Kevin's Watch

I looked for a thread on this movie but I didn't see one - sorry if I overlooked it.

I watched this movie, starring Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles, and we completely blown away. Foxx gives one of the best performances by any leading actor that I have ever seen. He truly deserved the Academy Award for his work.

YEP!!!!

I have not seen the movie and maybe that automatically disqualifies me from having and/or voicing an opinion. However, based on what I have read critically about this movie, I affirm and promote its greatness. I know this post is libel to viewed very negatively by everyone, but sorry I think this message needs to be raised.

Is imitation acting? Furthermore, based on his body of work who would have ever believed Jim Carrey (not a favorite actor of mine) would not be the first Living Color Alum to earn an Oscar. Lastly, was anyone else put off by Jamie Foxx's Oscar acceptance speech, just a little?

I wasn't put off by his speech, I found it very moving. Can you elaborate further?

taraswizard wrote:Is imitation acting?

Well, you haven't seen the movie, have you? So when you ask this question, you don't even know if it's germaine to Jamie Foxx's portrayal of Ray. I, who have seen the movie, say yes, it's most definitely acting, and at a pretty damn high level, too. Do you even know what 'acting' means? Here, let me show you what Webster says:

Main Entry: 1act·ing
Pronunciation: 'ak-ti[ng]
Function: noun
: the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras

The character Jamie represented happened to be a real person. But, that in no way invalidates his portrayal. My momma told me there was no such thing as a stupid question, but I have to admit, you really got close here.

taraswizard wrote:Furthermore, based on his body of work who would have ever believed Jim Carrey (not a favorite actor of mine) would not be the first Living Color Alum to earn an Oscar.

Who would have even cared? Carrey is a fine actor in his own way, but you can't just imply it's wrong for Foxx to get an Oscar before him, just because Carrey has made more movies.

taraswizard wrote:Lastly, was anyone else put off by Jamie Foxx's Oscar acceptance speech, just a little?

No, I didn't have a problem with his acceptance speech. But then again, I didn't have a problem with him getting the damn thing in the first place, either. Go rent the movie. Go educate yourself.

You really have to see him in the movie. Jaime Foxx literally becomes Ray Charles. He definately deserved the Oscar for it. He was mesmerizing.

I agree with dAN - Foxx's performance, IMHO, was certainly better than anything we've ever seen from Jack Nicholson or Robert DeNiro, and look how many Oscars they've won.

Thanks for the measured and reasoned responses.

Differences between acting and imitation; how about a few examples, Hilary Swank in Boys don't cry creates the character of Brandon Teena (who was a real person), or Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby creates the character (BTW, another illustration would be George C. Scott's protrayal of General George S. Patton in the movie of the name). FWIW, Morgan Freeman won the Oscar for best Supporting role in 2005, too. I'm probably just out numbered here and will just give in and give up.

Regarding acceptance speeches, contrast Jamie Foxx's acceptance of the Best Actor Award at the NAACP's Image awards televised last week on March 25 and his acceptance speech for the Oscars. Or Hilary Swanks acceptance at the Oscars.

And again an issue I'm just out numbered on, but I'll explain a little of why I brought it up. Jim Carey, who is not a favorite of mine, during his recent movie career has made movies with more gravitas, IMO and most other peoples opinions.

Tara, sorry - but I still don't understand.

George C Scott (one of my all-time favorite actors, BTW) was IMO the only actor capable of portraying Patton. The only thing that Scott was not able to match was Patton's speaking voice - Patton spoke in a high, nasally tone; Scott had an unmistakeable growl throughout the whole movie.

Ray Charles also had an unusual voice and unique mannerisms - how could any actor portray him accurately without trying to imitate hime?

Tara, you argue your points as if the definition of acting, imitation, and gravitas are open to interpretation. They are not. You are in the minority because you refuse to admit what acting is, not because you see deeper that I do. I love Carrey; Bruce Almighty had a deep impact on me; but it does not invalidate Foxx's getting an Oscar. The funny thing is that you keep harping about imitation, but the only part of the Ray Charles role that you base that on is the musical performance; most of the movie is not the music, though. There is tons of acting in the movie, but you can't know that until you WATCH THE MOVIE!!!!!