Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

I find it weird to compare the acting methods/performances of the likes of Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland, Christoph Waltz in Inlgourious Basterds or Mo'Nique in Precious to Patricia Arquette in Boyhood. They may have been juggernauts, but they were all very flamboyant, almost excessive performances. I haven't seen Arquette yet, but as I understand it, hers is a bit understated. That's almost why I think someone like Emma Stone who has some very explosive scenes in Birdman stands a good chance of upsetting. Plus, if you consider the age issue, she's a perfect candidate (as is Keira Knightley for that matter).

OscarGuy wrote: However, I find it hard to believe that an actress who's spent most of her career on television and has a mediocre film history could be such a strong front-runner. And there's another elephant in the room that no one's considered: Arquette is in her 40's.

One word: Mo'Nique. Patricia Arquette at least has an Emmy to her name. Mo'Nique hasn't done any notable work outside of her stand-up and TV work. Mo'Nique isn't exactly a PYT either. Patricia Arquette is more conventionally prettier than her. Mo'Nique swept without any problem. The same could be said with Octavia Spencer.

It's also possible that her terrible speech giving at the last three televised events might put voters off wondering how she can be a very good actor when she can't even memorize her lines? And even then, she just recites off the paper with very minimal intonation.

Christoph Waltz and Forest Whitaker both have been similarly criticized for giving bad acceptance speeches. They both still won (and saved their BEST acceptance speeches for their actual Oscar).

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.

As to Arquette, perhaps I remember 2007 differently, but I recall a lot of people...even after SAG and the Globes saying if not Amy Ryan, then who. The same thing going on now. Amy Ryan had 14 precursor wins to Blanchett's 7 and Swinton's 1. This year, Arquette has 19 to Jessica Chastain's 4. So, yes, it is a bit more likely that Arquette will win the award than Ryan would win, but the same narrative is developing. If not Patricia Arquette, who?

I also don't think Emma Stone is as unproven as you do, Tripp. As much as people hate The Help, she was effective in it and Easy A was sublime, as was her work in Birdman, which is the kind of strong, showy work that the Academy does love. She's also one of the more likable characters in that film, which gives her an edge over Keaton who comes off as a bit unlikable, though pitiable is probably a more apt description. Yet, if I had to bed on an upset winner, it would be Keira Knightley. It's not like she's an Oscar neophyte. She's only received two nominations, but she's been in the conversation on multiple occasions (Atonement and, to a lesser extent, Never Let Me Go come to mind) since then. And, if Harvey feels like he's losing ground in Best Picture, he might turn to Knightley as his chance to get some Oscar recognition this year.

Again, I'm not saying Arquette isn't the heavy favorite, nor am I saying I won't be predicting her to win. However, I find it hard to believe that an actress who's spent most of her career on television and has a mediocre film history could be such a strong front-runner. And there's another elephant in the room that no one's considered: Arquette is in her 40's. I'm not saying the Oscars are ageist (they really are, though), but could the fact that she's not a PYT hinder her changes? It's possible. It's also possible that her terrible speech giving at the last three televised events might put voters off wondering how she can be a very good actor when she can't even memorize her lines? And even then, she just recites off the paper with very minimal intonation.

Wasn't Marion Cotillard a bit of a surprise when she won? I remember everyone thinking that Julie Christie had it pretty much in the bag that year.

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.

ITALIANO wrote:

OscarGuy wrote:
I think this puts Redmayne clearly in the lead.

Yeah... I mean, anyone who wins the Golden Globe AND the SAG award, who's in a Best Picture nominee and who plays the showy role of a real-life disabled scientist MUST be considered a front-runner, like it or not. And the BAFTA will probably seal this.

The four acting Oscars have rarely seemed SO predictable - and this is why, of course, an upset can always happen. But then - where? We are in the era of internet, where ideas can grow out of control (and especially Americans are, let's face it, more easily influenceable than others), and one of these ideas is that Patricia Arquette - after decades of unimpressive work - suddenly has given a great performance in Boyhood. It's not true, of course - not because Italiano says so, it's REALLY not true. But I've learned - last year especially - that this can't be stopped. So Patricia Arquette will win. She will win if Boyhood wins Best Picture and she will win if Boyhood doesn't win Best Picture. Plus, if not Arquette, who?

I share all of your words. My God, this race is SO boring, and is that boring that imagining some upsets in the acting categories is almost impossible, at least for me. In my dreams I'd love some other nominees have more attention. Some feelings:

Patricia Arquette is fine for me, but I don't understand neither why is she winning everything like it was a performance for the ages. Laura Dern is also the heart of her movie, and she definitely makes an impression, and she's not even a real character, but an evoked one, and in 10 minutes. Patricia is a co-lead and had 12 years to create that performance. Emma Stone also deserves some more consideration.
J. K. Simmons is as much a lock as Heath Ledger was. Boring. Good performance, though.
Julianne Moore is desperated for winning, and there's really no alternatives. What a bore of a category.
And best actor... 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.

OscarGuy wrote:Magilla calls it wasting time recognizing fellow nominees. I call it amazing sportsmanship. I always find it terrific when actors thank their fellow nominees (and beyond sometimes). Granted, they could do it with more panache like Julianne Moore did at BFCA, but I think it's lovely.

I think this puts Redmayne clearly in the lead. Transformations are catnip to actors, sure, but Michael Keaton was Batman for heaven's sake. That should have appealed to a LOT of actors, especially those looking to make a comeback (or even breakthrough) at some point. Keaton may not have had consistent memorable work recently, but I've seen quite a few people talking about his consistent acting work in terms of quality, underappreciated to this point. The SAG awards often go for the most recognizable name (or Oscar trajectory). I take Redmayne's win to be something of a shift in potential. If Keaton won BAFTA, then I'd say his Oscar chances are must better. Being the last major acting award of the Oscar season, a win for Redmayne (even if it's home court advantage) would seal his Oscar victory, IMO.

I must also urge caution on Arquette. In 2007 when Amy Ryan was a juggernaut not unlike Arquette, something kept gnawing me regarding her chances at the Oscars. Sure, Arquette has quite a bit more name recognition than Ryan did, but Ryan was still thought as the dominant threat of 2007 even when Cate Blanchett won the Globe and Ruby Dee won SAG. Granted, Arquette does have those, so her chances are a bit more solid. However, let's remember that it wasn't until BAFTA weighed in that we truly knew who the eventual Oscar winner was going to be and it wasn't Ryan. So, if Arquette wins at BAFTA, then I think the Oscar's locked up. If she doesn't, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an upset at the Oscars.

Wesley, these are the three things I wanted to chime in on, so thanks for covering them for me.

I agree completely about thanking other actors. I think most parts of an acceptance speech are a waste of time, but this is far from one of them.

I like Michael Keaton a lot, I think it is a little sad that this is his first nomination and I wish him all the best. But I think this entire push of him being the front-runner is a lot of Internet fanboy wishful thinking. He won the BFCA and a Golden Globe (for Comedy, remember), but neither of those are crucial precursors. Eddie Redmayne has won a very difficult Drama Globe and the SAG Award, both over a lot of formidable competition that is more recognizable. His movie seems to be more well-liked than we expected and every appearance he makes he comes across as gracious, charming and loveable. I know ballots aren't even out yet, but he seems to be doing the best job of any of the front-runners in cementing his award based on good will and charm.

As for Supporting Actress, those SAG and GG losses were a lot bigger for Amy Ryan than I think you remember. At this point, I feel like that category was a complete cluster, and no one knew what was going to happen. I seem to recall no one knowing what was going to happen and everyone predicting someone different: Blanchett, Ryan, Swinton and Dee all had people predicting their wins. It might be the most unpredictable major category I remember in my years watching the Oscars, and the winner was someone I thought was running third or fourth. It was also one of the first signs that maybe BAFTA was becoming more important than we remembered it being. Arquette has a lot more hardware than any of them, in a beloved film that is still either the front-runner or joint front-runner for Best Picture, and a lot more of a lock than any of those actresses. And if not her, than who? Streep isn't winning number four for this, Laura Dern's part is a little too small to win, Emma Stone is probably a little too unproven and they will make her wait a few more rounds. Keira Knightley could be a dark-horse, but her film would have to be a lot stronger than it is now. Arquette is about as solid as they get.

OscarGuy wrote:
I think this puts Redmayne clearly in the lead.

Yeah... I mean, anyone who wins the Golden Globe AND the SAG award, who's in a Best Picture nominee and who plays the showy role of a real-life disabled scientist MUST be considered a front-runner, like it or not. And the BAFTA will probably seal this.

The four acting Oscars have rarely seemed SO predictable - and this is why, of course, an upset can always happen. But then - where? We are in the era of internet, where ideas can grow out of control (and especially Americans are, let's face it, more easily influenceable than others), and one of these ideas is that Patricia Arquette - after decades of unimpressive work - suddenly has given a great performance in Boyhood. It's not true, of course - not because Italiano says so, it's REALLY not true. But I've learned - last year especially - that this can't be stopped. So Patricia Arquette will win. She will win if Boyhood wins Best Picture and she will win if Boyhood doesn't win Best Picture. Plus, if not Arquette, who?

OscarGuy wrote:Magilla calls it wasting time recognizing fellow nominees. I call it amazing sportsmanship. I always find it terrific when actors thank their fellow nominees (and beyond sometimes). Granted, they could do it with more panache like Julianne Moore did at BFCA, but I think it's lovely.

That's why Michael Caine's speech in 2000 is one of the most gracious ever

OscarGuy wrote:I must also urge caution on Arquette. In 2007 when Amy Ryan was a juggernaut not unlike Arquette, something kept gnawing me regarding her chances at the Oscars. Sure, Arquette has quite a bit more name recognition than Ryan did, but Ryan was still thought as the dominant threat of 2007 even when Cate Blanchett won the Globe and Ruby Dee won SAG. Granted, Arquette does have those, so her chances are a bit more solid. However, let's remember that it wasn't until BAFTA weighed in that we truly knew who the eventual Oscar winner was going to be and it wasn't Ryan. So, if Arquette wins at BAFTA, then I think the Oscar's locked up. If she doesn't, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an upset at the Oscars.

In 2007 Amy Ryan was in a film with no other nominations. Cate Blanchett was nominated in a film I hardly think many academy members saw and Ruby Dee had one scene in her movie. Saoirse Ronan had no precursos and was in a movie that, dispite having 7 nominations, was not very liked by the academy. Swinton had everything going for her.

So, who do you think can upset Arquette? I think she is already locked up.

Magilla calls it wasting time recognizing fellow nominees. I call it amazing sportsmanship. I always find it terrific when actors thank their fellow nominees (and beyond sometimes). Granted, they could do it with more panache like Julianne Moore did at BFCA, but I think it's lovely.

I think this puts Redmayne clearly in the lead. Transformations are catnip to actors, sure, but Michael Keaton was Batman for heaven's sake. That should have appealed to a LOT of actors, especially those looking to make a comeback (or even breakthrough) at some point. Keaton may not have had consistent memorable work recently, but I've seen quite a few people talking about his consistent acting work in terms of quality, underappreciated to this point. The SAG awards often go for the most recognizable name (or Oscar trajectory). I take Redmayne's win to be something of a shift in potential. If Keaton won BAFTA, then I'd say his Oscar chances are must better. Being the last major acting award of the Oscar season, a win for Redmayne (even if it's home court advantage) would seal his Oscar victory, IMO.

I must also urge caution on Arquette. In 2007 when Amy Ryan was a juggernaut not unlike Arquette, something kept gnawing me regarding her chances at the Oscars. Sure, Arquette has quite a bit more name recognition than Ryan did, but Ryan was still thought as the dominant threat of 2007 even when Cate Blanchett won the Globe and Ruby Dee won SAG. Granted, Arquette does have those, so her chances are a bit more solid. However, let's remember that it wasn't until BAFTA weighed in that we truly knew who the eventual Oscar winner was going to be and it wasn't Ryan. So, if Arquette wins at BAFTA, then I think the Oscar's locked up. If she doesn't, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an upset at the Oscars.

Anyone who says Michael Keaton is "due" or worse, "overdue" doesn't know what they're talking about. Julianne Moore on her fifth nomination is "due", Patricia Arquette and J.K. Simmons may not necessarily be "due" for an award but they have been doing consistently fine work for decades and it's a kick to see them finally getting he kind of acknowledgment they're getting. Keaton's career has been more erratic. He hasn't been this good since 1988.

I don't know who Aquette gets her advice from, but someone should advise her that she doesn't need to have a cheat sheet with a list of names to thank. Her fourth generation actor notation at the start of her SAG acceptance speech was a good one. After that all she had to do was thank Linklater and her fellow cast members. She and everyone else should save the thank-yous for their agents, hairdressers and all people they've met along the way for private messaging.

My big pet peeve with these shows, though, is winners wasting precious time acknowledging their fellow nominees. William H. Macy got it right. They lost, move on!

After the SAG nominations are announced, the membership receives its screeners digitally -- all of my actor friends had Still Alice (and the even more underseen title, Cake) available to them. So I'm not convinced A TON of people voted blindly for Moore.

After winning a not unexpected but not certain SAG Ensemble prize, and a (to me) totally unexpected PGA award, it's a bit strange for Birdman to lose the one Guild prize it seemed MOST likely to take. Of course, Best Actor seems like one of those races -- like Penn/Rourke, Kidman/Zellweger, Streep/Davis -- that will be a nail-biter until the Oscar envelope is announced. I'm more inclined to think Michael Keaton's vet status will be more of a bonus with the Academy than with this group...but even then I remain a little puzzled when I read articles about him being "overdue." He's overdue only in the way Mickey Rourke was -- he hadn't had a notable part in decades, then finally got a great one and soared to a comeback. A year prior, no one would have pegged him as someone due for an "it's time" Oscar.

Can someone please tell Patricia Arquette to just prepare something for Oscar night?

Not only are the TV prizes more unexpected, they also are just more VARIED. Aside from Kevin Spacey, the other five acting winners this evening all LOST their respective Globe races. (There was also considerable variation from the Emmys as well.) But on the movie side, all four winners repeated their Globe success, and may very well do so with Oscar.

I don't watch a ton of TV, but it was nice to see Orange Is the New Black finally have a big night at one of these awards shows. I find it to be pretty consistently fresh, funny, and moving, and the huge ensemble is totally deserving of recognition.

anonymous1980 wrote:I think it's now gonna be a Redmayne vs. Keaton squeaker with BAFTA as a deciding factor.

If BAFTA goes for Keaton over Redmayne, quite likely, but if they go for Redmayne it could be seen as the homeboy makes good.

Mister Tee wrote:There had to be a ton of blind voting on Julianne -- her movie's only earned half a million in ticket sales, and they didn't send out 60,000 screeners. I understand the impulse, but it's another reason why these TV-round precursors have become an echo chamber.

Remember, STILL ALICE was one of the films released online as part of the Sony hack. Not that a large number of Guild members are watching movies online, but it is possible some of them saw it without a screener.

Sasha Stone just tweeted that Birdman is "unstoppable" for Best Picture now, as if this was her first year at Oscar prognosticating.

As for the results, I think it's now gonna be a Redmayne vs. Keaton squeaker with BAFTA as a deciding factor. Moore, Arquette and Simmons are done deals.

For Picture, we still have DGA and BAFTA to deal with in order to call the race on that.