Kane finishes off Murphy
A fully reasoned, highly persuasive New York Post piece by Michael Kane, arguing against the notion of Eddie Murphy as a deserving Best Supporting Actor nominee, appeared this morning. It's very surprising, I'm thinking, that the most devastating quote against the guy is delivered in the article by Oscarwatch.com's Sasha Stone, who's said I've got my head screwed on backwards for trying to articulate the anti-Murphy current.
Murphy "has a 90 percent chance of winning right now," she says. "And I'm getting the sense that he doesn't even care. He's been prickly through this whole thing. He doesn't want to let his guard down. He doesn't want to look desperate or appear desperate. You can tell he's up there trying to say the right things, going through the motions, but maybe deep down he thinks it wasn't really Oscar-worthy."
"Norbit,'" Stone says, "is really not the best Eddie Murphy to be showing right now. What if you're an Oscar voter, and you drive by that giant billboard on Ventura Boulevard? Maybe you start thinking, this movie is probably going to make $100 million. Let's give the award to poor Jackie Earle Haley, who has nothing. Eddie Murphy doesn't need an Oscar."
"Let's face it, he's really very good in [Dreamgirls], on stage," another observer says in the piece. "It's not just that he can sing. He's got the moves. He knows how to do it.It's like an extended James Brown impression. Is that great acting? That's okay acting. He did the job. But there's no basis for him to be saluted and put up on the mountaintop.
"Eddie Murphy may well have something to show that proves that he's a good actor, but Dreamgirls' and the role of James Thunder' Early is not that role. It's basically prancing around on stage."
The odd thing is, Kane writes, is that "this kind of criticism may not even get an argument from Murphy himself.
"Even he dismisses his supposed 'Oscar clip' in Dreamgirls, a scene that comes late in the film, when his character is down on his luck and reaches for heroin to ease the pain. When a friend asks him to stop, 'Thunder' Early shoots him a look that without words fully captures the moment of surrender of a proud man.
"But even Murphy, true to form, laughs off the artistry of the acting.
"'After that scene was shot,' recalled Murphy after winning the Golden Globe, 'our producer, Laurence Mark, said, 'Oh, that look you just gave him was incredible.' And I was like, 'What's he talking about?' I didn't know what he meant.
"And then [co-star] Jamie [Foxx] came over a week later and said, I saw that look that you did.' And then I watched the movie, and I was like, what the f--- are they talking about? Everyone was like, Oh, that moment,' and I was like, I didn't do nothing.'"
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 4, 2007 at 10:02 AM
comment #1
Dan Revill
says ...
Yeah, that was much more reasonable than the shit you've been spewing. It's probably true that Murphy doesn't need an Oscar. His career isn't suffering by any stretch of the imagination.
As for the scene in question, haven't seen the movie, and maybe to Murphy, it wasn't something he had to think about, he just did it. There's nothing wrong with that.
As for the whole faux British accent and the comment about how he don't be winning at the SAGs, well he's right - he doesn't win these types of awards - he's obviously as mystified as everyone else apparently now is. I think he'd be grateful if he won, but yeah, he probably won't be surprised if he doesn't.
Posted by Dan Revill
at February 4, 2007 11:00 AM
comment #2
christian
says ...
this just proves how wrong most media pundits can be.
murphy isn't winning, not even close. they tossed him a nom.
alan arkin wins. simple.
this reminds me of the whole ridiculous, soderbergh's two noms will cancel him out! actually, that increased his odds. duh.
Posted by christian
at February 4, 2007 11:12 AM
comment #3
JTag
says ...
I went from not caring to actually wanting Eddie Murphy to win now after all these anti-Eddie campaigns. The quote in the Post about how he isn't campaigning and that Russell Crowe did? Hilarious! Russell parades around talking about what an artist he is but at the end of the day he is begging for votes. I've seen all five nominees in the Supporting Actor category and Murphy would get my vote if I was a voter. But I'm just another person throwing a few quarters into an Oscar pool, so....
Posted by JTag
at February 4, 2007 11:46 AM
comment #4
Mike Schaefer
says ...
The Super Bowl pre-game coverage is full-to-bursting with ads for Norbit. God help us all.
Posted by Mike Schaefer
at February 4, 2007 12:01 PM
comment #5
nemo
says ...
Not living in Los Angeles and not having a television, I was in the dark about Norbit until I looked it up on IMDB. Thandie Newton must have been in serious need of a payday.
I'm not even tangentially connected with the film industry, so maybe it's easier for me to tune out all the awards business, especially the Oscars. I'm tempted to say what everybody has already know since before any of us were born: Awards like the Oscars are popularity contents, and they don't reward real achievements except by accident. Don't take them so seriously.
But I guess the reason to take the Oscars seriously is that they do have real-world PR effects on what films audiences will go out to see, which in turn affects who gets employed and what kind of movies get made in the future. Depressing to contemplate, but that's show biz.
Posted by nemo
at February 4, 2007 2:09 PM
comment #6
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
Jeff, I hope when he loses, you don't start taking stabs at "we took him down." This has been Arkin's to lose since the nominations announcement, and I've been saying he wins it since that date. Phase two is a different beast. I think Murphy was destined to miss in the end.
But we'll see what happens.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at February 4, 2007 3:06 PM
comment #7
EDouglas
says ...
Just saw Dreamgirls again and there's NO WAY IN HELL that Murphy loses. He's been the only supporting actor who has been nominated (and usually won) every award. The guy is electric on the screen, and not just in his performances but when it's later in his career and things aren't falling apart. The look he gives CC White after Curtis shoots down their song and before he shoots up is an amazing film moment and Murphy is more than deserving to get a moment back in the limelight for this performance...and he has no less attitude than Jamie Foxx did when he was being hailed as the Second Coming for Ray, a much weaker film.
Way to take a stance, Kris, but the rest of the four in the supporting category are nothing more, nothing less. there's nothing in Arkin's performance that makes him worthy of an Oscar.
Posted by EDouglas
at February 4, 2007 3:14 PM
comment #8
gruver1
says ...
Jeffrey Wells to Ed Douglas: The Arkin thing is about his heroin-snorting grandpa plus his whole career. The two together make him more than worthy of an Oscar.
Posted by gruver1
at February 4, 2007 3:45 PM
comment #9
bipedalist
says ...
Many of my quotes were taken out of context, used to make him look bad. Some of them are true but what journalists do, I'm finding out, is that they say, "so would you say Eddie Murphy doesn't need an Oscar?" And if I say, something like, well he doesn't really care - it wouldn't validate him or change his career or whatever, then they write "Stone says Eddie Murphy doesn't need an Oscar." It's happened to me so many times now - it's bizarre. I think Eddie thinks he doesn't need or want one - I don't have an opinion about it one way or the other. What I see with him, is his career is set and he's survived in this business, made a lot of money, is doing great. I don't think he seeks approval from "them."
Posted by bipedalist
at February 4, 2007 3:49 PM
comment #10
Pablo Villaça
says ...
"But to Eddie Murphy, everything is a joke. What if he accepts his award and breaks into Mama Klump, clapping and shouting "Acade-mee!Acade-mee!""
If he promises to do that, I'll hope he wins. I'm a Mark Wahlberg-first, Earle Haley-second, Alan Arkin-third fan in this year race, but I'd change that just to hear the "Acade-mee!" thing.
Posted by Pablo Villaça
at February 4, 2007 5:02 PM
comment #11
EDouglas
says ...
I see very little emotional resonance in Arkin's performance in LMS.. he's basically doing the same thing he's been doing for years (Heck, I just saw the original In-Laws earlier today and he was doing the same bewildered, cranky schtick.) Arkin's character works because he had a great script/character, and not so much cause of his performance.
If this is a career thing, then why wouldn't Eddie Murphy deserve it just as much? He's had just as many memorable roles and Dreamgirls is him doing something different from the crap he's been doing in recent years that makes money.
Posted by EDouglas
at February 4, 2007 6:20 PM
comment #12
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Ed Douglas: Q: If this is a career thing, then why wouldn't Eddie Murphy deserve it just as much? A: Uhm, because he's regarded as an asshole?
Posted by gruver1
at February 4, 2007 6:31 PM
comment #13
rocco
says ...
"It's like an extended James Brown impression. Is that great acting? That's okay acting. He did the job. But there's no basis for him to be saluted and put up on the mountaintop."
...then someone better call PWC to find out if Jack Palance is the one who slipped an award to Jamie Foxx, Cate Blanchett, Phillip Seymour-Hoffman, and Reese Witherspoon for their impersonations, and to make doubly sure that Mirren and Whitaker don't win for theirs. Please, the whole fucking category is one big joke as it seems an impersonation has become a prerequisite for an oscar...looking at the last few years, impersonations--impersonations alone--are what it takes to win...
Disqualifying Murphy for the same standard is desperate and completely illogical. This "other observer" must not be very savvy or intelligent, nor is anyone who backs such a fallacious argument.
Posted by rocco
at February 4, 2007 8:27 PM
comment #14
royalonemn
says ...
I am really tired of all of this haterade on Eddie Murphy. When the fact of the matter is, in a musical, singing and dancing is a part of the performance. And Mr. Murphy was excellent, in a supporting part. And even though some people don't think his character was well developed, his performance and presence moved the narrative along. Hence, SUPPORTING ACTOR.
Plus, no one was crying foul when Catherine Zeta-Jones danced her Welsh ass to an Academy Award after "Chicago". Because her dance skills were a big part of her win and her character supported the narrative of the story. Looks very similar to me.
Tearing down nominees on a performance level is such a waste. Jeff even mentioned in his review of "Dreamgirls" he enjoyed Mr. Murphy's performance. Now, because it looks like members of the Academy might have as well, people want to throw stones? I hope he wins just to spite all of this negativity.
This isn't the playground in elementary school. GROW UP!!!
Posted by royalonemn
at February 4, 2007 9:15 PM