Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Yes, Harry Goldfarb, the material is not very good, and I agree that the character was cliched because of the lines and the character drawing he was given, but that doesn't mean the performance isn't terrific, and for me he suceeds on every level, no matter the movie, the screenplay or the superficiality of the whole film. He moved me so much... but I recognize that I'm very fond of Cumberbatch. I absolutely adore everything he does, for me he's a portent. Despite of the screenplay, I can see many nuances on his performance, and it's too that kind of turn delivered with great dignity, classic dignity. It's a moving, beautiful, expert performance, and I hope someone on this board agrees with me. Anyway, when we vote on the poll of this year's best actor, I'll be a little more tiresome with this

Best leading actor IS indeed the most interesting acting category this year, as almost always. I don't care about Redmayne's performance. He'll win, at that victory will be remembered as one the cheapest ever. Bradley Cooper does his job. He's fine, but overrated. Carell's new nose a la Kidman doesn't help either. A truly unsympathetic performance, and not that good.
I assume Cumberbatch has no chance this year, so I hope Keaton will finally prevail. He would be a very worthy winner. I finish my allegation saying that I'm glad the Academy didn't include Gyllenhaal. I can't stand his performance. A turn which wants to be desperately admired. Not for me, thank you.

I apologize for being out of the topic. I couldn't resist. And by the way, many people complain that Julianne Moore is overdue. She is, but her victory will be one of the easiest ever, and that's what bothers me, no matter how good she is in Still Alice, and she is indeed. But come on, another waste of a victory. I hate leading actress this year. At least they included the wonderful Cotillard.

Has anyone heard advance buzz about it? I was interested, but the trailer seems to make it look a bit like Bruce Willis' Fifth Element.

The Original BJ wrote:Well, I DO hope Jupiter Ascending puts the kibosh on Eddie Redmayne's chances.

I have to admit that I found Keaton and Redmayne on the same level, but flipp's rampant dislike of Redmayne and everything about the Theory has me whole-heartedly rooting for him (that and he's actually my favourite).

CalWilliam wrote:I know this is not the topic now, but am I the only human being who thinks that Benedict Cumberbatch is the real standout and by far the best performance in that category? Come on. Eddie's Oscar will be the easy and superficial version of Day-Lewis's first one. That means, a total waste to me. Keaton is very good, and I just don't get how the actors can vote for a performance that looks impressive but it's far to be it. Anyway, I wish Eddie some luck in his career.

Hi Cal... Obviously you are not alone in this, not sure if here you will find someone who echoes your appreciation on that specific performance, but it is obviously a performance made to be liked, to be "appreciated". Certainly I am not in that group, having found Cumberbatch's performance unexpectedly... how shall I say this? cliched? It took me by surprise to see (this is nothing more than my personal impression) that the whole approach to the character was ultimately simplistic, even formulaic, underlining the Asperger traits to the point of never allowing me to forget I was watching a performance, an acting work the whole time. It seemed to me that he based his whole work on any chapter of The Big Bang Theory (couldn't help to think, several times through the film, that the guy was actually Sheldon Cooper who finally managed to travel back in time; that idea was ridiculously distracting). Cumberbatch played the character with what was given to him (the material is not very good to be honest), and yes, there were times where he elevated some lines, but as a whole, it wasn't enough and I found the whole film good but rather disappointing.

Sadly, Redmayne is a little bit better but in a much worst film. If someone asks me whom I prefer between those two, I'd say none (except if a gun is pointed at me. In that case I'd say Redmayne). I haven't seen Birdman, Foxcatcher or American Sniper yet, but I hope to see them in the next few days... and thus, a performance more deserving of the Oscar.

Well, I DO hope Jupiter Ascending puts the kibosh on Eddie Redmayne's chances.

I have said many times I do not believe the theory that Eddie Murphy lost Supporting Actor to Alan Arkin because of NORBIT. I think it is as silly as saying Marisa Tomei won her Oscar because Jack Palance read the wrong name.

However the Murphy rumor seems to be unstoppable at this point. Since then you will often read about other contenders having to deal with their own embarrassments around Oscar time. Natalie Portman had to duck NO STRINGS ATTACHED while Lupita Nyong'o had NON-STOP. However, neither was ultimately hurt by these ridiculous films. I am hoping the fact that the same comments are not being made about Julianne Moore and SEVENTH SON means this stupid theory is finally dead. It might still follow Murphy around, but hopefully we will not have to hear about it again every time an actor has a stupid movie released in January and February.

The fact of the matter is that the four acting races ARE very predictable this year. I mean, you can't even present a case for another Best Actress winner without folks chiming in that Julianne Moore is "unstoppable" or "she's due" or "it's her year!" (not that I disagree; that Oscar has been hers for months now).

Patricia Arquette/J.K. Simmons seem very much to be winners in the same vein as the Mo'Nique/Waltz year.

The only category with the potential for an "upset" would be Best Actor going to Redmayne, a possibility I plan on thwarting through (again) sheer force of will. But I really haven't ever lost my faith that this is Michael Keaton's to lose.

Amy Ryan has a SAG award now. She was part of the Birdman ensemble.

Sabin wrote:

Italiano wrote
The four acting Oscars have rarely seemed SO predictable - and this is why, of course, an upset can always happen. But then - where?

How is this a true statement?

Well, it is definitely true FOR ME, Sabin. I don't see how you saying that it's unpredictable can be true, and me saying that it's not mustn't be. We will only know after the Oscars take place, but at the moment I certainly find THE ACTING RACES very predictable. And then we will see.

And, needless to say, I wasn't talking about the techical awards or even about Best Picture. Just the acting prizes.

I think the reason Ryan lost SAG and the Globe had less to do with being the front-runner and more to do with the fact that she wasn't exactly a well known actor. Arquette has that factor and, being part of an acting dynasty cannot help but impress SAG voters. Globes, on the other hand, are a bit more populist-driven, but I remain of the opinion that Globe voters, after the restructuring, are more likely do what BFCA does and vote for the film/performance they think will win the Oscar rather than the film/performance they liked best. I'll state again that I don't think Arquette's a slam dunk, but at this point, she's going to be my prediction unless something odd happens at BAFTA.

In terms of supporting actress standards, I truly don't think Arquette's winning would be an embarrassment. For me, she will be a much better winner than Cruz, Leo, Spencer, Hathaway and Nyong'o, for instance. I kind of feel that her victory will be unique in many aspects, and it's true that subtlety and not being over the top don't fit quite well with supporting actresses winners. So, yes, let us her winning. Personally, I'm more concerned about other matters this year.

Cumberbatch is outstanding for me in many levels. Few performances have moved me as much as this one, at least in the last years. Obviously, The imitation game is nothing for the ages, but I understand your point, Flipp.

mlrg wrote:Well, we are labelling the acting races this year as boring, but when was the last time we had a race without a true frontrunner? If you look at the last 20 years the only real surprises were Marcia Gay Harden, Adrien Brody and to some extent Tilda Swinton. Other than that all winners were pretty much predictable in the weeks prior to the Academy Awards show. And Gay Harden and Brody were winners for shows presented in late March. When the show was moved to late February winners just wave the tide of the other televised awards show.

I agree with you, mirg. Upsets don't happen anymore. The most surprising winner in the last ten years was probably Christoph Waltz for Django unchained, because it seemed impossible seeing that scenario happening again that soon. We all know that Waltz is not precisely Jason Robards or Peter Ustinov. So, that's the reason I'll keep thinking this is BORING. Not all categories, of course. Just the acting ones. It won't have upsets at all, and Michael Keaton prevailing is not an upset.

No one has mentioned one other huge plus Arquette has, and that is being in a beloved film that is a strong contender for other above-the-lines categories. Amy Ryan was her film's only nomination, Bacall's film only had a song nomination. We all know that you get a big push from being in a popular film, and that being in an unliked film is a hurdle to climb.

I guess I never felt SAG would be predisposed to honor Keaton's comeback because voters would be looking for a comeback of their own -- most members of SAG have nothing really to come back to. If anything, a breakthrough awards role by the least famous nominee (Redmayne) would seem like the more aspirational choice. With the Academy, I would imagine more of those members have a personal connection to Keaton -- whether or not that means they LIKE him or are enthusiastic enough about this performance/comeback to honor him is what will remain to be seen.

As the person who (I believe) first compared Arquette to Amy Ryan, I have to say that the days of me thinking that's a valid analogy are long past. Yes, I thought Arquette could have been tripped up after the critics' prizes, but saying "yeah, I know Patricia Arquette has the Globe and SAG but her juggernaut could still go down like Ryan's" strikes me as a gross underestimation of the significance of those Globe and SAG victories. What made Ryan's case unique was that she appeared to be running the table, until suddenly she wasn't, and losing Globe/SAG/BAFTA to DIFFERENT candidates every time, thereby opening up the race to a whole boatload of different possible winners. Had Stone won the Globe, and Knightley the SAG, well then, yeah, this race would be a free for all. For Arquette to lose the Oscar now, after storming through the season, would be the biggest upset in this category since Bacall/Binoche.

Perhaps one of the reasons why many of us have doubted Arquette along the way is that she doesn't have much of an Oscar narrrative, but that's one of the things I like about her awards success. Her part wouldn't have been obviously tagged for awards consideration -- certainly not compared to Redmayne's or Moore's roles -- and Italiano is right that, as an actress, she hasn't achieved at this level before. But, at least in my opinion, she delivered a terrific performance, and it's the quality of that work that I feel awards bodies have responded to so strongly.

Italiano wrote
The four acting Oscars have rarely seemed SO predictable - and this is why, of course, an upset can always happen. But then - where?

How is this a true statement? Specifically regarding the four acting categories being more predictable than usual. They're either as predictable as they usually are or less so. Yes, Julianne Moore and J.K. Simmons are pretty much done deals. Patricia Arquette is definitely going to win. But Best Actor is anything but decided. The last time I had any doubt about this category was between Dujardin and Clooney and even then I was pretty sure that Dujardin was going to win. Eddie Redymane is the front-runner now but only that.

What that means that the three last awards of the night (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor) are up in the air. And several awards just before that like Best Original Screenplay (Birdman vs. The Grand Budapest Hotel) or Best Adapted Screenplay (The Imitation Game vs. Whiplash) are also in question. Heck, so is Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, Best Production Design, and Best Costume Design. I know you're not talking about those specifically but we're moving into one of the more unpredictable Oscar races in a few years with the most acceptable group of films. If that means I have to watch Patricia Arquette win an Oscar then so be it. When this category is bad (Connelly, Zeta-Jones, Zellweger), it's bad, and Patricia Arquette is merely fine in her role.

OscarGuy wrote:I never thought Cotillard was a surprise. I had her at even odds with Christie back then. I had Christie down just because I didn't think the Academy would go with a foreign language winner when they had a Hollywood legend in the race.

Well, I said that she was "a bit of a surprise" which she definitely was. I remember this board, in particular, being pretty shocked that she actually beat out Julie Christie that year (the latter of whom seemed thrilled with that development).

Patricia Arquette's cheat sheets are getting kind of ridiculous at this point. However, I do have to say, that her speeches so far have each contained something fresh in them (the funny Internet comment for the BFCAs; her evocation of her acting family during SAGs) to vary them enough from awards show to awards show. Besides that, I don't view her speeches as a factor in whether or not she can get the Oscar. I'm a big fan of her work in Boyhood, so I'd more than happy for her to just continue this current awards run.

Speaking of speeches, I really find something off about Eddie Redmayne's and I think it's mainly his atrocious posture. Why does he keep doing this thing where it seems like he's shrinking further and further down as the speech progresses? I'd really rather him not win the Oscar for such a basic performance. Funny how he and his screen mother in Savage Grace, Julianne Moore, walked away with the top prizes this past weekend.

To address CalWilliams' thoughts about Benedict Cumberbatch, I thought he brought enough to the role of Alan Turing to bring him more to life than that horrid script was ever going to allow. But I don't think it's a performance for the ages and doesn't deserve to win. In fact, to be honest, I thought that the young actor playing the younger version of Turing was far more affecting in his short amount of screen-time than Cumberbatch was.

This appears to be a minority opinion, but I thought Emma Stone wasn't anything really special in Birdman. Rather one-note. I can't imagine that performance being awarded with an Oscar.