I saw this two weeks ago and thought it was so outrageous it was funny. At first I thought it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but then I remembered O'Neil has no sense of humor.
Of the supposed front-runners in this year's Best Actress race I've only seen Bening, Moore and Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone. I need to see Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole, Lesley Manville in Another Year, Natalie Portman in Black Swan, Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine and Anne Hathway in Love & Other Drugs before I make a determination as to who I'd like to see win, but of the three I have seen, I think Bening gives the best performance and has her strongest chance of winning yet, even if Moore is nominated.
There's also been talk of Manville dropping to support where they say she would win in a cakewalk, but she's not taking the bait either.
More Tom O'Neil Nonsense
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
This is even more idiotic than usual for O'Neil. It amounts to "You're the lead if anybody, but you have to perpetrate fraud because WE say so". Something that's been true for a while but was really made clear last year during the "Mo'Nique won't campaign" fracas -- O'Neil and his ilk, parasites that they are, have convinced themsleves they're a vital part of the Oscars, maybe more important that the awards themsleves.
Secondary point: largely but not solely because of O'Neil, I'd make the case no one has been given more of a home-town push for Oscars than Annette Bening. First it was the American Beauty/Boys Don't Cry case, where, in the view of most, the margin between Swank and Bening was roughly that between Secretariat and the second horse in the Belmont, but, somehow, in O'Neil world, Swank STOLE the prize from Bening. Then there was the '84 race, where Swank's win was more questionable, but questionable because Staunton was the critics' choice and Winslet was the "how can she not have won by now?" candidate. Bening was strictly in "also-nominated" territory -- but O'Neil (and, sadly, others) somehow bought into the idea that Swank again was the nemesis depriving Bening of a "sure win". (Nathaniel at Film Experience, generally a keen observer, recently reviewed the '04 race and wondered aloud why he wasn't more in Staunton's corner, concluding he somhow bought into the idea it was Bening's to lose and Swank had snatched it away)
And now we have this year, where, for me, their film is at worst a standoff between the two leads, yet Bening's claque has declared for months she's the sure winner, and is now making ludicrous demands of Moore because she seems to represent an obstacle. (One wonders what these folk have in store for Natalie Portman) What is about Bening that evokes such outsized pushes for her? Is it just being Beatty's wife? Because, to me, it's way out of proportion to her on-screen achievements.
Secondary point: largely but not solely because of O'Neil, I'd make the case no one has been given more of a home-town push for Oscars than Annette Bening. First it was the American Beauty/Boys Don't Cry case, where, in the view of most, the margin between Swank and Bening was roughly that between Secretariat and the second horse in the Belmont, but, somehow, in O'Neil world, Swank STOLE the prize from Bening. Then there was the '84 race, where Swank's win was more questionable, but questionable because Staunton was the critics' choice and Winslet was the "how can she not have won by now?" candidate. Bening was strictly in "also-nominated" territory -- but O'Neil (and, sadly, others) somehow bought into the idea that Swank again was the nemesis depriving Bening of a "sure win". (Nathaniel at Film Experience, generally a keen observer, recently reviewed the '04 race and wondered aloud why he wasn't more in Staunton's corner, concluding he somhow bought into the idea it was Bening's to lose and Swank had snatched it away)
And now we have this year, where, for me, their film is at worst a standoff between the two leads, yet Bening's claque has declared for months she's the sure winner, and is now making ludicrous demands of Moore because she seems to represent an obstacle. (One wonders what these folk have in store for Natalie Portman) What is about Bening that evokes such outsized pushes for her? Is it just being Beatty's wife? Because, to me, it's way out of proportion to her on-screen achievements.
Actually, O'Neil did make a case. He claims that the more sympathetic role is lead and the less sympathetic is supporting. It is a ridiculous case, though.The Original BJ wrote:And, of course, his argument has nothing to do with making a case that Moore actually is a supporting actress in The Kids Are All Right.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Oh, Tom O'Neil, you sure do know how to push my buttons. In this article, Tom O'Neil orders -- ORDERS! -- Julianne Moore to campaign herself as a supporting actress this year. And, of course, his argument has nothing to do with making a case that Moore actually is a supporting actress in The Kids Are All Right.
Julianne Moore: Drop down to supporting -- That's an order!
By Tom O'Neil
Nov 04 2010 | 04:40 am
I'm not even going to say "please." Let's dispense with niceties and make this point as firmly as possible. Julianne Moore: If you want to do the right thing this Oscar season for "The Kids Are All Right," your costar Annette Bening and yourself, you will immediately quit the Best Actress race and campaign in supporting.
You and Bening have the best shots at winning Oscars as a result. Stay in the lead race and you may ruin both of your hopes.
Frankly, you have no realistic chance of winning the lead actress contest. According to the collective opinions of the 11 experts polled by Gold Derby as well as our editors, you won't even be nominated.
However, there are some pundits we polled who DO believe you'll be nommed there, including Dave Karger (Entertainment Weekly), Guy Lodge (In Contention) and Scott Feinberg (Scott Feinberg). But that's not the common view when all opinions are averaged together. (Gold Derby will feature these Best Actress predictions in the next few days – hold your horses, Derbyites!) None of the pundits who say you'll be nominated believe you'll win. However, if they're correct and you nab that bid, after all, you'll end up competing against Annette Bening, who most of our experts believe WILL win. Since her Gold Derby odds are that good (11 to 5 compared to zero for you), you'll only end up splitting the vote for fans of "The Kids Are All Right."
Over the course of Oscar history, five sets of costars were nominated for Best Actress: Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in "All About Eve" (1950), Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor in "Suddenly, Last Summer" (1959), Anne Bancroft and Shirley MacLaine in "The Turning Point" (1977), Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger in "Terms of Endearment" (1983) and Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in "Thelma and Louise" (1991). Only MacLaine won (for "Endearment").
Yes, you probably have more screen time than Annette Bening — and even the more emotionally showy role, but you can't win for the same reason Anne Baxter had no prayer of beating Bette Davis in a similar situation. Davis was the sympathetic center of "All About Eve." Baxter was the bad-girl spoiler both on screen and off. Had Baxter moved down to supporting, she wouldn't have drawn away "Eve" votes and Davis might've triumphed, deservedly, for one of her greatest performances. Instead, she's one more of many stars who won Oscars for the wrong roles ("Dangerous," "Jezebel"). Granted, the Best Actress race of 1950 was complicated by Gloria Swanson being nommed for her magnificent gargoyle turn in "Sunset Blvd.," but Judy Holliday ended up nabbing the prize for frothy "Born Yesterday" instead.
In "The Kids Are All Right," you portray the spoiler of a happy lesbian family because you hop in the sack with Mark Ruffalo. Oscar voters are not going to side with you over your betrayed lover (Bening). Ain't gonna happen.
However, if you drop down to supporting, you have a decent chance to win. That race is wide open and you'll be campaigning with a lead-role advantage. That resulted in past victories for Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener"), Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") among others.
It hardly seems fair, I know. You've lost more Oscars than Annette Bening (four to her three), so, if anybody should be stepping out of the way, theoretically it should be Bening so that you can finally prevail. But, sorry — that's not how the dynamics of this particular situation stack up.
You know what to do now, Julianne. You did it in 2002 when you had more screen time than Nicole Kidman in "The Hours." Of course, you were really forced to compete in supporting for "The Hours" because you had a far better chance to win in lead with "Far From Heaven." Alas, you lost both races.
Best wishes,
Tom O'Neil (Editor, GoldDerby.com)
Julianne Moore: Drop down to supporting -- That's an order!
By Tom O'Neil
Nov 04 2010 | 04:40 am
I'm not even going to say "please." Let's dispense with niceties and make this point as firmly as possible. Julianne Moore: If you want to do the right thing this Oscar season for "The Kids Are All Right," your costar Annette Bening and yourself, you will immediately quit the Best Actress race and campaign in supporting.
You and Bening have the best shots at winning Oscars as a result. Stay in the lead race and you may ruin both of your hopes.
Frankly, you have no realistic chance of winning the lead actress contest. According to the collective opinions of the 11 experts polled by Gold Derby as well as our editors, you won't even be nominated.
However, there are some pundits we polled who DO believe you'll be nommed there, including Dave Karger (Entertainment Weekly), Guy Lodge (In Contention) and Scott Feinberg (Scott Feinberg). But that's not the common view when all opinions are averaged together. (Gold Derby will feature these Best Actress predictions in the next few days – hold your horses, Derbyites!) None of the pundits who say you'll be nominated believe you'll win. However, if they're correct and you nab that bid, after all, you'll end up competing against Annette Bening, who most of our experts believe WILL win. Since her Gold Derby odds are that good (11 to 5 compared to zero for you), you'll only end up splitting the vote for fans of "The Kids Are All Right."
Over the course of Oscar history, five sets of costars were nominated for Best Actress: Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in "All About Eve" (1950), Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor in "Suddenly, Last Summer" (1959), Anne Bancroft and Shirley MacLaine in "The Turning Point" (1977), Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger in "Terms of Endearment" (1983) and Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in "Thelma and Louise" (1991). Only MacLaine won (for "Endearment").
Yes, you probably have more screen time than Annette Bening — and even the more emotionally showy role, but you can't win for the same reason Anne Baxter had no prayer of beating Bette Davis in a similar situation. Davis was the sympathetic center of "All About Eve." Baxter was the bad-girl spoiler both on screen and off. Had Baxter moved down to supporting, she wouldn't have drawn away "Eve" votes and Davis might've triumphed, deservedly, for one of her greatest performances. Instead, she's one more of many stars who won Oscars for the wrong roles ("Dangerous," "Jezebel"). Granted, the Best Actress race of 1950 was complicated by Gloria Swanson being nommed for her magnificent gargoyle turn in "Sunset Blvd.," but Judy Holliday ended up nabbing the prize for frothy "Born Yesterday" instead.
In "The Kids Are All Right," you portray the spoiler of a happy lesbian family because you hop in the sack with Mark Ruffalo. Oscar voters are not going to side with you over your betrayed lover (Bening). Ain't gonna happen.
However, if you drop down to supporting, you have a decent chance to win. That race is wide open and you'll be campaigning with a lead-role advantage. That resulted in past victories for Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener"), Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock") among others.
It hardly seems fair, I know. You've lost more Oscars than Annette Bening (four to her three), so, if anybody should be stepping out of the way, theoretically it should be Bening so that you can finally prevail. But, sorry — that's not how the dynamics of this particular situation stack up.
You know what to do now, Julianne. You did it in 2002 when you had more screen time than Nicole Kidman in "The Hours." Of course, you were really forced to compete in supporting for "The Hours" because you had a far better chance to win in lead with "Far From Heaven." Alas, you lost both races.
Best wishes,
Tom O'Neil (Editor, GoldDerby.com)