Request: WHY DID DICAPRIO, FASSBENDER, AND GOSLING, NOT RECEIVE OSCAR NODS
Fassbender played a sex addict in Shame.
Gosling played The Driver in cult-hit Drive
Go to any 2012 list of Oscar snubs and these three gentleman are listed. (Although it seems there's more outrage for Fassbender and Gosling than for Leo). The question is: why were they snubbed?
I think the weight of his previous nominations also doomed him. Is his J. Edgar better than his Howard Hughes (The Aviator) or his Danny Archer? If he hadn't been nominated for those roles, he may have been nominated for J. Edgar. The academy rewards momentum developed over time (see Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor). But I also think he does a better job in The Aviator and Blood Diamond than in J. Edgar.
I'm not surprised he wasn't nominated. I wouldn't have nominated him.
I mean, look at the last bunch of winners.
Colin Firth, The King's Speech: Speaking disorder (disorder)
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: Alcoholic (disorder)
Sean Penn, Milk: Homosexuality (sexuality)
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote: Homosexuality (sexuality)
Jamie Foxx, Ray: Blindness (handicap)
The problem, is, I'm guessing, not his acting, but the NC-17 rating.
From a really interesting article (2010) in the Guardian:
"An NC-17 rating is seen as box-office suicide by the film industry, and any film associated with it is likely to be circumvented by the Academy. No NC-17 rated film has ever been awarded an Oscar in a major category. Midnight Cowboy won three in 1969 for best picture, director and screenplay when the NC-17's precursor, X, was still used to categorise adult-oriented films. But the first NC-17 film to actually receive a nomination was Henry and June in 1990, for its cinematography. (It was also the first to be given that classification.)"
The whole NC-17 thing is the only way this makes sense to me.
This may just be a publicity piece, but there's another theory from the Huffington Post involving Fassbender's "Fassmember". Click here to read.
*I know you could make this argument FOR DiCaprio. "If sexuality usually woos the Academy, why did Leo playing a repressed homosexual not earn him bonus points (and that's how this character differs from all the one's you listed)?" I see the argument. It's valid. But the repressed homosexuality was, I think, a nuance. The overall tone and demeanor of the characters is still the same.
They blame the Academy. But maybe they should blame Gosling? (I don't seriously mean this; it's just a segue).
The Academy has 15 branches. Like a Writers Branch, a Cinematographers Branch, an Actors Branch, Directors Branch, etc. etc. etc. Nomination ballots are sent out to every member of the academy. You nominate for your branch. So directors nominate directors. Writers nominate writers. Actors nominate actors.
Gosling had two very trendy films this year: Drive and The Ides of March. I'm thinking people nominated him for one or the other, but not both. So maybe "Ryan Gosling" received more votes than, say, Gary Oldman, or Demian Bichir, but those votes were split between Drive and March neither of which had enough to top Tinker Tailor or A Better Life.
Another theory: Not everyone is a Passenger.
A lot of people I talk to don't like Drive. I respect it, but I don't think it's amazing. The stylized violence could turn people off. And the pace of the movie...
Look, I watched it and thought it was hilarious. I didn't take the last half seriously at all. (I will admit, on the second viewing, months later, the film had way more gravity than the first time; but I didn't think it was better).
How many people saw and loved this movie? How many people took the movie seriously? It has a cult following; it doesn't have mainstream acclaim. Maybe the actors in the Academy branch mirror this dynamic?