There is an interesting little article up at The Guardian today that suggests an interesting concept. A three strikes and you’re out rule when it comes to Oscar winning actors. This idea put forth goes something like this:
If an actor wins an Oscar… but then follows up with 3 bad movies in a row, then the Academy should take back that Oscar and give it to the runner up. The two actors they site as examples are Halle Berry and Hilary Swank (although the author of the post mistakenly sites “Insomnia” as a bad movie… which couldn’t be further from the truth).
I’m pretty sure the story was meant as a joke, but I think a lot of people who read it thought “hell ya! That’s a great idea!” So even though the article was a joke… let me give my thoughts as to why it would be a bad idea to take Oscars away from Actors who make bad movies afterwards.
The main problem is this: Too many people mistakenly associate a Good Movie with the actors in it being good, and the opposite, Bad movies mean the actors in it were bad. In other words, we too often associate the actors in the movie as being THE MOVIE itself. And that’s just not the case.
Actors play a big part in a movie, no doubt about it. But theirs is but one part… and not even the most important part. How many times have you seen a great movie, but a particular actor in it was horrible? All the time. How many times has there been a bad film, but a particular actor in it was good? All the time.
Just because “The Core” was a bad film, doesn’t mean that Hilary Swank did a bad job in her role. After all, the actors don’t write the scripts or direct the films or play all the other roles or do the cinematography or edit the movie. They just play the role they’re given and do it the bast hey can. Their performances shouldn’t be judged on whether or not the movie was good or bad… but strictly on how well they played the role they were given with the script they were handed.
The other issue is this. The article (once again remember it was in fun) suggests that the Best Director oscar should be taken away from Kevin Costner for Dances With Wolves because he hasn’t done a decent job directing since. Well… that may be true… BUT… that year that Dances with Wolves came out… Costner did the best job directing. The Oscars are given in recognition of the jobs done THAT YEAR, not “who in general is a better director”. This is why winning one of those suckers is so hard and why Marty Scorsese went so long without one.
But what do you think? Should there be times when Oscars should be taken back? If so, what should be the criteria?
