Toronto

[Big Magilla]

Isn't Affleck a bit young to be making a comeback? It isn't so much a comeback, anyway, as the first good performance he's given in a role he didn't write (Good Will Hunting) or improvise (all those Kevin Smith flicks). He isn't going to win any pre-cursors.

Oscar may love actors with strong personal stories that rival the ones they're playing on screen. Think Haing S. Ngor. This year think Adam Beach, not Ben Affleck.

Ira Hayes, who was found dead in a ditch after imbibing one too many shortly after his 42nd birthday in 1955, was probably the most famous soldier of World War II after Audie Murphy. He was famous for one thing - raising the flag on Iwo Jima - and spent the rest of his short life in guilt over spending the remainder of teh war on a bond selling tour while his buddies were exposed to imminent death. His life story was filmed once before, as The Outsider, in 1961 with Tony Curtis, but Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers puts his lfie into perspective with those of the other flag-raisers. Not surprisingly, by all accounts, Beach as Hayes walks off with the film.

Adam Beach is a Native Canadian American whose mother was killed by a drunk driver when he was 8. Three months later his father drowned. After numerous false starts - a Murder She Wrote here, an idependent flick there, a major role in a Nic Cage film, he's finally gotten the role of a lifetime after Eastwood at first refused to cast him for being "too old". He's now running for chief of his tribe at teh ripe old age of 34.

[OscarGuy]

Sonic, I'm surprised you're pulling the same stuff Criddic does. My argument is in my post. The comeback argument is from mediocrity. From two huge duds of pictures. From status as a box office action adventure star into a roll that has everyone talking. Who cares if the film didn't make much at the box office? Who cares if critics didn't care much for it.

Clive Owen, Closer (7.4 @ imdb, 68% @ rottentomatoes, $33.9 M @ boxoffice)
Alec Baldwin, The Cooler (7.0 @ imdb, 76% @ rottentomatoes, $8.2 M @ boxoffice)
Jim Broadbent, Iris (7.2 @ imdb, 77% @ rottentomatoes, $5.6 M @ boxoffice)
Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast (7.0 @ imdb, 86% @ rottentomatoes, $6.9 M @ boxoffice)
Willem Dafoe, Shadow of the Vampire (6.7 @ imdb, 83% @ rottentomatoes, $8.3 M @ boxoffice)
Tom Cruise, Magnolia (8.0 @ imdb, 86% @ rottentomatoes, $22.5 M @ boxoffice)
James Coburn, Affliction (6.9 @ imdb, 85% @ rottentomatoes, $6.3 M @ boxoffice)
Burt Reynolds, Boogie Nights (7.6 @ imdb, 95% @ rottentomatoes, $26.4 M @ boxoffice)
James Woods, Ghosts of Mississippi (6.3 @ imdb, 48% @ rottentomatoes, $13.1 M @ boxoffice)

Ben Affleck, Hollywoodland (6.9 @ imdb, 70% @ rottentomatoes, $10.5 M @ boxoffice)

For those who want as many examples as possible (AND BEFORE ANYONE SAYS ANYTHING, none of these examples are perfect, Alec Baldwin is probably the closest example). On par for imdb ratings. On par for rotten tomatoes ratings and on par for box office.

He may not get nominated but until critics awards come out and he's absent and until a stronger field of supporting actors comes around, I'm sticking with him as a prediction at this time. At least one important precursor will be needed to keep in in the race.

[Sonic Youth]

I'm a bit surprised that people are considering this a comeback for Affleck. And come back from what? Or to what? It's not a comeback to good films - after all, Hollywoodland as only gotten the mildest of praise, and most critics seemed indifferent at best. It's not gonna be a box office hit.

Hear, hear.

Hollywoodland will barely eke out 15 million at the box office, which is only a little more than Surviving Christmas made. And let's be honest. Affleck didn't get so many wonderful reviews. Most of them were respectful, some were lousy. And a few were excellent, true. But look at the critical reception David Strathairn and Imelda Staunton, two other Venice winners, received. Unanimous raves. Affleck isn't even close to that level.

This is called a comeback for two reasons. First, it's a Rob Lowe-ish comeback from laughingstock status. Second, it's because of the symbiotic relationship Affleck has with the lovestruck media pimps. If Strathairn played the role of George Reeves, and he won Venice for it, no one would be calling it a "comeback". Because he's not Ben Affleck.

[The Original BJ]

Okri, I agree completely.

Affleck was well cast in Hollywoodland, but that's about it. I'm shocked that many are considering him a frontrunner for the prize. His was not an award-level performance, and though plenty of those do get nominated, his part is neither flashy enough, nor in a film loved enough to get major traction.

Plus, he HAS an Oscar already! I can't for the life of me wonder why voters would want to give him another. (And none of this, well, he doesn't have an ACTING Oscar.) Two-time Oscar winner Ben Affleck? I don't think so.

And I again agree with Okri: the comeback argument is pretty weak, given that this is hardly any type of comeback, IMO.

[Okri]

I'm a bit surprised that people are considering this a comeback for Affleck. And come back from what? Or to what? It's not a comeback to good films - after all, Hollywoodland as only gotten the mildest of praise, and most critics seemed indifferent at best. It's not gonna be a box office hit. I think he has a chance, but I'm a bit surprised at how many people think he's a top tier candidate.

Then again, supporting categories are often way harder to predict than leading, in my mind.

[flipp525]

If that's not enough, running back-up are Sigourney Weaver as a schizofrenic (she's her film's lead so I don't understand why she's being pushed for support)

Magilla, doesn't Weaver play a high-functioning autistic woman in 'Snow Cake'? I know that in adulthood there are some autistic people whose behavior on the outside might resemble a certain type of schizophrenia however, both disorders are listed as two, separate entries in the DSM (sorry, that's my college psych talking).

In looking at your post, I wonder if the supporting trophies won't skew younger, if O'Toole/Mirren do, in fact, end up taking the lead prizes. Might bode well for performers like Jennifer Hudson and Adam Beach.

And the Ben Affleck stuff is laughable. He's not getting any where near that podium this year, let alone a nomination.

[OscarGuy]

And Hollywood loves a comeback. Affleck made the kind of comeback many dream of. Pulling out of the "box office draw" mentality, coming off of box office duds, and returning to the forefront of his talent. Whether the people on this board dismiss Affleck or not, there is a great love of his performance out there (he won Venice for heaven's sake). Tom Cruise and Burt Reynolds, both big box office draws, managed nominations for "serious" films. Sure Affleck wasn't as a big a draw as they but I think there's a certain desire to push back against any kind of early buzz that people discount certain possibilities.

I see Affleck winning a handful of precursor awards. If that happens, I don't see why he wouldn't be a contender (after all, Supporting Actor isn't as strong as one would hope).

[Big Magilla]

The other thing to keep in mind is that Oscar likes to do things differently from time to time.

In 1998, emphasis was put on the fact that no male actor had ever won for a foreign film and that only one performer of either sex had previously won and that was 37 yers earlier - voila! Roberto Benigni became impossible to beat.

A few years later emphasis was put on the fact that no African-American actress had ever won in the lead category so let's give the award to Halle Berry - never mind that she was better playing the first ever nominated black actress in TV's Inrotudcing Dorothy Dandridge - it's time, and while we're at it let's remember that no African-American of either sex has ever won more than once so let's give a make-up award to Denzel Washington for having shunned him in Malcolm X and The Hurricane.

This year it's time to award the near dead once again. Like Katharine Hepburn who won three of her four Oscars late in life, Henry Fonda who won on his deathbed, Geraldine Page who won a year before her demise and Jessica Tandy who won just a few years before she went to her reward, it's time to honor Peter O'Toole, and wile we're at it let's give one to Helen Mirren.

Whether The Queen will be a box office hit or not, Mirren is endeared by the acting community who've already awarded her TV work with Emmys for several Prime Suspect(s) as well as the recent Elizabeth I. Actually, though, I think The Queen will be a huge hit. The Princess Diana mystique has not faded and legions will go to see a film even only tangentally about her. That this one is ALL about her is icing on the cake.

Mirren's closest rival is Kate Winselt, who like last year's winner, Reese Witherspon is a young actress with loads of talent who, unlike Witherspoon, has had four previous nominations and is likely to score more so the "give it to her now or forget about it" feeling that supported a Witherspoon win goes away.

Witherspoon's closest rival was Felciity Huffman, who like Mirren, was best known for her TV work. The difference is that Huffman's TV work was not as extensive as Mirren's whose first Prime Suspect was in the early 90s and who has had a long, often distinguished, career on the big screen. Plus she's in what will likely be a huge hit. The tables are turned.

Penelope Cruz seems to be emerging as this year's risen from the ashes star. A respected actress in her Spanish films, she became something of a joke on this side of the Atlantic due to her highly publicized, some would say manufactured, romances with Tom Cruise and Matthew McConnaughey, but has regained her respectability big time by returning to work for her mentor, Pedro Almodovar. Add in the higly anticipated performacnes of Judi Dench as a conniving bitch and recent Oscar favorite Renee Zellweger as Beatrix Potter and 13 time nominee Meryl Streep in a borderline supporting role in a summer hit falls off the radar.

If that's not enough, running back-up are Sigourney Weaver as a schizofrenic (she's her film's lead so I don't understand why she's being pushed for support) and Julie Christie as an Alzheimer's patient who falls for a fellow patient in a film that may or may not be released in time for this year's awards. Both are prime Oscar fodder, hit or miss at the box office.

Sorry, Tee, but I don't think comparing Streep in Prada to Hopkins in Silence is a valid argument. As Wesley points out, the bar is set much higher for a two-time winner going for her fourteenth nomination in a summertime bon-bon that it was for the (then) respected never-nominated actor going for his first in a Jnauary release that people couldn't get out of their minds all year long. I wouldn't say a best actress nomination for her is impossible, but it's far from a slam dunk.

[flipp525]

Bombing at the box-office can turn a seeming golden contender into thin air quite quickly

I actually disagree with this statement. Yes, box-office success helps but it won't exactly put a contender at a disadvantage if his/her film bombs. If that's the case, then people like Theron, McDormand & Giamatti won't make it to the Oscars last year. To me, Oscar is usually not about box-office success. There isn't exactly a correlation between the two.

While it’s true that a weak box office performance does not necessarily discount an actor's chances at a nomination, you cite three actors’ performances last year whose nominations had very little to do with actual box office receipts. For North Country, Charlize Theron transformed herself yet again into a classic Academy role (one woman standing up against a corrupt machine) in the same vein as previous Oscar-winners Sally Field (Norma Rae) and Julia Roberts (Erin Brokovich). Her film has an ‘inspired by true events’ quality as well that always curries favor with the Academy. And her nomination also gave the Academy the chance to prove that she was not a one-trick pony. It also must be taken into account that last year was a weak year for the Best Actress category.

Frances McDormand is an Academy favorite and was co-starring in an Oscar-baity picture and had the added bonus of her character suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. It was an Oscar-trifecta. Plus, I think the midwest accent might've made voters a little sentimental for McDormand's Marge Gunderson.

Regardless of Cinderella Man’s abysmal B.O. performance, Paul Giamatti’s nomination gave the Academy the chance to make up for his Sideways snub of the previous year.

[VanHelsing]

Bombing at the box-office can turn a seeming golden contender into thin air quite quickly

I actually disagree with this statement. Yes, box-office success helps but it won't exactly put a contender at a disadvantage if his/her film bombs. If that's the case, then people like Theron, McDormand & Giamatti won't make it to the Oscars last year. To me, Oscar is usually not about box-office success. There isn't exactly a correlation between the two.

[Mister Tee]

As BJ more or less said, Steep has the "bird in the hand worth two in the bush" factor -- her movie is already out and judged to be a late career triumph; we're only assuming other well-reviewed Toronto entrants will achieve some level of success. Bombing at the box-office can turn a seeming golden contender into thin air quite quickly (look how people are instantly writing Ben Affleck off, despite a win at Venice). The unseen/untried are of course always more perfect entries in our heads...but they all have to run the reality-gauntlet before nomination day. I like Streep's chances simply because she's already cleared most of the serious hurdles.

And, for the record, I don't think the supporting thing is a problem for her, any more than it was for Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. Screen-time be damned, Streep is widely seen as dominating Devil Wears Prada.

[OscarGuy]

The one fact that you can't miss, though, is the sentiment that Streep should be Supporting considering her role in the film. This could turn voters off if she's pushed for Lead despite screen time. She'd sail to a nomination in support, but if even half the performances we haven't yet seen are successes, the Lead category heats up.

And Streep can't just do anything to get nominated. SAG nominated her for The River Wild, but the Academy didn't. She failed to pick up an expected nod for The Hours. She couldn't muster the attention necessary to win a nod for Manchurian Candidate (despite early buzz). Those latter two were very high profile pics that couldn't materialize for her a nomination. Remember, she has a record 13 nominations...I don't think they'll be hell bent on giving her a 14th and pushing her record even farther up.

Sure, right now, she seems a solid name for a nominee, but things change between September and Oscar time. that's 3 months for her star to fade and another to rise in its place. As you caution people not to remove her from their lists (which I haven't) be careful in cementing a nomination for her like your discusson so far seems to be teetering.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1158671625

[The Original BJ]

I think some of you guys are forgetting that some of the Best Actress contenders that look great on the page are probably going to fail.

I see very little standing in the way of a nomination for Streep. People often write off early year candidates (Diane Lane, Terrence Howard) only to be surprised that they hold up throughout the year while contenders in more Oscar-likely vehicles fall by the wayside.

Given what Streep has in her corner—great reviews, a role as a juicy villain you love to hate (but who's also sympathetic!), a hit movie, tons of media cheerleading, and the fact that she's Meryl "I can get nominated for Music of the Heart" Streep—it seems highly unlikely that she will miss the Oscar shortlist.

And of course Streep's buzz has faded. She was all the rage for most of summer, though, and now her picture has left theaters. I suspect once Best Actress awards start being handed out (NBR anyone?), and, as flipp pointed out, Prada becomes the hot new DVD of the moment, Streep's buzz will soar right back to the tippy-top.

No, I don't think Streep will win her third trophy this year, not with Mirren and Winslet both overdue for number one. But I think a nomination is in the bag.

[VanHelsing]

I doubt Bening will go supporting. From what I've heard, her role in the film has been stretched and she appears in more than half of the film's screentime. As for Streep, if the critics' awards start giving her the supporting nods, I think Fox will be wise to change their campaign. But the thought of seeing three veterans in the BA race is of course kinda refreshing considering they have been going for the young and hot ones lately. And if Cruz or Winslet don't make it, we can have our 4th veteran, Bening, to add to the competition. But then, it turns out the sole young and hot nominee triumphs. Ooops... some things never change...

[flipp525]

The Queen is the opening night attraction at the New York Film Festival of which Volver may or may not be the "centerpiece", though I would have to agree Penelope Cruz is now hot on the heels of Mirren and Winslet.

Streep is the one fast losing ground and will continue to do so with Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal and Renee Zellweger in Miss Potter yet to be seen. I also have a strong hunch that Away From Her will be given an Oscar qualifying run before the year is out giving Julie Christie a strong shot as well.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I am in the process of updating my Hopefuls list and in my explanation, I predicted that Streep might end up losing out on a nomination.

I’m not quite ready to strike Streep off my list just yet. There seem to be a lot of candidates waiting in the wings for the Best Actress category this year including, as Big Magilla mentioned, Renee Zellweger and Judi Dench, as well as Ashley Judd (Bug), Beyoncé (Dreamgirls), and Annette Bening (Running with Scissors). However, Streep made an almost across-the–board splash with her performance in Devil and the DVD will probably be coming out around ballot time which combined with her reputation and the popularity of this movie in the graveyard of summer releases, should be enough to propel her to a nod. If not, she’ll undoubtely be the sixth or seventh on the final ballot. More often than not, we’ve been seeing a performance from earlier in the year in this category, so I’m holding her place alongside Mirren, Winslet, and Cruz for the time being. Now if either Bening or Streep go supporting, they become very strong candidates in those fields and this becomes a different race entirely. I have a feeling that Bening might end up going this route.

I’m surprised by the almost unanimous praise for Sandra Bullock. She’s looking like more and more of a potential nominee.