Should Jack Nicholson get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his turn in The Departed?

Jack is very entertaining, there's no denying that. His prescence in the film was definitely a highlight, but was Jack really acting? You ask me, I'll tell you Jack was being Jack, and that maybe giving him his 13th nomination might be giving a nod away while another actor might have really sweated this year for some recognition.

Jack Nicholson helped The Departed be what it was - that's Jack's gift to Hollywood - he enriches any film he is in. He enriched A Few Good Men in 1992, and got an Oscar-nomination for his supporting role. At the time, when Jack lost that year, I thought he was robbed because I felt that Jack gave added life to that movie, as good as it was. Now, in hindsight, I think that maybe it was okay for him to lose.

Do you think that, as good as Nicholson was in The Departed, he should actually get another Oscar-nod?

Do you hang out with Jack Nicholson enough to know how he is regularly?

He may be doing his trademark schtick, but its still acting.

Trademark schtick is not acting - entirely. I can come off as the Klass Klown, but it doesn't take much effort since its something I do as a persona everyday. Practice, as they say, is perfect.

A lot of people who saw The Departed were crazed by the fact that Nicholson didn't come off as coming from Boston.

I think it is irrelevant to the world of film. Jack is popular enough to get another statuette, we all know that. Maybe we should poll maids and landscaping people in L.A. since they seem to do a portion of the voting! Furthermore, we should remember that the Oscars have more to do with petty bias and Hollywood politics than with rewarding truly great work.

The Academy Awards are all about show and self-congratulation. If the awards were given based on the merit of each nominee we would have something much less plastic. *rash anyone?

Sure he was entertaining, but did you think he was "good?"

It doesn't really matter in that category, if Eddie Murphy get's nominated for Dreamgirls (I am sure he will) he is probably a lock to win the award for Best Supptoring Actor in that category.

couldn't this be discussed in the existing noms thread?
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....10#post7591910

The real question is, will the Academy select the Little Miss Sunshine directing duo over the far more deserving Paul Greengrass or Alfonso Cuaron? The answer, sadly, is probably yes.

interesting thought. all the awards seem to like the smaller, political type movies lately if you ask me.

as far as jack, i think i was more of a fan of alec baldwin in the movie than jack, although i loved the movie and the cast in general.

"i love the patriot act!"

Shit, I'd give Jack Nicholson an Oscar for farting; he's that good. What people see as a schtick, I see as him having set a bar no one else can reach; therefore, he enjoys his playing field alone.

Bingo!

A more noble aim would be a celebration of the intricate process of bringing stories (sometimes novels and biographies) to the screen and the occasional spectacular results. Why not discern which actor, through talent and training, was able to bring a character from the written page quite literally to life in our imaginations? Why not choose which music touched our souls rather than handing yet another Oscar to our default champion (John Williams)?

Instead we have a gaudy fashion parade and a popularity contest that is mostly about the *stars*. My God, why not call it the annual Pe*ple Magazine Film Awards? It now has about as much integrity as that rag.

Sir, this is Jack Freakin' Nicholson we're talkin' about here! If he isn't deserving of his own thread, what has all the thrills and chills been for, then, huh? *wink*

Anyway...

Of all his 12 (did he get the nomination for Departed, if so then 13) nominations, which performance do you really feel he deserved it for? Which was his most outstanding acting performance of all-time?

For me, it would have to be Five Easy Pieces - easily the most moving Jack ever. You have Jack mad (when he is frustrated with his girlfriend Gloria Stivic). You have Jack sad (when he is crying over his father). You have Jack guilty (when he sleeps with his brother's woman). You have Jack enraged (the infamous scene in the diner). You have Jack crazy (playing piano on a moving vehicle).

It was a tour de force!

While I do agree with you, I think other actors have also set their own bars. Jack, and these other actors, may have fallen into what is called a "stereotype" - but it is their own stereotype of their own creation, so I suppose that can't be a bad thing.

Not a bad thing unless you happen to be Dustin Hoffman. Prior to his 1988 Oscar-victory for his embodiment of Rain Man, he was an actor with a great range. Ever since Rain Man, however, I can't see him being anything else but. Even when he's acting normal, I see a little bit of Rain Man coming out of him.

Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci have also set the bar for themselves.

Academy's answer: "not to Jack"

its probably just as well. It allowed who I thought was a "has-been" child actor Jackie Earl Haley to get a supporting actor nod.

Why? There were already enough crappy boston accents in the movie.