I can see her speech. She’s always a hoot whenever she delivers one.
Winslet deserves any and EVERY thing she gets! she is without a doubt THE actress of her generation. well, actually…ANY generation. her emotional acceptance speech after winning Best Actress was something fans don’t often see ~ genuine emotions. it was magnificent. now ~ if producers would come up with a movie for both Meryl Streep AND Kate Winslet together, THAT would be the ultimate supreme movie-lover’s dream!!!!!!!
Oh, la-
It seems like you didn’t mean to, but you just confirmed this article’s point.
You say that you’d love to see Meryl Streep win because her speech would be a hoot. By that same line of thinking, isn’t it possible that some Academy members might NOT want to see Winslet win if they were annoyed by her speech? In both cases, the speech is a factor in who people want to see win.
Dude, if I worked for 5 months putting my heart and soul in to a project and was given an award I’d be bawling like a nervous baby up there and if I tied for an award with an actress like Meryl Streep, I would sing nothing but her praises. These awards are a first for these two ladies after a long time of building their career. Give them a break and let them be what they are…HUMAN!
Dave Karger are you really serious?? That is the stupidest thing I have heard. Not getting an Oscar because of a previous acceptance speech. Why would you even write an article about this?
So now we’re handing out Oscars based on their Golden Globe performances not their movie performances??? So if someone skips the Globes altogther, does that make them more or less likely to win the Oscar, according to your theory? Get a life, Dave, the only “chatter” is coming from entertainment media people like you. Stop creating ridiculous stories. If this “story” is even 1% true, then Hollywood can go *bleep* itself.
You’re kidding me with this article right? If Academy members are spending their time watching speeches from other awards shows there’s something wrong, besides the fact that winners’ speeches HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WINNING AWARDS.