This week saw the announcement of 2023’s Academy Award nominations. Among the headlines were the 14 nominations for Irish work, and a Best Actor category in which every actor was receiving their first ever nomination.
Tom Hanks has been nominated five times in that category, winning twice, but he failed to receive recognition from the Academy this time out.
He has, however, been nominated for three somewhat less prestigious awards in a Hollywood tradition that has proved even more controversial than usual this year.
READ MORE: Golden Globes snub Better Call Saul while addressing past controversy
What's the Hollywood tradition?
The Golden Raspberry Awards, otherwise known as the Razzies.
What do they involve?
Every year since 1981, between 650 and 1,100 Razzie members vote for the worst films, performances and directors from the past year.
And the man who won Best Actor Oscars for his roles in Philadelphia and Forrest Gump is nominated?
Hanks is up for Worst Actor (Pinocchio) and Worst Supporting Actor (Elvis), as well as Worst Screen Couple for ‘Tom Hanks & His Latex-Laden Face (and Ludicrous Accent)’ in the Elvis biopic.
This is not a Razzie worthy performance, it’s an Oscar worthy one. But the Razzies just love to nominate renowned actors when they give eccentric performances pic.twitter.com/uXezJQcKDY
— Slyth 🎬 (@slythwalker_28) January 23, 2023
READ MORE: How the bizarre 'woke M&Ms' culture war dragged in a Saturday Night Live star
Is that the controversy?
No. Ryan Kiera Armstrong has received a Worst Actress nomination for her performance in Stephen King adaptation Firestarter.
Why the uproar?
She’s 12-years-old.
Finally. It’s about time 1,100 adults stood up to one 12-year-old girl and shamed her for having the audacity to not yet have reached Cate Blanchett’s level.
Surprisingly, not everyone sees it that way. Former child star Devon Sawa tweeted: “The Razzies are run by soulless people. That child could grow to be amazing if you haven’t gotten in their head.”
Have the Razzies attempted to justify the nomination?
Razzies co-founder John Wilson said there was debate as to whether Armstrong was old enough to be included, but called her an “experienced actress, even if she’s only 12.”
While insisting the backlash was “overblown”, he admitted: “the intent was to be funny. In this particular instance, we seem to have misstepped very badly.”
For more than two centuries The Herald has been delivering quality news and insightful commentary. To celebrate our 240th anniversary, we’ve launched our lowest ever subscription offer – one year for just £24. https://t.co/v7nDp2BrP7
— The Herald (@heraldscotland) January 25, 2023
READ MORE: 10 songs from Martin Scorsese films to tell director's story
Has anyone willingly accepted a Razzie?
A handful have attended the ceremony, most notably Halle Berry in 2005 and Sandra Bullock in 2010. Berry gave a self-deprecating speech after winning Worst Actress for her performance in Catwoman, holding the Razzie in one hand while holding the Academy Award she won for Monster’s Ball four years earlier in the other.
I will never get over how much of a power move it was when Sandra Bullock and Halle Berry showed up to accept their Razzies pic.twitter.com/ibAOX7M2Ah
— InsertCleverNameHere (@neufonewhodis) January 2, 2020
Bullock, meanwhile, collected the Worst Actress award for her All About Steve performance and then won a Best Actress Oscar for The Blind Side the following night.
Are the Razzie categories all negative?
No. The Razzie Redeemer award goes to those performers who have been nominated or won a Razzie then gone on to mount a comeback. Past winners have included Ben Affleck, Melissa McCarthy and Will Smith.
Did Will Smith do a Halle Berry and pick up his Razzie in person?
He didn’t, which is strange when you consider Smith is famous for being able to take a joke at awards ceremonies.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here