I think Matthew Lillard
should've been nominated and won the Oscar for Scream. I think he was
the Best Supporting Actor of the 1996 year. He was better than Cuba
Gooding, Jr. in my opinion and even Edward Norton in Primal Fear, but
there was something about Lillard's performance in Scream I can't quite
describe.
Unfortunately Scream wasn't really on Hollywood's radar, until months after it's release, which is a shame as it's a great film with great characters and story. You believed that Lillard's character was a psychotic killer. I will try to give some examples/reasons as to why he should've been nominated at least:
Lillard as Stu was funny, entertaining to watch and also was one of the best characters, if not the best, in the film as well as one of the best characters from the series, granted those aren't all ideal reasons as to win an Academy Award, but sometimes the Oscars have been a popularity contest in the past, whether it be politics or something else.
He gave Stu humanity, that if another actor played him, Stu could've just been the stereotypical character that's a bit of an asshole teenager that turns out to be a killer. Lillard gave him the humanity that was needed not to make him a stereotype one-dimensional character.
As a result of this, maybe people could see something of themselves in Stu, not the serial killer part, but the part where he was funny, the guy that threw parties, the guy that can be an asshole at times even when they don't mean to be, or maybe all of the above.
Basically Stu Macher in Scream is a human character. He's a character played by an actor that gave him humanity, when the character could've easily have been a stereotype of itself. The Academy doesn't often pick the actors, whose characters that are very realistic and in away are relatable to a degree.
Some are those in a position of power, like a king, or political figure or things along that nature. Those types of characters in films are characters, either fictional or not, that people normally can't relate to, unless the beginnings of the character relate to their own lives, than maybe someone could relate to that character a bit, in which the actor portraying that character might get nominated for his work in the film and might even win for it. Or maybe not.
In the end, Stu was/is a character that's layered that some people could perhaps relate to him in one way or another, though this is probably unintentional and I'm probably looking too deeply into the Stu character in Scream. Either way, the one last thing I have to say is that Matthew Lillard is a great actor. He's a terribly underrated actor.
Unfortunately Scream wasn't really on Hollywood's radar, until months after it's release, which is a shame as it's a great film with great characters and story. You believed that Lillard's character was a psychotic killer. I will try to give some examples/reasons as to why he should've been nominated at least:
Lillard as Stu was funny, entertaining to watch and also was one of the best characters, if not the best, in the film as well as one of the best characters from the series, granted those aren't all ideal reasons as to win an Academy Award, but sometimes the Oscars have been a popularity contest in the past, whether it be politics or something else.
He gave Stu humanity, that if another actor played him, Stu could've just been the stereotypical character that's a bit of an asshole teenager that turns out to be a killer. Lillard gave him the humanity that was needed not to make him a stereotype one-dimensional character.
As a result of this, maybe people could see something of themselves in Stu, not the serial killer part, but the part where he was funny, the guy that threw parties, the guy that can be an asshole at times even when they don't mean to be, or maybe all of the above.
Basically Stu Macher in Scream is a human character. He's a character played by an actor that gave him humanity, when the character could've easily have been a stereotype of itself. The Academy doesn't often pick the actors, whose characters that are very realistic and in away are relatable to a degree.
Some are those in a position of power, like a king, or political figure or things along that nature. Those types of characters in films are characters, either fictional or not, that people normally can't relate to, unless the beginnings of the character relate to their own lives, than maybe someone could relate to that character a bit, in which the actor portraying that character might get nominated for his work in the film and might even win for it. Or maybe not.
In the end, Stu was/is a character that's layered that some people could perhaps relate to him in one way or another, though this is probably unintentional and I'm probably looking too deeply into the Stu character in Scream. Either way, the one last thing I have to say is that Matthew Lillard is a great actor. He's a terribly underrated actor.
No comments:
Post a Comment