The 14-Second Emmy

[filkertom]

Okay, here's one we can likely debate all month.

Ellen Burstyn has been nominated for an Emmy for fourteen seconds of screen time.

Nothing at all about the quality of the work -- I mean, hey. It's Ellen Burstyn. And it isn't about whose paycheck is bigger, or who contractually gets credited higher (I thought right away of Brando in Superman). Do you think that a fourteen-second performance is potentially award-winning? Cite whatever examples you like. I'm not sure myself, but I will admit that I think Gene Hackman earned the entire paycheck for The Birdcage near the end by the way he kept saying, "I don't understand".

Comments

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

A classy actress in these circumstances would turn down the nomination. That's all I'm saying.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

I think it's unlikely, but it's possible. It kind of depends what the minimal time consists of, and probably more likely, what effect it has based on the rest of the story. Take Sebastian Shaw. On screen for a few seconds, no lines...but because of what James Earl Jones and David Prowse did for three movies, seeing Anakin, whole and at peace, gives an incredible sense of relief.

I'm not saying Shaw's performance is award-worthy, but I can see how a short time on screen can have a huge effect. So, it's possible. Just unlikely.

[mneme]

In theory, sure -- a great flash piece beats a good novel any day of the week. In practice, it sounds like the the Emmy nomination process has become a pure popularity contest.

[tesral.livejournal.com]

Has it ever been anything BUT?

I don't pay attention to these "awards". The entertainment industry patting itself on the back for being the entertainment industry. Good work is ignored for being the wrong genre, or animation. One can go on for ages on how they don't do what they claim to be doing.

Popularity contest, that's the ticket.

[phaedress.livejournal.com]

Imagine something you really like. Chocolate moose, kissing the wife/husband, whatever floats your boat. Now focus on it for 14 seconds straight. A lot of emotional experience can fit into that space.

(Alternately, imagine listening to Doubleya speak for that long. Ugh!)

I say it's not the length of a performance but its emotional content that makes it good and/or award-worthy. But I haven't seen this particular one so won't speak to its merits.

My example: Ben Kingsley as "chorus" in the 1996 film of Twelfth Night.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

Sort of like when Dame Judi Dench was nominated (and won) the Oscar for her brief role as Queen Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" (8 minutes on screen in a two hour movie).

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Or when Charles Durning was nominated for the Oscar for Best Supporting as the Governor in The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas (about eight minutes screen time there, as well).

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

What!! He was?!! [checks imdb] He may have been the best thing about the movie, but he wasn't anywhere near Oscar worthy (ditto his appearance in "To Be Or Not To Be," which also got an oscar nomination). I love his song from TBLWiT, but I've seen it performed with more gusto in local theatre productions.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

This is why I never watch the oscars, it's like a sad parody performed by people who don't get the joke.

And speaking of jokes, this should give late night monologues a lot of material to work with ;-)