My only point being that the Academy is not above nominating and selecting a good performance by a so-so actress when it suits their fancy.
You say it like it's a bad thing, but surely that is precisely what the Oscars are for? When Cate Blanchett is nominated for an Academy Award, she is (or at least should be) nominated for a phenomenal
performance in a particular film, not for being Cate Blanchett, universally revered and a generally gifted actress though she is. For the Academy Award to remain a credible, serious award in the film industry, surely this is the only sensible way to nominate actors for the work they do in film? Otherwise, newcomers (and people like Jennifer Lopez) would hardly stand a chance, and the Oscars would be as boring as the Primetime Emmys, where I really
do feel some people and some performances are nominated for who and what they are overall rather than who and what they've been over the course of the year.
Indeed the AMPAS aren't above nominating a so-so actress for a
great performance, but nor do I think they should be. If Jennifer Lopez really does come out with an unparalleled acting performance in the future, I don't think there would be much cause for objection against an Academy Award nomination for her, no matter how mediocre her filmography has been up until then. Clearly, however, the majority opinion is settled on her not yet having done so, including her performance in
El Cantante. After all --
I just wiki-ed El Cantante. This is what it says:
Quote: The film received mainly negative reviews with many critics blaming the film's flaws on Jennifer Lopez.
These kind of things are always to some extent dependent on taste, but the question is, how many people can really
all be wrong in one instance?
i do however feel it's a bit absurd for she to bluntly state that she deserved an oscar especially for a film that wasn't even that great. i mean you don't hear cate blanchett making such statements in all the times she was nominated for quality roles-and believe me cate certainly deserved at least two,imo.
That's exactly what's so absurd about this statement. Whether Jennifer Lopez really is a great actress or not, and really feels she "had that Oscar-worthy role" in
El Cantante, there is something to be said about having a bit of humility, if only in public. Jennifer Lopez certainly has her share of haters, but this "hatebase" is far smaller than in the case of certain other people, and is definitely not considerable among the professionals. Therefore, I find it actually rather obscene of Lopez, with her not too considerable acting experience and filmography, to come out in this way, accusing the overwhelming majority of professionals as well as your average moviegoer who disliked the film and her in it, for not giving it a proper chance and for doing her wrong. Jen, the film has a professional review count of
103 on RottenTomatoes.com, and yet only a 24% Tomatometer rating. No matter how you want to spin it, a majority opinion this overwhelmingly decided says a lot about the quality of a film.
But although I do find it hard to see this statement as having been taken out of context since she elaborates on her point in such length, perhaps the magazine did leave out the "But I guess I was wrong"-part after all.
Otherwise, I can't see this statement as anything but Jen's over-inflated ego blowing out steam.