Submitted by Anastasia_Lockheart t3_11cfnua in movies

She didn't do anything besides look good in her Veronica Lake drag. When I saw the movie, I was expecting Basinger to blow me away, I remember critics would call her the MVP and the poster does highlight her.

After watching the movie, I felt fooled. She's hardly in the movie and everybody was better than her. She wasn't bad but an Oscar win? Over Julianne Moore in BOOGIE NIGHTS? What a joke!

If they wanted to give her an Oscar, why not for THE NATURAL? That's her best work and she didn't even get nominated for it.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Dottsterisk t1_ja2vu8e wrote

I’m not gonna say she necessarily deserved the Oscar over Julianne Moore, but I think people are selling her performance short in this thread.

It’s not a terribly flashy performance, but there’s a lot of good subtle work in there, as the character she’s playing is, herself, playing different characters.

There’s Veronica Lake and there’s Lynn Bracken. Then there’s Lynn Bracken with Pearce Patchett, Lynn Bracken with Ed Exley, and finally the real Lynn Bracken with Bud White. They carry themselves differently and even speak differently.

41

ryhaltswhiskey t1_ja4aigd wrote

>subtle

That's the important part. Subtle is hard to do. Sometimes an actor will just make a little smirk or something and it's so in-character that I'm like "nailed it".

9

crypticthree t1_ja2u95b wrote

I think it should be noted that LA Confidential is about Hollywood's "golden age" while Boogie Nights is about an aspect of the industry that Hollywood would prefer to ignore

35

BakedBaker007 t1_ja2sqdd wrote

If only The Oscars had to do with an actors ability to perform! Nah, Julianne Moore hit the wrong button at the polls and Kim Basinger didn’t.

12

Gummy_yumyum t1_ja2za03 wrote

She gave a good acting performance in a popular movie.

12

UncleWillard5566 t1_ja449n9 wrote

Did she, though?

−8

Gummy_yumyum t1_ja4dy7h wrote

Yes.

6

Luciferigno t1_ja4o9pt wrote

Yeah but did she though?

−4

Gummy_yumyum t1_ja4okft wrote

She did

3

Luciferigno t1_ja4ov24 wrote

You passed the test.

2

RDCK78 t1_ja2u2bd wrote

Hate to break it to you but the Academy is just political, ass kissing bullshit. A weird awards event where multi-millionaires stroke each other off and embarrass themselves in front of a rapidly dwindling television audience. The awards are not based on merit but by pathetic networking campaigns by agents, studios and the talent.

11

MontanaJoev t1_ja3c6sw wrote

I think she’s excellent in the movie. But ultimately the Oscar’s always come down to an opinion, and who has the momentum, and the right story. And I’m not super mad about that, because how does one compare an acting performance. It’s really all about “I like that one better”. The long, long, long list of performances that have won an Oscar that have me scratching my head seems endless. And I expect the same can be said for this years award show.

Ultimately, I think Kim won not just because it’s likely the best performance she’s ever given, but because this was a truly excellent movie that was not going to get the awards it deserved because it was competing in the same year as Titanic (if you want to talk a movie that DID NOT deserve the awards it got). I also think she won as a way for the academy to give a nod to the whole cast. Imo, the real travesty isn’t that she won, but rather that Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe weren’t even nominated, and neither of them won.

10

njdevils901 t1_ja2u0vc wrote

Honestly now that I look back on it, I don't really remember her that much. Definitely side performances stand out more than her. Hell Minnie Driver AND Julianne Moore are way more captivating and give more emotional performances than Basinger does. Basinger is a fine actress, but c'mon now, Driver in that scene where she asks him to come to California with her, and Moore in those divorce proceedings. You can't beat those performances, or I guess you can

6

Snuggle__Monster t1_ja2uj97 wrote

If you compare to some of her other performances, this was actually pretty good for her lol. But yeah, in no way the "best" that year. Julianne Moore wasn't as well known at that time, Boogie Nights was her launching pad into the next level from a working actress to a top one. Her career ended up much better than Basinger's in the long run.

6

Mother_Ad_7592 t1_ja2wc7n wrote

The same what Tommy Lee Jones did, that warranted him an Oscar win, instead of Ralph Fiennes for Schindler's List.

Or Judi Dench for Shakespeare in love. For only few minutes screentime.

3

saltbae25 t1_ja3kiyv wrote

You just don't understand acting. It is not about overacting, histerical drama in every second of screen time. Sometimes it is subtle, quiet work. Like, looke at Kate Mara - she really can act, but nobody cares, because she is doing her job, and not trying to steal the movie.

3

jfstompers t1_ja3offh wrote

She was awesome in it mostly, I do agree Julianne Moore is amazing in boogie nights

3

Majikarpslayer t1_ja47y95 wrote

Nah, I think you saw the wrong movie try again. She was awesome. Whether she deserve to win an award for that is up to you

3

Earlvx129 t1_ja3z1r4 wrote

Yeah it's a really good movie (with a few story twists that I thought were pretty stupid, like Crowe somehow surviving his shooting), but I never cared much for Basinger's performance either. She's completely fine, but nothing Oscar-worthy for me. Just another member of a good ensemble.

2

caallBR549 t1_ja5pva1 wrote

She was great in this role.

2

porcomavi t1_ja2s6hk wrote

Nothing. It was an amazing movie and she was the weakest point.

1

ryhaltswhiskey t1_ja4ave6 wrote

Nah, but there was one guy who had one line and I was like "I can't believe they didn't reshoot that". I watched it last week (5th time) and one of the cops had a line that was so flat it felt completely out of place in the movie.

Basinger was supposed to be holding back, because that's her character: a facade.

1

Formal_Lie_713 t1_ja4jk7r wrote

I think she’s a very overrated actress.

1

Flounder4life t1_ja4pjpl wrote

She was able to form correct sentences. 🙄

1

poonter5000 t1_ja4vuvh wrote

Probably had something to do with Harvey Weinstein. She has always been a terrible actress

1

The_Lone_Apple t1_ja2wbh7 wrote

I stopped watching the Oscars almost 20 years ago because I simply don't understand the criteria they're using to determine how one piece of art is better than another.

0

Nick_The_Knight_ t1_ja4fhj6 wrote

The one thing about the Oscars that bothers me is that most films that are nominated for best picture aren’t even released to most theaters. Some people don’t even have the ability to see these movies.

3

Chuth2000 t1_ja2xzmu wrote

I think the Oscars should award projects made for the art, leaving out purely commercial endeavors. In my opinion, projects like Avatar where there's a whole franchise in the pipeline should be ignored by the Oscars. Surely there are talented people working on the project, but it is purely a commercial endeavor, not art in the sense I would normally understand it.

−8

charleyismyhero t1_ja3rmxt wrote

The Oscars are an advertising outlet for Hollywood. If it was pure industry achievement, they wouldn’t broadcast it publicly for entertainment.

2

Particular-Ad-4772 t1_ja2x8hs wrote

the Oscar’s are awarded , based on connections and political power within the movie Industry.
In modern times anyway. Most A list actors , best roles are typically early in their career, and propell them from relative unknown, to stardom. ( they never win the Oscar they deserve for those performances). But they get it later, when they have made the right connections, and it’s their year .

The ratings are plummeting, this elitism, plus turning into a political TV show for the progressive lefts’ cause of the week , have alienated the majority of past viewers.

0

Silvershanks t1_ja37n3w wrote

You just learned that the Oscar's has nothing to do with the actual best performances? It's a scam for the studios to promote their movies and stars. Always has been. But it's still a fun scam. Doesn't really hurt anyone.

0

Select_Action_6065 t1_ja3cgs1 wrote

What is it going to take for people to realize that people don’t win Oscars for merit?

0

Ebolatastic t1_ja3ucae wrote

Pretty sure it was a 'had it coming' oscar win. Basinger had been tearing it up for like a decade before LA Confidential. The movie was excellent, her performance was great, but I think sentiment is really what nabbed it for her. This type of thing happens. DiCaprio got an Oscar for one of the worst films he was ever in, for example.

0

Mod-h8tr t1_ja3lgqf wrote

Totally agree, she did fuck all in that film.

−1

Jamside_Down t1_ja3dher wrote

I wonder about this myself. I think she's barely acceptable in this role. Her performance is pure soap opera.

−3

TheDaysKing t1_ja3fe66 wrote

May be in the minority here, but I never understood why L.A. Confidential was such a darling at the Oscars. It's a good, well-made movie and all, but I don't get what made it so special. And yeah, this would include Basinger's performance, which I thought was fine.

Edit: Also, aside from the Rollo Tomasi thing, I thought the book was better.

−3

[deleted] t1_ja2tfv9 wrote

[removed]

−11