Surprise surprise!Big Magilla wrote:I'd be more inclined to expect an award worthy performance from Judi Dench as Sybil Thorndike.
The 12th Annual Who'll Be Back?
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I think she will be back next year for My Week With Marilyn.Mister Tee wrote:Michele Williams...The vagaries of this category actually argue for Williams as the one most likely to come back quickly, even possibly all the way to the winners' circle. She's the age that seems to do well here; she's obviously building a reputation; she appears to be well-liked (she had to fight just as hard for a roster spot as her co-star did, but she made it), and she's being cast in what appear to be solid vehicles (though maybe a bit TOO indie for general Academy consumption). I like her chances of a return soon very much.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
My take on this issue:
BEST ACTOR:
Javier Bardem - Yes. He may even win in Lead.
Jeff Bridges - He'll be back but not for a while. Maybe one more and may be in Supporting rather than Lead.
Jesse Eisenberg - He's tricky. I say if he comes back (emphasize on IF), it will be in Supporting.
Colin Firth - Yes but I doubt he'll win again.
James Franco - Another tricky one. I say if he comes back, he'll wait a while a la Robert Downey Jr.
BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening - I say yes. But her chances of winning a competitive one is doubtful.
Nicole Kidman - I'll say yes but I doubt she'll win a second one.
Jennifer Lawrence - She's only 20 and just starting her career. It will depend on how her career trajectory turns out. Yes but with grave reservations.
Natalie Portman - I'll say yes but it will be a while before she wins again (if it happens).
Michelle Williams - She seems to pick a lot of challenging projects lately. She could come back, maybe even win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale - I'll say yes and he may even win in Lead in the future.
John Hawkes - This nomination will get him more high-profile roles and a steadier paycheck. Doubt he'll be back. I think he's the nominee most likely to parlay his nomination to a TV series and he'll get some Emmy attention for his work.
Jeremy Renner - Most people thought he'd never be back last year but here he is with his 2nd consecutive nomination so I'm not counting him out. I'll say he gets in again.
Mark Ruffalo - He's finally broken through. I think he's a future Lead Actor winner.
Geoffrey Rush - He'll be back but he's gonna have to be nominated a couple of more times before he wins again (if he should win again)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams - Like Renner, lots of people wrote her off as a one-time nominee when she got in for Junebug but here she is with her 3rd nomination and her career's just blossoming. She'll win in Lead, I think for her Janis Joplin biopic with Fernando Meirelles.
Helena Bonham Carter - She'll back and she MAY win if she takes more non-Tim Burton roles (that is an IF).
Melissa Leo - I'll say no. But should it happen again (unlikely), she'll never win again.
Hailee Steinfeld - Only Sal Mineo and Jodie Foster came back as adults after being nominated as minors (and the latter the only one to win as an adult). So history is not on her side. But who knows?
Jacki Weaver - She's lucky to get this nomination. An unknown foreign character actress in a little-seen indie foreign film. That said, stranger things have happened. I think she'll parlay this nomination to get more high-profile, international roles. Getting in again is unlikely.
BEST ACTOR:
Javier Bardem - Yes. He may even win in Lead.
Jeff Bridges - He'll be back but not for a while. Maybe one more and may be in Supporting rather than Lead.
Jesse Eisenberg - He's tricky. I say if he comes back (emphasize on IF), it will be in Supporting.
Colin Firth - Yes but I doubt he'll win again.
James Franco - Another tricky one. I say if he comes back, he'll wait a while a la Robert Downey Jr.
BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening - I say yes. But her chances of winning a competitive one is doubtful.
Nicole Kidman - I'll say yes but I doubt she'll win a second one.
Jennifer Lawrence - She's only 20 and just starting her career. It will depend on how her career trajectory turns out. Yes but with grave reservations.
Natalie Portman - I'll say yes but it will be a while before she wins again (if it happens).
Michelle Williams - She seems to pick a lot of challenging projects lately. She could come back, maybe even win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale - I'll say yes and he may even win in Lead in the future.
John Hawkes - This nomination will get him more high-profile roles and a steadier paycheck. Doubt he'll be back. I think he's the nominee most likely to parlay his nomination to a TV series and he'll get some Emmy attention for his work.
Jeremy Renner - Most people thought he'd never be back last year but here he is with his 2nd consecutive nomination so I'm not counting him out. I'll say he gets in again.
Mark Ruffalo - He's finally broken through. I think he's a future Lead Actor winner.
Geoffrey Rush - He'll be back but he's gonna have to be nominated a couple of more times before he wins again (if he should win again)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams - Like Renner, lots of people wrote her off as a one-time nominee when she got in for Junebug but here she is with her 3rd nomination and her career's just blossoming. She'll win in Lead, I think for her Janis Joplin biopic with Fernando Meirelles.
Helena Bonham Carter - She'll back and she MAY win if she takes more non-Tim Burton roles (that is an IF).
Melissa Leo - I'll say no. But should it happen again (unlikely), she'll never win again.
Hailee Steinfeld - Only Sal Mineo and Jodie Foster came back as adults after being nominated as minors (and the latter the only one to win as an adult). So history is not on her side. But who knows?
Jacki Weaver - She's lucky to get this nomination. An unknown foreign character actress in a little-seen indie foreign film. That said, stranger things have happened. I think she'll parlay this nomination to get more high-profile, international roles. Getting in again is unlikely.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
I agree with most of what has been said here. A few points to make contention with:
I don't buy the Fincher/Girl With a Dragon Tattoo argument. Yes, I see the comparison to Scorsese and The Departed, but that was 30 years after his first Oscar snub with Taxi Driver. It took for Scorsese to be a multiple-time loser and a genuine American cinematic treasure who had seen all his peers win Oscars before he won with a genre piece. We are only 3 years after Fincher's first Oscar loss. Scorsese didn't get his make-up award for New York, New York, Color of Money, or After Hours. It took him a lot longer than that.
As for the who will be back, even though he is an Oscar winner, can we count Ben Affleck in the Best Director category? He has proven himself solid in two genre efforts, garnering his actor's a supporting nomination in each case, and if he finds something with a little more substance he could easily see himself in contention...does he still own the film rights to Take Me Out? As for actors, Andrew Garfield proved a one-two punch this year that shows he could have the diversity to get a supporting nod soon. I'll also throw out Aaron Eckhart, who seems to be a well-respected, high-profile (if not household name) actor who has been on the fringe a couple times but has yet to have that one role to push him into the ring. If he finds it, he could become something of a Oscar competitor.
I don't buy the Fincher/Girl With a Dragon Tattoo argument. Yes, I see the comparison to Scorsese and The Departed, but that was 30 years after his first Oscar snub with Taxi Driver. It took for Scorsese to be a multiple-time loser and a genuine American cinematic treasure who had seen all his peers win Oscars before he won with a genre piece. We are only 3 years after Fincher's first Oscar loss. Scorsese didn't get his make-up award for New York, New York, Color of Money, or After Hours. It took him a lot longer than that.
As for the who will be back, even though he is an Oscar winner, can we count Ben Affleck in the Best Director category? He has proven himself solid in two genre efforts, garnering his actor's a supporting nomination in each case, and if he finds something with a little more substance he could easily see himself in contention...does he still own the film rights to Take Me Out? As for actors, Andrew Garfield proved a one-two punch this year that shows he could have the diversity to get a supporting nod soon. I'll also throw out Aaron Eckhart, who seems to be a well-respected, high-profile (if not household name) actor who has been on the fringe a couple times but has yet to have that one role to push him into the ring. If he finds it, he could become something of a Oscar competitor.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Mister Tee wrote: I'd consider, of course, Andrew Garfield (who some already jumped the gun on a year or two ago, sans majoir credit, simply because they liked him).
And because he was excellent in Boy A. I think he'll get the role that gets him a nomination soon. And I've mentioned him in this thread the past two years, but surely Michael Fassbender's day isn't far off?
I actually read an article that said Jacki Weaver was planning to get a place in LA, not necessarily to move their full time, but to at least have a base there, because she had been sent a lot of scripts. It's hard to find anyone else in Oscar history who corresponds to Jacki Weaver. A little-known actress in her 60's who gets nominated for a role in a very small (foreign produced) independent film. I don't have anything to base my guess for her on. But, being an Oscar nominee and all, she'll definitely be offered a lot of roles in the next few years, but roles for actresses her age aren't always great. I'm glad she got this nomination, but another nomination would probably be a very long shot. I could see her taking a TV role that might get her some Emmy recognition, though. The Emmy voters tend to recognize recent Oscar nominees, and she might get an interesting part in a TV series, or a miniseries.
Overall, I think you're about right on these. I might be a bit more dubious about Michelle Williams, but that's probably my issue. (I find her very off-putting.) Jeff Bridges doesn't have much lined up, but he seems to be in one of those phases where he's being acknowledged as one of the great American actors. I could see that building to a couple more nominations in the years ahead, maybe even culminating in a Supporting prize.
Edited By dws1982 on 1299386707
The only individuals I feel any kind of confidence in their staying power are Javier Bardem because he has his pick of prestige roles from multiple continents, Michelle Williams because of how consistently daring her roles are the quality of work she demonstrates, Nicole Kidman because so many powerful producers love her, and Amy Adams because in defiance of God she is maintaining a very strong career. Everyone else, I can see going either way. Geoffrey Rush will likely buffer out some Miramax film in a supporting role again to Academy notice.
Of the directors, I could see all of them returning very easily. In fact, I'm more sure of each of this roundup returning than any in memory. Russell is the shakiest because his tastes tend to veer more outside the mainstream but with the right project and the right odds, it could happen. Tom Hooper will become the safe director for prestige projects for the next decade, wait and see. This isn't a case of Sam Mendes or Rob Marshall. Tom Hooper is a relatively styleless stylist and that will prove very appealing for anybody who wants to make a Shakespeare in Love. He's booked until 2020 at least. Darren Aronofsky is still evolving. Every time he makes a movie, he takes half the style of the movie before coupled with something vaguely new. He's not a thinker but he will become attached to something prestigious in the next few years that could get him talk of a win.
We'll have to wait and see if The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will be any kind of great, but consensus is that the man wuz robbed. That may prove to be a great present for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. David Fincher's earlier films were nothing resembling Academy fodder but make no mistake about it: they were striking. Even Alien3 was a very striking production. Owen Gleiberman wrote a fantastic essay on his evolution as a music video director paralleling conventional firebrands of his time in the 80's and 90's. Zodiac established him as a more "serious" director, but I would argue that Fight Club and Se7en each hit a popular zeitgeist. I think he will continue to exist as a go-to in this capacity. I find the Oscar-friendliness of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button absolutely puzzling to this day. It has all the makings of an audience-unfriendly flop, a Cold Mountain, a Memoirs of a Geisha. Although it's a gorgeous production with some admirable touches in the margins, I hope Benjamin Button-Fincher doesn't return.
The Coens we will see again of course. They are permanently paired with Scott Rudin now and are no longer a Hudsucker gamble.
Of the directors, I could see all of them returning very easily. In fact, I'm more sure of each of this roundup returning than any in memory. Russell is the shakiest because his tastes tend to veer more outside the mainstream but with the right project and the right odds, it could happen. Tom Hooper will become the safe director for prestige projects for the next decade, wait and see. This isn't a case of Sam Mendes or Rob Marshall. Tom Hooper is a relatively styleless stylist and that will prove very appealing for anybody who wants to make a Shakespeare in Love. He's booked until 2020 at least. Darren Aronofsky is still evolving. Every time he makes a movie, he takes half the style of the movie before coupled with something vaguely new. He's not a thinker but he will become attached to something prestigious in the next few years that could get him talk of a win.
We'll have to wait and see if The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will be any kind of great, but consensus is that the man wuz robbed. That may prove to be a great present for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. David Fincher's earlier films were nothing resembling Academy fodder but make no mistake about it: they were striking. Even Alien3 was a very striking production. Owen Gleiberman wrote a fantastic essay on his evolution as a music video director paralleling conventional firebrands of his time in the 80's and 90's. Zodiac established him as a more "serious" director, but I would argue that Fight Club and Se7en each hit a popular zeitgeist. I think he will continue to exist as a go-to in this capacity. I find the Oscar-friendliness of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button absolutely puzzling to this day. It has all the makings of an audience-unfriendly flop, a Cold Mountain, a Memoirs of a Geisha. Although it's a gorgeous production with some admirable touches in the margins, I hope Benjamin Button-Fincher doesn't return.
The Coens we will see again of course. They are permanently paired with Scott Rudin now and are no longer a Hudsucker gamble.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Firth, on the strength of his win, will now probably be the go-to British actor for all those types of roles that have been first offered to Day-Lewis and Neeson in the past decade, so he's likely to be back again and again.
Other than Adams, Fincher and Russell, whose careers are on a roll, I just don't know how the others will fare. I'd say if Lawrence makes it to a second nomination while still young, she could be up again a third, fourth, maybe even fifth time in the next ten years.
Franco needs to slow down. Two schools, a daytime soap, and scores of offers are turning him into a zombie. Could well be back as a winner, or could burn himself out and need to take five to ten years to recover.
Williams if she makes the right choices. So far, her announced projects seem more like indie spirit projects.
Of those who didn't make the cut, Garfield, yes, but not in Spider-Man. Hathaway, yes, and very soon.
Other than Adams, Fincher and Russell, whose careers are on a roll, I just don't know how the others will fare. I'd say if Lawrence makes it to a second nomination while still young, she could be up again a third, fourth, maybe even fifth time in the next ten years.
Franco needs to slow down. Two schools, a daytime soap, and scores of offers are turning him into a zombie. Could well be back as a winner, or could burn himself out and need to take five to ten years to recover.
Williams if she makes the right choices. So far, her announced projects seem more like indie spirit projects.
Of those who didn't make the cut, Garfield, yes, but not in Spider-Man. Hathaway, yes, and very soon.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The problem for Fincher is that his first few films weren't even remotely what Oscar likes to vote on. Sure, he had the respect of a lot of critics, but I would argue that Zodiac pulled him forward as someone to watch. Then, with his nomination for Curious Case of Benjamin Button, he broke the ice and now he has The Social Network.
I don't think Dragon Tattoo will be the film to bring him the prize. Perhaps the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea film in 2013, which will most certainly have a shot at major awards. He might well be nominated for Dragon Tattoo, but I have a feeling he'll be eclipsed by the likes of Clint Eastwood (Hoover), Terrence Malick (Tree of Life), Jason Reitman (Young Adult) and Steven Spielberg (War Horse). He might still be in contention, but Dragon Tattoo will have to be universally praised and unlike Scorsese, Fincher isn't seen as overdue yet.
I don't think Dragon Tattoo will be the film to bring him the prize. Perhaps the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea film in 2013, which will most certainly have a shot at major awards. He might well be nominated for Dragon Tattoo, but I have a feeling he'll be eclipsed by the likes of Clint Eastwood (Hoover), Terrence Malick (Tree of Life), Jason Reitman (Young Adult) and Steven Spielberg (War Horse). He might still be in contention, but Dragon Tattoo will have to be universally praised and unlike Scorsese, Fincher isn't seen as overdue yet.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Okay, I'll admit it: my bitter secret self considered answering the thread title's question with a snarky "Whoever takes on a handicap, fights Nazis and has Harvey Weinstein flogging his movie to death". But that's not really fair to Colin Firth, who was the most deserving of the King's Speech winners, nor, really, to the year's other acting winners, who were all worthy in one way or another. So, I'll put my bitterness aside for now, and devote the usual amount of post-Oscar time to anticipating future Academy appearances for this year's less successful applicants.
A note to start: three of this year's four acting winners (Firth, Portman and Leo) were what I'd call stealth-legacy candidates: not on primary radar (except possibly Firth, from his perceived close finish last year), but all no doubt benefitting some from having been to the show as losers in the past (Bale did as well, from his long if never before AMPAS-noted career). Such candidates are far more difficult to spot ahead of time than such recent winners as Bridges, Winslet, Mirren, and Freeman, who had long Academy resumes and were just waiting for the right role/circumstance to put them in the winners' circle at last. Pinpointing those most likely to emerge from he stealth bunch is part of what makes this game interesting.
On to the roster:
James Franco...Oscar pundits may chiefly remember 2010 Franco as the host of a lousy show, but I'd say the year represented a huge leap forward for his acting career. He finally got the nomination many had seen him moving toward for several years, and there's little reason to think it'll be the last. He persona remains a bit oddball -- and his choice in projects is erratic, to put it mildly -- but he's a talented guy, and maybe the most likely of the best actor losers to make it to the podium in the years just ahead.
Jesse Eisenberg...No one was more surprised than I when Eisenberg began to be touted as a best actor candidate -- I'd thought of him as way too specific a type (subspecies Nerdus Americanus) to ever float into this range. Then, however, I was among many (though not all here) hugely impressed by his performance. When it comes to his future possibilities, though, my original skepticism remains. He's still that very specific type, and, though, by either luck or design, he's found himself in pretty interesting projects so far (Roger Dodger, The Squid and the Whale -- even Zombieland was a surprisingly witty genre piece), there are likely to be few award-level roles for someone like him. So, I'm guessing this is his zenith in Oscar terms. But I wouldn't mind being wrong.
Javier Bardem...Apparently a candidate for nomination in a host of languages. A very talented guy and a handsome leading man ought to equate to a long and impressive career. I'm guessing nominations will continue to come (though more for his English-speaking efforts) -- and perhaps there's a leading-role award in his future.
Jeff Bridges...First best actor nomination to second: 25 year gap. 2nd to 3rd: 1 year. When you're hot, you're hot. I'd still guess Oscar voters feel they've done right by Bridges with the one win, but I could see him picking up another nod or two here in his National Treasure years.
Colin Firth...Did he self-diagnose with his joke about career-peaking? Well, considering Daniel Day-Lewis is the only Brit actor ever to win two lead Oscars, and Firth has never been viewed as close to Day-Lewis's level, the odds against him ever winning again have to be astronomical. But, assuming he reaps some benefit from this unexpectedly major triumph, he could turn up nominated again in the years just ahead.
The women offer more fertile ground.
Annette Bening...What are we to make of her seeming year-long front runner status -- or of her near-instant and complete surrender of that position when the hot youngster came along? Does it mean the year's worth of hype was pure blogger fantasy? Or was Portman, along with her vehicle, just too much for anyone to withstand short of a revelatory performance? If it's the latter, voters will be on steady Bening-watch: every film she makes will be scrutinized with "is this the Oscar one?" in mind. But if (as I suspect) it's the former...Bening can get in line with Glenn Close, Sigourney Weaver, Julianne Moore and Michelle Pfeiffer, and wait for a truly strong role/movie to put her into serious contention again -- understanding that such a role/movie may never come about.
Michele Williams...The vagaries of this category actually argue for Williams as the one most likely to come back quickly, even possibly all the way to the winners' circle. She's the age that seems to do well here; she's obviously building a reputation; she appears to be well-liked (she had to fight just as hard for a roster spot as her co-star did, but she made it), and she's being cast in what appear to be solid vehicles (though maybe a bit TOO indie for general Academy consumption). I like her chances of a return soon very much.
Nicole Kidman...That Kidman won on her second consecutive nomination, but then failed to score follow-up mentions despite vehicles that were prominent (Cold Mountain) or impressive (Birth) indicated she might be one of those performers over whom the Academy developed buyers' remorse: having provided premature elevation, they seemed now to be doubting her worth. This nomination -- for a film that didn't even make money -- suggests, if they did feel that way, they've got past it. That being the case, given the general intelligence and taste of her choices, I'd expect her to have more nominations upcoming.
Jennifer Lawrence...The only honest answer is, beats me. She sure seemed impressive in Winter's Bone (her Oscar night clip reminded me how much I liked her in the film), and she's certainly attractive. Those two qualities are a solid foundation for a 20-something actress. But all will depend on how discerning she is in picking her near-term projects, while movie-goers (and Oscar voters) are most open to her.
Natalie Portman...Winning may have done more to harm Portman's chances at future nominations than losing did for anyone else. The truth is, Oscar can award its young princesses early in their careers, but then often discards them (Gwyneth Paltrow, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon). Portman has the advantage of her intelligence, and a network of people who seem to look out for her. But she's going to have to be careful if she wants to build her career fro this point on. And, of course, one suspects she might take a few years off right now to do her parenting thing, s any answers are probably a few years off.
On to the supporting actors, not a hugely interesting lot.
John Hawkes...He's joked about worrying his cover's now blown, but I'm not sure that's really true. It's not as if he's become a fixture on Access Hollywood; outside of congoscenti circles like ours, he's as anonymous as he was a year ago. Where he may notice a difference will be with casting folk -- who'll now go looking for him rather than vice versa -- and directors, esp. those cool enough to want the new indie guy in their movie. Presumably he'll get at least a few strong offers in the years just ahead. His job is to know which one to pick -- make sure he's in the Black Swan/Fighter equivalent, not the Company Men/Barney's Versions. He might take a look at....
Jeremy Renner...Because Renner was Hawkes a year ago, albeit with the extra visibility of the lead category and the best picture winner. His first post-breakout choice not only got him widely seen, it got him a second invite. I'm not the best one to predict Renner's future, given that I didn't see him meriting this year's nod. But I will say I think he can only go so far (in Oscar terms) playing the same screw-loose wild man. I want to see something different from him, pronto.
Mark Ruffalo...I think alot of people, me included, just kind of like Mark Ruffalo. And I think this has worked against him getting respect as an actor. He can seem to be ambling through his movies -- in the view of some, hardly acting at all. It's great that he finally got some recognition (for what has very definitely been acting, all along). But I suspect that "it looks too easy for him" vibe (call it Matt Dillon-itis) will always work against him getting a significant number of nods.
Geoffrey Rush...How much did some people hate The Social Network? So much they actually found themselves praising Geoffrey Rush, after a decade of trashing him. Okay, end old issue... Rush was indeed better -- more restrained and real -- in King's Speech than in anything else for some time. After a decade's absence, he was back on the Oscar stage in a big way, and this may ignite a new round of Academy interest in him, But it's hard to envision another time he'll come as near a second win as he did here.
Christian Bale...It was hard throughout the season to think of Bale as a first-time nominee. We've known him for so long, and he's been spoken of as a top-tier actor for so much of that time, that this felt like as much a career prize as one for a singular performance. He remains a man with an erratic plan -- jetting off to do films in China, returning to don the Bat-suit. But one assumes there'll be other projects/roles in which he can exercise his prodigious talent. Given his age, he could have plenty more Academy appearances ahead.
The more intriguing supporting actresses.
Amy Adams...Does anyone want to take the Con side of the proposition "Amy Adams will win an Oscar in the next decade"? Surely she gets the Number One with a Bullet spot on this year's roster -- a third nomination in six years, one that, to boot, cast aside doubts about her range. By all accounts, she's quite well-liked and supportive of co-workers (no one did more to cheer on Melissa Leo's candidacy). I don't know what it'll be for-- alot of people are saying this Janis Joplin thing, though that seems a bit too obvious for me. But I fully expect to see Ms. Adams with a trophy of her own before I get too much older.
Helena Bonham Carter...Back in the game after more than a decade; too bad it wasn't for a role that gave her more to work with. Carter is a very talented lady, with a fair amount of range, and it'd be nice if more directors gave her roles to stretch with (I wondered how she felt seeing David Fincher lose, given he was the guy who liberated her from corset movies). She seems to be very well liked, and she's certainly young enough to be around for quite a while. You get the feeling the only one who could keep her away from regular Oscar appearances is herself, with her propensity for staying close to home (i.e., her husband's films) .
Hailee Steinfeld...The history of category-fraud-benefitters like Steinfeld is, they don't tend to make return visits. Whatever I said under Jennifer Lawrence, you can double here: I liked what Steinfeld did in True Grit, but have zero idea whether she can manage anything close to it again. 100% a question mark.
Jacki Weaver...Post-Oscar reports are that she has no future US plans, and is headed back to Australia. There's always the possibility some director could latch onto her newfound visibility (Woody Allen somehow comes to mind). But, given her age and obscurity, you'd have to bet on this being a one-off.
Melissa Leo...The long-time working actress who gets late career recognition and goes on to win an Oscar is an established Oscar formula (Ruth Gordon, Lee Grant, Maureen Stapleton, Olympia Dukakis). The general pattern has been for the win to mark the end of the Oscar line. And Leo will have the added handicap of her speech being...shall we say...less than universally admired. She may run on the fumes of this performance/victory for a bit, but I'd bet she'll be the one who lives up to Colin Firth's self-assessment.
And the directors.
Darren Aronofsky...The expansion to ten nominees probably over-inflated our view of how well his film was received by the Academy. In a field of five, Black Swan would probably have been limited to director/actress/cinematography/editing, and would have been closer to the Spike Jonze/Being John Malkovich profile, which didn't presage a bright Oscar future. Aronofsky's work will presumably always be worth checking out, but I'm not necessarily expecting many nominations ahead.
David O. Russell...I'm inclined to view Russell as most likely of this year's losers to make it to the stage for a best director prize. Not so much for one of his original scripts -- those tend to be a bit out-there for the Academy. But with Three Kings and now The Fighter, he's shown an ability to bring an auteurist's talent to a mainstream script, and I think that's still Oscar's sweet spot. Now that he's somewhat transcended his nasty reputation and broken the Oscar ice, I like his chances alot.
Joel & Ethan Coen...Seems amazing we once viewed Fargo as their once-a-lifetime incursion into Academy-land. Now they're many-times-nominated, multi-winning writers and directors. Obviously you don't bet against future recognition, particularly in the writing branch, where they might start creeping into Wilder/Allen territory.
Tom Hooper...Yes, they fell for him in an ultimately big way, and, yes, there is the Stephen Daldry/Peter Weir model for tastefully square directors racking up nominations. But it's hard to see his stock-in-trade (historic re-creations) holding sway in the best film sweepstakes all that often. And I suspect the bitterness many feel over his win will get in his way in the years ahead.
David Fincher...I've saved this for last because it's still pretty much an open wound. I can't think of a strong enough analogy for Fincher's loss last week. To have been judged the year's best by such a wide swath of the film-rating community, to lose only two prizes of any consequence but have them be the Oscar and its prime predictor...it's still hard to digest. The closest parallel would be Scorsese with Good Fellas, but that was well presaged by NBR and the Globes along with the DGA, and in that instance Dances with Wolves WAS clearly beloved (it won those sound/score/editing Oscars King's Speech failed at the other night), and Good Fellas more clearly outside Academy range. Fincher (and Social Network) seemed in play fully to the moment Kathryn Bigelow read out the winner's name. Truly, this was without precedent. The question is, what does it mean for Fincher's Oscar future? Should we think they'll now be on the alert to give him a make-up prize at the first opportunity? (MoveWes' scenario of him winning next year for Dragon Tattoo as analogous to Scorsese/Departed is interesting, but I have my doubts about a remake of a film many general audiences just saw -- not the case with Infernal Affairs -- especially because I think many critics have really soured on the whole Larsson oeuvre and might be inclined to give it the Da Vinci Code treatment) Or does it rather mean they don't much like him (you hear murmurs of this, though mostly from studio flacks, not the creative community) or his work? I'll be rooting for him from here to doomsday, but, in all honesty, part of me thinks, when you lose your best shot like this (see: Liv Ullmann '76, Julianne Moore '02), you may never make it back.
Finally, the ever-popular bonus round: where we identify the candidate spoken-about but not nominated who's most likely to end up on the list in a future year. This of course excludes those like Ryan Gosling, who's already an Oscar vet. I'd consider, of course, Andrew Garfield (who some already jumped the gun on a year or two ago, sans majoir credit, simply because they liked him). But if I had to pick just one, I think I'd settle on Olivia Williams. She had an odd profile in the race this year: she won outright at the National Society and finished first in an international poll that came out two week or so ago -- but both those came too late in a year where the nomination field basically froze post-SAG. I'm hoping the awareness of her fine work will persuade other directors to cast her, and give her the roles that can get her into future competitions.
Okay...that's my take. Time for everybody else to weigh in.
A note to start: three of this year's four acting winners (Firth, Portman and Leo) were what I'd call stealth-legacy candidates: not on primary radar (except possibly Firth, from his perceived close finish last year), but all no doubt benefitting some from having been to the show as losers in the past (Bale did as well, from his long if never before AMPAS-noted career). Such candidates are far more difficult to spot ahead of time than such recent winners as Bridges, Winslet, Mirren, and Freeman, who had long Academy resumes and were just waiting for the right role/circumstance to put them in the winners' circle at last. Pinpointing those most likely to emerge from he stealth bunch is part of what makes this game interesting.
On to the roster:
James Franco...Oscar pundits may chiefly remember 2010 Franco as the host of a lousy show, but I'd say the year represented a huge leap forward for his acting career. He finally got the nomination many had seen him moving toward for several years, and there's little reason to think it'll be the last. He persona remains a bit oddball -- and his choice in projects is erratic, to put it mildly -- but he's a talented guy, and maybe the most likely of the best actor losers to make it to the podium in the years just ahead.
Jesse Eisenberg...No one was more surprised than I when Eisenberg began to be touted as a best actor candidate -- I'd thought of him as way too specific a type (subspecies Nerdus Americanus) to ever float into this range. Then, however, I was among many (though not all here) hugely impressed by his performance. When it comes to his future possibilities, though, my original skepticism remains. He's still that very specific type, and, though, by either luck or design, he's found himself in pretty interesting projects so far (Roger Dodger, The Squid and the Whale -- even Zombieland was a surprisingly witty genre piece), there are likely to be few award-level roles for someone like him. So, I'm guessing this is his zenith in Oscar terms. But I wouldn't mind being wrong.
Javier Bardem...Apparently a candidate for nomination in a host of languages. A very talented guy and a handsome leading man ought to equate to a long and impressive career. I'm guessing nominations will continue to come (though more for his English-speaking efforts) -- and perhaps there's a leading-role award in his future.
Jeff Bridges...First best actor nomination to second: 25 year gap. 2nd to 3rd: 1 year. When you're hot, you're hot. I'd still guess Oscar voters feel they've done right by Bridges with the one win, but I could see him picking up another nod or two here in his National Treasure years.
Colin Firth...Did he self-diagnose with his joke about career-peaking? Well, considering Daniel Day-Lewis is the only Brit actor ever to win two lead Oscars, and Firth has never been viewed as close to Day-Lewis's level, the odds against him ever winning again have to be astronomical. But, assuming he reaps some benefit from this unexpectedly major triumph, he could turn up nominated again in the years just ahead.
The women offer more fertile ground.
Annette Bening...What are we to make of her seeming year-long front runner status -- or of her near-instant and complete surrender of that position when the hot youngster came along? Does it mean the year's worth of hype was pure blogger fantasy? Or was Portman, along with her vehicle, just too much for anyone to withstand short of a revelatory performance? If it's the latter, voters will be on steady Bening-watch: every film she makes will be scrutinized with "is this the Oscar one?" in mind. But if (as I suspect) it's the former...Bening can get in line with Glenn Close, Sigourney Weaver, Julianne Moore and Michelle Pfeiffer, and wait for a truly strong role/movie to put her into serious contention again -- understanding that such a role/movie may never come about.
Michele Williams...The vagaries of this category actually argue for Williams as the one most likely to come back quickly, even possibly all the way to the winners' circle. She's the age that seems to do well here; she's obviously building a reputation; she appears to be well-liked (she had to fight just as hard for a roster spot as her co-star did, but she made it), and she's being cast in what appear to be solid vehicles (though maybe a bit TOO indie for general Academy consumption). I like her chances of a return soon very much.
Nicole Kidman...That Kidman won on her second consecutive nomination, but then failed to score follow-up mentions despite vehicles that were prominent (Cold Mountain) or impressive (Birth) indicated she might be one of those performers over whom the Academy developed buyers' remorse: having provided premature elevation, they seemed now to be doubting her worth. This nomination -- for a film that didn't even make money -- suggests, if they did feel that way, they've got past it. That being the case, given the general intelligence and taste of her choices, I'd expect her to have more nominations upcoming.
Jennifer Lawrence...The only honest answer is, beats me. She sure seemed impressive in Winter's Bone (her Oscar night clip reminded me how much I liked her in the film), and she's certainly attractive. Those two qualities are a solid foundation for a 20-something actress. But all will depend on how discerning she is in picking her near-term projects, while movie-goers (and Oscar voters) are most open to her.
Natalie Portman...Winning may have done more to harm Portman's chances at future nominations than losing did for anyone else. The truth is, Oscar can award its young princesses early in their careers, but then often discards them (Gwyneth Paltrow, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon). Portman has the advantage of her intelligence, and a network of people who seem to look out for her. But she's going to have to be careful if she wants to build her career fro this point on. And, of course, one suspects she might take a few years off right now to do her parenting thing, s any answers are probably a few years off.
On to the supporting actors, not a hugely interesting lot.
John Hawkes...He's joked about worrying his cover's now blown, but I'm not sure that's really true. It's not as if he's become a fixture on Access Hollywood; outside of congoscenti circles like ours, he's as anonymous as he was a year ago. Where he may notice a difference will be with casting folk -- who'll now go looking for him rather than vice versa -- and directors, esp. those cool enough to want the new indie guy in their movie. Presumably he'll get at least a few strong offers in the years just ahead. His job is to know which one to pick -- make sure he's in the Black Swan/Fighter equivalent, not the Company Men/Barney's Versions. He might take a look at....
Jeremy Renner...Because Renner was Hawkes a year ago, albeit with the extra visibility of the lead category and the best picture winner. His first post-breakout choice not only got him widely seen, it got him a second invite. I'm not the best one to predict Renner's future, given that I didn't see him meriting this year's nod. But I will say I think he can only go so far (in Oscar terms) playing the same screw-loose wild man. I want to see something different from him, pronto.
Mark Ruffalo...I think alot of people, me included, just kind of like Mark Ruffalo. And I think this has worked against him getting respect as an actor. He can seem to be ambling through his movies -- in the view of some, hardly acting at all. It's great that he finally got some recognition (for what has very definitely been acting, all along). But I suspect that "it looks too easy for him" vibe (call it Matt Dillon-itis) will always work against him getting a significant number of nods.
Geoffrey Rush...How much did some people hate The Social Network? So much they actually found themselves praising Geoffrey Rush, after a decade of trashing him. Okay, end old issue... Rush was indeed better -- more restrained and real -- in King's Speech than in anything else for some time. After a decade's absence, he was back on the Oscar stage in a big way, and this may ignite a new round of Academy interest in him, But it's hard to envision another time he'll come as near a second win as he did here.
Christian Bale...It was hard throughout the season to think of Bale as a first-time nominee. We've known him for so long, and he's been spoken of as a top-tier actor for so much of that time, that this felt like as much a career prize as one for a singular performance. He remains a man with an erratic plan -- jetting off to do films in China, returning to don the Bat-suit. But one assumes there'll be other projects/roles in which he can exercise his prodigious talent. Given his age, he could have plenty more Academy appearances ahead.
The more intriguing supporting actresses.
Amy Adams...Does anyone want to take the Con side of the proposition "Amy Adams will win an Oscar in the next decade"? Surely she gets the Number One with a Bullet spot on this year's roster -- a third nomination in six years, one that, to boot, cast aside doubts about her range. By all accounts, she's quite well-liked and supportive of co-workers (no one did more to cheer on Melissa Leo's candidacy). I don't know what it'll be for-- alot of people are saying this Janis Joplin thing, though that seems a bit too obvious for me. But I fully expect to see Ms. Adams with a trophy of her own before I get too much older.
Helena Bonham Carter...Back in the game after more than a decade; too bad it wasn't for a role that gave her more to work with. Carter is a very talented lady, with a fair amount of range, and it'd be nice if more directors gave her roles to stretch with (I wondered how she felt seeing David Fincher lose, given he was the guy who liberated her from corset movies). She seems to be very well liked, and she's certainly young enough to be around for quite a while. You get the feeling the only one who could keep her away from regular Oscar appearances is herself, with her propensity for staying close to home (i.e., her husband's films) .
Hailee Steinfeld...The history of category-fraud-benefitters like Steinfeld is, they don't tend to make return visits. Whatever I said under Jennifer Lawrence, you can double here: I liked what Steinfeld did in True Grit, but have zero idea whether she can manage anything close to it again. 100% a question mark.
Jacki Weaver...Post-Oscar reports are that she has no future US plans, and is headed back to Australia. There's always the possibility some director could latch onto her newfound visibility (Woody Allen somehow comes to mind). But, given her age and obscurity, you'd have to bet on this being a one-off.
Melissa Leo...The long-time working actress who gets late career recognition and goes on to win an Oscar is an established Oscar formula (Ruth Gordon, Lee Grant, Maureen Stapleton, Olympia Dukakis). The general pattern has been for the win to mark the end of the Oscar line. And Leo will have the added handicap of her speech being...shall we say...less than universally admired. She may run on the fumes of this performance/victory for a bit, but I'd bet she'll be the one who lives up to Colin Firth's self-assessment.
And the directors.
Darren Aronofsky...The expansion to ten nominees probably over-inflated our view of how well his film was received by the Academy. In a field of five, Black Swan would probably have been limited to director/actress/cinematography/editing, and would have been closer to the Spike Jonze/Being John Malkovich profile, which didn't presage a bright Oscar future. Aronofsky's work will presumably always be worth checking out, but I'm not necessarily expecting many nominations ahead.
David O. Russell...I'm inclined to view Russell as most likely of this year's losers to make it to the stage for a best director prize. Not so much for one of his original scripts -- those tend to be a bit out-there for the Academy. But with Three Kings and now The Fighter, he's shown an ability to bring an auteurist's talent to a mainstream script, and I think that's still Oscar's sweet spot. Now that he's somewhat transcended his nasty reputation and broken the Oscar ice, I like his chances alot.
Joel & Ethan Coen...Seems amazing we once viewed Fargo as their once-a-lifetime incursion into Academy-land. Now they're many-times-nominated, multi-winning writers and directors. Obviously you don't bet against future recognition, particularly in the writing branch, where they might start creeping into Wilder/Allen territory.
Tom Hooper...Yes, they fell for him in an ultimately big way, and, yes, there is the Stephen Daldry/Peter Weir model for tastefully square directors racking up nominations. But it's hard to see his stock-in-trade (historic re-creations) holding sway in the best film sweepstakes all that often. And I suspect the bitterness many feel over his win will get in his way in the years ahead.
David Fincher...I've saved this for last because it's still pretty much an open wound. I can't think of a strong enough analogy for Fincher's loss last week. To have been judged the year's best by such a wide swath of the film-rating community, to lose only two prizes of any consequence but have them be the Oscar and its prime predictor...it's still hard to digest. The closest parallel would be Scorsese with Good Fellas, but that was well presaged by NBR and the Globes along with the DGA, and in that instance Dances with Wolves WAS clearly beloved (it won those sound/score/editing Oscars King's Speech failed at the other night), and Good Fellas more clearly outside Academy range. Fincher (and Social Network) seemed in play fully to the moment Kathryn Bigelow read out the winner's name. Truly, this was without precedent. The question is, what does it mean for Fincher's Oscar future? Should we think they'll now be on the alert to give him a make-up prize at the first opportunity? (MoveWes' scenario of him winning next year for Dragon Tattoo as analogous to Scorsese/Departed is interesting, but I have my doubts about a remake of a film many general audiences just saw -- not the case with Infernal Affairs -- especially because I think many critics have really soured on the whole Larsson oeuvre and might be inclined to give it the Da Vinci Code treatment) Or does it rather mean they don't much like him (you hear murmurs of this, though mostly from studio flacks, not the creative community) or his work? I'll be rooting for him from here to doomsday, but, in all honesty, part of me thinks, when you lose your best shot like this (see: Liv Ullmann '76, Julianne Moore '02), you may never make it back.
Finally, the ever-popular bonus round: where we identify the candidate spoken-about but not nominated who's most likely to end up on the list in a future year. This of course excludes those like Ryan Gosling, who's already an Oscar vet. I'd consider, of course, Andrew Garfield (who some already jumped the gun on a year or two ago, sans majoir credit, simply because they liked him). But if I had to pick just one, I think I'd settle on Olivia Williams. She had an odd profile in the race this year: she won outright at the National Society and finished first in an international poll that came out two week or so ago -- but both those came too late in a year where the nomination field basically froze post-SAG. I'm hoping the awareness of her fine work will persuade other directors to cast her, and give her the roles that can get her into future competitions.
Okay...that's my take. Time for everybody else to weigh in.