9 year old Quvenzhané Wallis is the youngest Oscar nominee ever. I have not seen Beasts of the Southern Wild yet, but I am sure she is amazing in it. There have been many child stars who have given incredible performances, Justin Henry in Kramer Vs Kramer (below) and Anna Paquin in The Piano. Why is it then, that it bugs me whenever anyone under 12 or 13 gets a major acting award nomination. I don't doubt their talent, but at 9 it is more instinctual than an actual acquired skill.
There are many child stars who grow up to exhibit very little acting skill even though at 8, they were considered brilliant. I wish the Academy would put an age limit on who can be nominated for a major acting award. I am not a fan of precocious, and I question whether Quinn Cummings or Tatum O'Neal ever had any actual talent or was it just a great match of child with role. The answer is only something age can really answer.
2 comments:
I saw an interview with her and a few clips of the movie last night on Rock Center and from the few clips I saw it looks like a very good movie and it looked like she put on quite an emotional performance. I wanted to cry just watching the clips. I believe anyone should be eligible because even at a very young age a child can still be a poor actor. I've rolled my eyes plenty of times at how corny some child roles can be. You can tell me the Olsen twins could have pulled off a performance like the girl from this film when they were her age. Acting at that age is definitely not instinctual. This girl reminds me of Haley Joel Osment who was able to tug at the heart strings in many of his performances. I can't say the same about that little kid from Jerry Maguire.
-Chris
They used to have a separate juvenile academy award back in the day (1930s.) Judy Garland won hers for her performance in the "Wizard of Oz." Keeping her out of the main leading lady nominations that year---Vivien Leigh won for Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind." It was a tough year, really good performances. But it's quite clear that with all the juvenile academy awards ever won---the actors and their performances were treated like crap. Like their performance wasn't up to par with the Leading actor/actress performances because they were teens or children. Which in Judy's case was certainly BS. In her role as Dorothy, she not only sang and danced but, displayed every emotion known---from tragic sorrow to comedy, to anger, to fear, to joy, and so forth. She carried the entire film on her back and its emotional weight. And she did it while being surrounded by actors in fantastic costumes, and for it's day; mind-blowing special effects. And she was believable. And the film still works today. And she would later win as an adult.
But no one then gave her juvenile academy award win any respect. Which is why they put child performances in with the big stars now, I believe. And treat all acting as important.
But I agree, I think it should be separate for children but, given the respect it deserves. And I agree most of the child stars (not all) had instinctual talent combined with a director feeding them every line and thought off camera for each take. Hell, they do that with some of the adult actors too--ahem, Brad Pitt, ahem. Lol.
Post a Comment