2 LIVE POLLS: Both Camera Sides Oscar Nominees

@urbanemovies​ 

I might be willing to broaden the scope for a feature length documentary movie, a feature length foreign language movie, or a feature length animated movie. But, I would leave the documentary short, live-action short, animated short segment to be covered in a separate poll. 1) it lowers the bar for inclusion and makes the achievement less rare and special. I am sure achieving the "Both Camera Sides Oscar Nominees" feat on the feature level is more difficult and more rare than as a short. Shorts often are done  on a limited budget and a small crew. A one-man or one-woman show that drives the project by wearing multiple hats is common. 2) It creates an incomplete listing by expanding the scope. I am sure Christine Lahti isn't the only one who has achieved the feat on the short level. I don't want to include her and slight the others  who accomplished the same feat by omitting them. I lack a comprehensive listing or personal expertise to compile a complete "Both Camera Sides Oscar Nominees"  short list.3) Shorts Oscars are for the finished product and not specifically for a in front of the camera, as well as, behind the camera role. In this case, the award was for Best Short Film, Live Action Lieberman in Love (1995), both Christine Lahti and Jana Sue Memel shared the award. Lahti was the director and Memel was the executive producer. It might be clear in this case what role earned them their awards here, but in other cases it could be much less clear.4) I further clarified the parameters of the poll scope to include an in front of the camera "*acting Oscar nomination plus a behind the camera feature-length Oscar nomination (directing, writing, producing, music, etc.)." As 2019, thirty-seven individuals have secured feature-length Oscar nominations in front of the camera, as well as, behind the camera.

Urbane: That's fine, but in that case you should remove Peter Sellers from the list. Sellers was nominated twice for acting, but his only other nomination was for Best Short Subject, Live Action Subjects, for The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film (1959). That's the same non-acting category in which Christine Lahti won her Oscar. So if she doesn't qualify, he doesn't either.

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback and information on both Peter Sellers and  Christine Lahti. I removed Peter Sellers from list. I went through all the shorts list and those two were the only ones that passed the "eye test". I am going to give it some more thought, but agree both should be in together or out together. The Peter Seller entry was even more suspect with shared credits Peter Sellers  (uncredited as director) and (thoughts by writing credit).Best Animated Short Film: since 1930/31Best Documentary Short Subject: since 1941Best Live Action Short Film: since 1931/32Best Short Subject – 1 Reel: 1936 to 1956Best Short Subject – 2 Reel: 1936 to 1956Best Short Subject – Color: 1936 to 1937Best Short Subject – Comedy: 1931/32 to 1935Best Short Subject – Novelty: 1931/32 to 1935

thanks

As of 2020, thirty-seven individuals have career feature Oscar nominations in front of the camera, as well as, behind the camera (thirty-nine, if you count Peter Sellers' and Christine Lahti's shorts).

Urb, Thanks for making the correction.

THANKS I updated part two with a hyperlink to part one and adjusted the poll thread. Part two is ready to go. Both Camera Sides Oscar Nominees (2001-Now)

@cinephile,  You should specifically cite how they don't match. I reviewed both polls, every person cited as an answer option has a matching image of that same person to go with it.

Example: Orson Welles got 3 Oscar Nominations for Citizen Kane in 1942, but you put an image of him in Touch of Evil. Why did you choose to do so?

vs. I would have preferred to put a Citizen Kane image for Orson Welles too. I opted for my second choice in this case due to a better solo head shot being available that was more centered and easier to view. It wasn't that long ago there were hardly any decent IMDb photos on the Citizen Kane page at all. This poll suggestion was created almost 4 years ago (10 Jan 2017) when the options on that page were very limited.  I prefer Citizen Kane over Touch of Evil, but you might be under-rating the latter a bit. Touch of Evil isn't exactly a bad film with its 99 Metacritic score and multiple Top 100 listings. It reputation has even got better over time when audiences got to see the version that Welles wanted to make, as the 1958 release was a product of the studio having final cut rights on the theatrical release. In 1998, Touch of Evil was re-edited accordingly to Welles's original vision, as outlined in the 58-page memo in which he elaborately outlined his creative vision for the film, in response to being kicked off the film. Also, even though it is probably his second most famous role, I would agree that an early Orson Welles and an aging Orson Welles are barely recognizable as the same person. P.S. I had to make similar calls on a couple other answer options.

I prefer Citizen Kane over Touch of Evil, but you might be under-rating the latter a bit. https://www.imdb.com/user/ur91650024/ratings?sort=date_added,desc&ratingFilter=10&mode=detail&lastPosition=0 https://www.imdb.com/list/ls097591715/ I don't remember saying that Touch of evil was a bad film, not so long ago, my profile picture was Charlton Heston as Mike Vargas!!

You didn't say it was a great film either. But thought a still picture from Touch of Evil was less worthy than a still from Citizen Kane to represent Orson Welles in the poll. If you don't want people to make inferences or assumptions, I would be more specific in your questions or comments.  I probably attached some of own feelings about the film, as it moved up a rating point or two when I saw it again as a re-release Director's Cut.

First, In my point of view, a film can't represent the Oscars won by another film. If none of the images are good you can upload one. At first, I didn't mention my opinion on Touch of Evil because it is irrelevant.   BTW, my ratings have always been public: https://www.imdb.com/user/ur91650024/ratings

vs The poll is about people who have high level diverse skill sets and asks who is "most impressive talent on both sides of the camera?" The Oscar nomination by that person is simply a condition to narrow the pool.  Those skill sets don't start and stop on work that is recognized. Sometime, the work that isn't recognized is vastly superior and the work that is well below thier usual standard. While an ideal person image could recognize a role that speaks to both the question and condition, it sometimes not possible. Yes, if none of the images are good you can upload one. I have striven to do so by posting centered, well-sized head shots. But, sometimes that it easier said than done, as was the case, when this poll suggestion was first created. In my opinion, given the differing levels of film knowledge of poll takers, the primary purpose of the image is to help poll takers identify or associate a name with the person they have seen. That is why sometimes a more identifiable role trumps a more Oscar winning or nominated role, if it speaks to more people or better helps them put the face with the name. Ruth Gordon in Harold and Maude (1971) or John Huston in Chinatown (1974) are too good examples. Neither role was deemed Oscar-worthy nor the apex of their careers or representative of their careers were all about. Despite, this I wouldn't be surprised to find in many movies goers mind it this first thing that comes to mind when hearing the name. Regardless, I was able to achieve these goals to some degree and incorporate your feedback. I swapped out a couple images with ones that focus on the Oscars more and still focus on key projects, even though in few it meant a trade-off. P.S. (other than Citizen Kane) I still would recommend being more specific, as I don't know which ones don't match, in your opinion or even what your requirements are for them to be matched.

@rubyfruit76, I corrected part two and made similar adjustments to part one. As of 2020, thirty-seven individuals have career feature Oscar nominations in front of the camera, as well as, behind the camera (thirty-nine, if you count Peter Sellers' and Christine Lahti's shorts). Which person who secured dual Oscar nominations* in front of the camera, as well as behind the camera, in the 21st century, is the most impressive talent on both sides? *an acting Oscar nomination plus a behind-the-camera Oscar nomination (directing, writing, producing, music, etc.) Vote in the companion poll: Both Camera Sides Oscar Nominees (1928-2000)

Thanks, I added live poll hyperlink, moved to praise, updated title.

@urbanemovies​ Will Smith joins the Both Sides Oscar Nomination club in 2022.