OldBoy

This was a fantastic film. A sweeping epic by all intents and purposes. Thoroughly entertaining and Leo was absolutely engaging.

But, why in the world did Alan Alda get nominated for his role?? There was nothing to it. 25 minutes of screen time at most and he didn't do anything special at all. He was just there to get lambasted by Hughes in the hearing. He got nominated for some body movements and gestures that any actor in the world could have done. This nomination could have gone to Alec Baldwin if they were just giving them out for this picture. He was much more captivating for the 10 minutes he was on screen.

Someone out there much more deserving, this nomination should have gone to.

Please if someone can explain why exactly he got it, I would love to know...

Cygnet74

well, actors are nominated by fellow actors and it would appear that Alda had just enough admirers in the Academy to get the nod. "Deserve" has got little to do with it.

FinkPish

I think Alda was very good in The Aviator, but I think he probably got nominated because he was going very much against type in that role. I think most people remember him for his work on M.A.S.H. and Woody Allen shows. I think the fact that he was able to be completely corrupt and slimy made more than a few people pay attention.

OldBoy

i don't think that is true "actors nominate other actors" it is the entire Academy that votes and they aren't all actors.

Fielding Mellish

Since Jamie Farr wasn’t up for anything this year…

William Fuld

No, Cygnet74 is correct. Actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors and so on.

Cygnet74

the academy is broken up into branches for acting, directing, editing, writing, sound, and music. actors nominate actors, then the entire academy votes for one of the nominees to be awarded the oscar statuette.

OldBoy

ok, i stand corrected, but that still doesn't explain why Alda got nominated for nothing and Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated at all. Sheer travesties!

Cygnet74

more admirers = more votes

OldBoy

that really doesn't make any sense at all. you mean admirers of Alda? that is the worst reason to nominate someone and i fail to see that as a reason for such a high accolade.

Cygnet74

Welcome to Hollywood, scott!!! i'm not saying it was a good reason. I'm saying that's the way it goes in this industry! I'm saying that whether it was for this performance or for the whole of his career, Alda clearly had more admirers with a vote to cast than Paul Giamatti did. simple.

PopcornTreeCt

Alan Alda = old, paid his dues in Hollywood.

Its all about politics. I predict another Black night at the Oscars with awards going to Jamie Foxx and Morgan Freeman.

badger1997

I hardly see what Alda and Giamatti have to do with each other. While you can argue one should have been nominated and the other shouldn't, they aren't even in the same category.

That being said I thought Alda was good enough to deserve his nomination. It definitely surprised me, but to me he was a standout part of that movie even in his small role. As much as I like Giamatti, I really don't have a problem with him not being nominated. I can see how each of the five actors who got nods were considered better than him this year. Not saying I didn't like Giamatti and Sideways, because I liked both, but I just didn't feel his performance was good enough to get all riled up over it being left out, but that's just me.

Mr. Salty

Bacause believe it or not, not everyone feels the same way you do. "Best" is subjective.

And as has been pointed out, Alda and Giamatti were up for different catagories. Giamatti's was a lead role; Alda was supporting.

Jackskeleton

OH MY GOD!111 people on the internet have opinions that differ than my own?!?!? THAT CAN'T BE!

Crocker Jarmen

I really enjoyed The Aviator, but I thought that Alan Alda's performance was out of sync with the rest of the movie. All the other actors we very stylized and refined, and Alda was the one guy who stuck out. Padding his lines with all kinds of stammers and physical tics, like he was still in a Woody Allen movie. It really annoyed me.

His nomination was one of those 'Huh?' moments, like the fantastic Christopher Walken for Cathc Me If You Can. Both great actors, but to nominate them for these roles???

Perkinsun Dzees

Only 111, Jack? I would think the number would be much higher than that.

William Fuld

What's political about two of the best performances of the year winning?

movielib

I think neither Washington nor Berry deserved their 2001 awards (that doesn't mean it was politics then; maybe just bad choices). But Foxx (or Cheadle, for that matter) and Freeman do deserve it.

BizRodian

I think for the same reasons you disliked them, are the same reasons they were nominated.

OldBoy

so what does being in different categories have anything to do with it? never did i say one got it because the other didn't. i was merely pointing out that 2 travesties were seen with this year's Oscars and many will attest to it thus the references with each.

Alda had a nothing role in a big movie that shouldn't have gotten noticed in the least. his performance was anything but spectacular or even warranting much recognition and getting nominated for an Oscar is a huge deal that should be based on current performance and perhaps other recent performances. a role should be nominated based on the fact that an actor steals a role and you cannot possibly imagine anyone else filling those shoes...anyone else in that role ever! Alda's role could have been done and done much better or worse than any older seasoned actor in Hollywood. because of his nomination, the argument could be made and made much better for nominations for Beckinsale who i thought was wonderful as Ava or my aforementioned Alec who could have just as easily if Alda was the criteria or what about John C., etc...if Alda got nominated than every other cast member should have gotten besides Leo and Cate and that is my point. those other supporting roles helped make the movie what it was, Alda's did not.

Giamatti should have garnered momentum with his incredible turn in "American Splendor" and then catapulted him over the top to at least recieve a nomination which imo was stolen by Clint Eastwood who i love dearly, but should have only been recognized for Director and picture only which he was and no way for performance in a leading role. the Academy usually abides by that ala no best actor for himself in "Unforgiven" and no actor for Mel Gibson in "Braveheart". those flicks merited technical achievement behind the camera in superior fashion and thus the Director and his entire body of work was recognized but not his work in front of the camera. Clint in "Million Dollar Baby" is an exact replica of these instances imo and thus took it away from a much more deserving Giamatti.

The Antipodean

This is the same category that nominated Jon Voight's laughably bad turn as Howard Cosell in "Ali," it's definitely one where a weird ringer sometimes gets thrown in. I liked Alda in "Aviator," and Hawkeye rules, but no way should he have been nominated for an Oscar here.

The Antipodean

On the other hand, I absolutely think Eastwood deserved the nom for M$B. He's not flashy, but he's acting circles around most folks half his age there. Haven't seen "Sideways" so can't comment on Giamatti.

badger1997

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you there. You state it as fact that everyone should accept that Alda had a "nothing role" but I, and apparently others in the Academy, liked the role and thought it stood out in the movie. To me, Alda did a great job with a little role and he was spectacular. To me, nobody else could play that role the same way and thus I have no problem with him being nominated. You should just accept that others feel differently and understand that the Oscars are subjective and not based on just your own opinions.

ReduxGuy

So, David Carradine's old and paid his dues and he still got screwed over.