Nicole Kidman’s snub for To Die For

Home // Forums // Movies // Nicole Kidman’s snub for To Die For

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
Created
4 years ago
Last Reply
4 years ago
20
replies
856
views
14
users
3
3
2
  • Jason Travis
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138653

    I have always felt that Nicole Kidman, one of my favorite actresses, gave her best performance in 1995’s To Die For. To this day, it boggles me how she lost the nomination. It’s such a rich performance and she OWNS the screen – every frame, every breath is hers for the taking. Not to mention she also never looked more gorgeous. I understand 1995 was a competitive year for leading actress, but the fact remains that Kidman was a factor in the awards race.

    Kidman won the Golden Globe for Best Actress (Comedy/Musical), Broadcast Film Critics, Boston Film Critics and London Film Critics. In addition she also was a BAFTA nominee. SAG forgot, but it’s still crazy she couldn’t pull this off. Could it be she was 6th place? Here were the official nominees (bold = winner):

    BEST ACTRESS 1995
    Susan Sarandon, Dead Man Walking

    Elisabeth Shue, Leaving Las Vegas
    Sharon Stone, Casino
    Meryl Streep, The Bridges of Madison County
    Emma Thompson, Sense and Sensibility

    Personally I would have dropped Thompson for Kidman. The fact that Emma was already a frontrunner to win Adapted Screenplay and that Winslet upstaged her in most of their scenes. Arguments could also be made for Kathy Bates (Dolores Claiborne) not being an Oscar contender. 

    Anyone have insight on how Kidman missed? 

    Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
    13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views

    FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017

    Reply
    Troy
    Member
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138655

    I think am I am the only one in the world who is a major fan of Stone’s performance and would have loved to see her win.

    I may get ripped apart for saying this, but I am not a fan of Sarandon’s performance at all.   Kidman could have replaced her for all I care.    

    Kidman was good for sure and probably should have received a nomination, but I wonder if the film’s dark comedy tone and subject matter hurt her? 

    ReplyCopy URL
    ENGLAND
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 5th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138656

    Personal opinion but Kathy bates was miles ahead of all of the actresses that year. One of the greatest performances imo.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Miss Frost
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138657

    Kathy Bates and Kidman should’ve replaced Stone and Thompson. That would’ve been one hell of a lineup! 

    I still have no idea though why Kidman was snubbed. She got in and won everywhere except SAG regarding precursors. Maybe that’s what hurt her.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Actriz
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 9th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138658

    Replace Shue, Stone and Thompson (two of whom have done much better work and the other one belonging in supporting) for Kathy Bates (Dolores Claiborne), Nicole Kidman (To Die For) and Julianne Moore (Safe).

    Kidman should have swept the season like Blanchett currently is. Her best performance to date in Gus Van Sant’s best film to date (should have been a picture/director nominee as well, I also would have nominated Illeana Douglas in supporting).

    A Kidman win here (in addition to a 1996 win for Zellweger) would have led to a 2002 win for Moore, and Oscar world would be at peace.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Beau S.
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 10th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138659

    One of the biggest Best Actress snubs of all time. She should have won.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Beau S.
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 10th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138660

    Gus Van Sant’s best film to date (should have been a picture/director nominee as well, I also would have nominated Illeana Douglas in supporting).

    I agree!

    I think a lot of people forget that To Die For is a brilliant film beyond Kidman’s performance. If To Die For is Blue Jasmine, Illeana Douglas is Sally Hawkins.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Benedick
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 8th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138661

    I wouldn’t have thrown Thompson over for Kidman or anyone else – for me, this is her best work. The restraint she demonstrates through her entire performance, reaching its peak in that mesmerizing scene between she and Hugh where she discovers his engagement (all done in one shot), and culminating in her melting to sobs at the end of the film (so funny and so touching at the same time), is unmatched by anyone else on this list, as fine as all of these other performances are.   

    ReplyCopy URL
    TomHardys
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 24th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138662

    Nicole Kidman was simply outstanding. One of the most mesmerizing performances I’ve ever watched by a male or a female actor. This snub was atrocious.

    ReplyCopy URL
    manakamana
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138663

    My own choice would be Rena Owen for Once Were Warriors, but I understand why she wasn’t in there more than I understand why the likes of Moore, Kidman or Bates weren’t. I’m actually, generally, a fan of the Academy’s lineup as well but it is sort of the difference between “good” and “great” with what their lineup really could have been. But I suppose that’s usually the case, anyways (like how badly AMPAS botched 2011’s lead actress category).

    But it also kind of makes sense. Oftentimes we overuse the term “overdue,” but it truly did apply to Susan Sarandon who did lovely work in her then-husband’s well regarded film. Emma Thompson still retained the afterglow of a somewhat recent winner, also had Carrington that year and her work on and offscreen in Sense and Sensibility (a movie they loved) was a fine achievement. I didn’t find Meryl’s work in Madison County hugely necesary to nominate, but it is probably the best of her nominated performances in that decade in a pretty successful adaptation of a very popular book. Sharon Stone hadn’t been nominated before and, uh…I guess they wanted that to be a thing.
    So, really, that left one slot for a more inspired selection and the major critics (LA, NSFC and runner-up in NY) decided to champion Elisabeth Shue’s performance the most (and she would be my personal choice of the nominees). 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138664

    One of the biggest Best Actress snubs of all time. She should have won.

    THIS^^^

    Her nearest competish should have been Toni Collette in Muriel’s Wedding who was also egregiously snubbed.

    People always go on about Kathy B in ‘Dolores Clairborne’ I film I must have seen but remember absolutely nothing about. Must watch it again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138665

    I wouldnt have dropped anyone for Kidman. She’s terrific yes, and so is Joaquin and the rest of that cast, including her dog.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jake
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138666

    Such a shame this performance didn’t come in 1994 – would make it easily, maybe even pose a thread to win the whole thing (that year was really poor). What I believe worked against it was the fact that Kidman got to be so sexy and her character was hot and driven by her desire. The same made her snubbed for “The Paperboy” more than a decade later. She was of course nominated for playing Satine but she was also multitalented, truly in love and suffering of fatal disease. The other 2 nominated roles – basically sexless, alienated writer and mother suffering her son’s death.

    As a consolation, Kidman joined Marilyn Monroe (“Some Like It Hot”) and then preceded Jamie Lee Curtis (“True Lies”), Cameron Diaz (“Vanilla Sky”) and Mila Kunis (“Black Swan”) as prime examples of being way too sexy to consider. Among them she was the only one to eventually get her reward which came at the right time (peak of the divorce hype that she clearly wanted to leave behind) with the right role (by right I mean complicated character in a popular, serious film).

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anthony
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 17th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138667

    I cannot begin to express the disdain I have at the Academy for passing up this chance because Nicole Kidman was beyond stellar in this role and the film itself was sadly underrated. 1995 was such a bizarre year in the fact that several films came into consideration but the final slots went to films I wouldn’t have even nominated. I think To Die For should’ve even received a Best Picture nomination.

    As for the nominees, Sharon Stone should’ve been left off the list for sure. Emma Thompson was nominated for the wrong film as she was much better in the lesser-seen Carrington. Meryl Streep is lovely in Bridges but it is also a case where it doesn’t seem like anything new and I personally thought she was slightly too old for the role. Susan Sarandon won for a good role but it wasn’t one I found particularly amazing….at least she didn’t win for THE CLIENT the year before! Personally, I loved Elisabeth Shue and felt she was worthy to win among the final list they chose.

    Despite that, NICOLE KIDMAN is the easy winner for me and then Kathy Bates, Toni Collette, and Julianne Moore would be in strong contention….oh and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Georgia as well.

    Kathy Bates, Delores Claiborne

    Toni Collette, Muriel’s Wedding

    Nicole Kidman, To Die For

    Elisabeth Shue, Leaving Las Vegas

    Emma Thompson, Carrington

    This list could change because I would love to have Moore or Leigh in there….and of the nominees, Sarandon and Streep are close behind. Stone and Thompson (Sense) are not close.

    ReplyCopy URL
    BrokenFan
    Member
    Joined:
    Nov 16th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #138668

    I’m indifferent about Nicole Kidman, but she was fantastic in ‘To Die For’. But should have won? Nope. It should have been Kathy Bates for Dolores Claiborne. 

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
Reply To: Nicole Kidman’s snub for To Die For

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Hunter-ish - Sep 19, 2017
Movies
Hunter-ish - Sep 19, 2017
Movies