Not
caring too much for the Oscars I try not to get too worked up when I see that something
or someone has been snubbed. I notice some people get really worked up about
them, for me the ignorance of one hundred year old out of touch Academy members
more amuses me than irritates. However right now I think I have a fair argument
and opinion as to why Jake Gyllenhaal should have been nominated for Best Actor for his role in Nightcrawler either as well as Steve Carell for Foxcatcher or instead of. (In an ideal world
where I decide everything film related, it would definitely have been instead
of.)

Its easy to make the argument ‘sometimes psycopaths don’t have motivations in real life’ and that’s all well and good. But if you’re going to write a character who appears to have no clear or fleshed out motivations at least make them interesting. They don’t even have to be likeable just interesting. That is enough to keep the audience involved in the story and indeed the character. John De Pont wasn’t interesting, and that’s where his character differs from Gyllenhaal’s portrayal of Louis Bloom in Nightcrawler. Its true that you didn’t always understand Bloom’s motivations, and he absolutely was not a likeable character. But he was always interesting. You can always credit the writing for this but it always takes a great actor to pull it off. I am confused as to why Foxcatcher was nominated for Best Writing and Best Actor and deserves neither while Nightcrawler is missing the latter, and deserves to win the former.
Follow me on Twitter - https://twitter.com/MaxBezant