Cheadle vs. Foxx

Don Cheadle and Jamie Foxx, both nominated for Best Performance by an actor in a leading role in 2004, for the movies "Hotel Rwanda" and "Ray", respectively. Don Cheadle playing the leading role in Hotel Rwanda depicting the horrific and graphic events taking place in Rwanda in 1994 as the world turned its head. Jamie Foxx played Ray Charles, in the movie portraying the late musicians interesting life. These two movies, while both based on true events, are two different genres so can barely be compared in that respect. So who should have one you ask? Or so Kenny asks. So what was the ultimate deciding factor in who was the best actor? Who would you have chosen? Personally I am partial to Don Cheadle as this movie was not only true but shed light on a subject that still is not widely shared with the world. Why didn't he win if this movie was so profound? The first thought that popped into my mind was Hollywood and its superficial values. In my opinion, and those of my peers frankly Jamie Foxx is "easier on the eyes". This is the bottom line, when it comes to Hollywood. Appearance means almost just as much as talent. This is not to discredit Jamie Foxx's talents in anyway as he is an excellent actor and did a wonderful job, however I believe those actors found less attractive have to work all the more harder. This being said I think Cheadle should have came out on top, but again Foxx won, which was not a bad choice, I just question the motives.

   Wisdom & Love