Sean Penn Oscar win: Deserving victor or academy charity case?

Add a Comment

Comment by Deadpool on March 1, 2009 at 6:41pm

Penn won because he played a gay.

Comment by ThePecker13 on March 1, 2009 at 3:18am

I'm telling you people. Hollywood is run by a bunch of dumb liberalist F@#KS, who aren't well educated in politics, and only try to get into politics so that people will think that they're smart, educated people.

I always like to compare Hollywood to the Wrestling buisness. Basically the same s***.

Comment by Tommy on March 1, 2009 at 12:25am

I just got out of Milk and, although Rourke totally deserved it, I still think Penn did a great job.

And Fordman, he's not a fag; he's a douche.

Comment by Hooliganism on February 28, 2009 at 7:06pm

the ram was robbed!!!!! seriously folks no one can debate that!

Comment by Fordman2539 on February 28, 2009 at 4:20pm

Sean Penn is a fag. hes a charity case oscar winner, complete asshole douchebag

Comment by Inkovic on February 28, 2009 at 12:50pm

@ Alicia Marie

Your response is very thought out and a valid. Its is very possible that Sean Penn's role was deserving and without the prop 8 issue he could've been recognized by the academy as a deserving victor.

Unfortunately issues facing society at the time do often influence the academy's vote which is why the academy awards are an excellent reference to view a snapshot of the cultural landscape at a particular point in time based on the awards given. Its likely that the perceived injustice done to by the gay community by the state of California influenced some voters in the academy which gave Sean Penn an advantage over other candidates in which he may not of gotten had circumstances differed.

But fact is fact and he was chosen as 'Best Actor' this past year. In 1976 Peter Finch won for best actor for his role in the film 'Network', a film that most members of this site would not stop and watch if they came across on television. In hindsight some 30+ years later we probably feel that Robert De Niro or Sylvester Stallone deserved the academy award for their roles in 'Taxi Driver' and 'Rocky' respectively. But in 1976 the perception was that Peter Finch was deserving of a posthumous award due to his tragic death was deserving and will be known as the best actor for that year by the academy despite the iconic performances by his peers that year.

Was Sean Penn's performance one for the ages? We don't know, it will only be known years from now when the iconic performances of this generation become more apparent with hindsight. However I do recognize Sean Penn was fantastic in that role, one I felt slightly inferior to some of his competition however the majority of academy members whose opinion is more significant than my own thought he was the best this year.

Regardless of their motivation.

Comment by Alicia Marie on February 28, 2009 at 11:20am

First and foremost you write very well.

Secondly, because you wrote so well you will understand that my response isn't a "your wrong, I'm right" attack. When I first glanced at this post I didn't think anything of it because I hadn't seen Milk, but now I have.

The one paragraph that has prompted me to respond to your blog is:

"If it is true that these awards are given due to political circumstances that faced society at that point of time than doesn't the award lose merit and credibility? Does it no longer become a ceremony rewarding excellence in a particular field and simply becomes charity? Had proposition 8 been denied and gay people were given a right to marry than perhaps we would've seen one of the other four nominees lifting that trophy in front of his peers."

Movies and politics. Now, I know they go hand in hand because movies tend reflect the social issues and wants of the time. Milk was more readily made available to mass audiences today then it would have, say, 4 or 5 years ago because of prop 8. This I must agree with you on.

However, I am extremely put-out by people creating 'what-if' stories theorizing why a film did or did not win due to politics or people being swayed by the emotions of the time. I don't believe an award can lose its credibility because it's awarding human emotions and social issues that happen to be fierce political issues in present day. If the Academy were to forcibly look over movies dealing with current politically hot issues then that would, to me, make the award lose its credibility.

Milk is a great movie. I didn't feel like I was watching a movie; Sean Penn wasn't Sean Penn acting as Harvey Milk, I literally got lost in it and saw real people. Even watching Heath Ledger as the joker I thought "Wow, Heath Ledger is really amazing as the Joker" but I forgot I was looking at Sean Penn. It wasn't until the end of the film that I said to myself 'those actors were amazing' because you're not thinking about acting or how a line's being said while you are watching.

I'm not omitting the fact that prop 8 propelled this movie in some way. It just clearly doesn't define why Milk is such a great film and why Penn won.

I don't like predicting who I think will win, you never know until it happens and people usually like to predict winners based on their personal favorites and not overall greatness.

Very nice blog, I hope to read more from you.

Comment by AJ on February 28, 2009 at 2:36am

all this race and gay and sex and political bullshit is just stupid. just like colleges and affirmative action and blah blah.
i don't give a shit. why can't the SMARTEST and the best PERFORMANCE win awards and get into the colleges and societies and shit??? who cares if it was another white middle aged male? if he's CLEARLY the best he should win. end of story. quit ur bitchin.

Comment by ThePecker13 on February 28, 2009 at 1:28am

Do you really need an oscar to prove that you're the best? The oscar has lost it's creditbility long time ago.

When they kept snubbing Martin Scorsese over and over, until he finally won it in 2007 for The Departed. How about when they gave Cuba Gooding Jr. the oscar over William H. Macy? and between the two, who's got the better resume? right.

Let us not forget Halle Berry, who only won it because she's black(don't deny it) and would it made history when they threw her a bone. And yet, she's giving us nothing but crap like Catwomen, and A Perfect Stranger.

And most but not least, let us not forget the biggest snub this year[i'm not gonna mention it because we already know which movie it is]. I Mean, it would have been fine if the academy would have given best picture to Gran Torino or WALL*E. But The Reader!?!?!?! The FCKN Reader!?!?!? REALLY!?!?!?!?(I know people are tired of me bitchn about it but just using a example here folks)

Dances with Wolves over GoodFellas!?!?!? Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction!?!?!? Gladiator over Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Traffic!?!?!?!? Where was Boyz N' Da Hood nomination for Best Picture!?!?!? See, it's out of touch.

So it's always been about politics. It's no fucking surprise. And plus, I don't think the Academy was going to go with their guts, and give it to Mickey Rourke here. Much like H-Wood, they didn't want to rely on their guts and give it to a guy who is probably capable of FCKN UP his own comeback. Rourke doesn't need a golden statue of a naked man. We already know that he's as talented as F#@K. Hell, maybe they'll throw him a bone next time, and make it up to him or something.

Comment by Josh on February 28, 2009 at 12:21am

i wanted sean penn to win and he did because MILK was needed in the state of California during the passing of Prop 8

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last