Possible Acting Nominees - 2011

[HarryGoldfarb]

Has anyone seen the Teaser Trailer of "The Lady"? Isn't Michelle Yeoh (an actress I really like) being mentioned as a contender? Luke Besson might not be a great director but I have great expectations about this film... A biopic about Aung San Suu Kyi looks like the perfect vehicle for her... David Thewlis could be a contender too for this...

Streep, Close, aparently Williams, Yeah and either Davis or Foster (based on their names alone), would make for an interesting lineup. Knightley is an actress I deeply love (I've been trying to write something about Never Let Me Go, but always something gets in my way) so it is nice knowing she is getting some attention this year. For what I've read Elizabeth Olsen is close to being a locked nominee... is that true?

[Big Magilla]

If Michelle Williams is any good in My Week with Marilyn, she could very likely end up winning. The film is likely going to contain a scene where she wants to be left alone with her sadness that audiences will unconsciously (or consciously) associate with her grief over the death of Heath Ledger.

What "sadness" might that be? The film She was newly married ot Arthur Miller at the time, was co-producer of The Prince and the Showgirl along with Olivier, who also directed, and stole the film out from under him. I know IMDb. lists it as a drama, but it seems more likely to be a comedy or comedy-drama. She might well win, but I don't think a sad scene will be the deciding factor".

[Sabin]

Damien wrote
I agree that McTeer pretty much steals Albert Nobbs and that Close’s performance wouldn’t win on its own. But then I think of Paul Newman in The Color of Money and that quiets my doubt. I still think Viola Davis has it in the bag but my next in line, at this stage of the game, without having seen Williams, is still Close.

Well, Paul Newman was up against Dexter Gordon, from what I've been told more of a non-actorly presence in 'Round Midnight, Bob Hoskins in a British thriller, William Hurt coming off of a win, and James Woods in a surprise nomination. A career nod for Paul Newman just makes sense in that year. Newman might have also won the year before in '85, but would he win against Michael Douglas in Wall Street? All this does is cement in my mind that Albert Nobbs is likely a non-starter. Although Rodrigo Garcia is a good director, he has yet to do anything that pops on the Academy's radar.

If Michelle Williams is any good in My Week with Marilyn, she could very likely end up winning. The film is likely going to contain a scene where she wants to be left alone with her sadness that audiences will unconsciously (or consciously) associate with her grief over the death of Heath Ledger.

There really isn't a lead in The Help. If there is one, it's Emma Stone. Viola Davis doesn't really have as strong an arc as Octavia Spencer. It's conceivable that she could win if pushed for lead, if only because they also want to cement Spencer as a possible supporting victor. If that's the case, it might make sense to split them up in the hopes that at least one of them wins. I'm usually the person who gets frustrated when they push leads for support, which is at this point pretty much half of the performers nominated. Davis is a supporting role.

[Damien]

From Thelma Adams's blog:

Oscars 2012: Best Actress Roundtable

Davis has a lot to smile about...including being an Oscar frontrunner

For our first Oscar roundtable, I welcomed Sasha Stone of Awardsdaily.com, and USA Today film reporter Susan Wloszczyna to lay out the early shape of the Best Actress race. And, having posted a list of the serious contenders, I tossed out the first question: Is Viola Davis going to be considered a lead role, and is she at the top?

Sasha Stone: I’m getting that winner vibe from Viola Davis this year. I know that Glenn Close is way overdue and this would be the perfect year to award her but I have a feeling Davis will win in whatever category she’s put in, supporting or lead. Partly it’s because the film is so successful but mainly because her character is so admirable.

Susan Wloszczyna: If she were in the supporting category — not that I think that where she necessarily should be, but she could be — I believe Davis would have a much better chance of winning at least at this stage of the game. But if Michelle Williams pulls off a miraculous incarnation of MM, she might get the edge for actress. Not only does she have two previous nominations, but if she is fabulous, she might outdo Cate Blanchett’s winning turn as Kate Hepburn.

SS: Susan, I’m not sure Michelle Williams is quite ready for a win. She’s going to have to top Glenn Close, who is running on overdue status, Meryl Streep AND Viola Davis…I can’t imagine a scenario, unless she gained 30 pounds and murdered people, where she could pull this off. Not feeling it quite yet for her.

Blanchett won in supporting, which is an easier feat to pull off for a role that’s exactly like another actress – in fact, Blanchett won as a win for that movie too. There was Aviator heat building that year. I am not sure the Marilyn movie is going to be a strong Best Picture contender. So I guess I have trouble seeing where the incentive to vote for her would be, over all of those other strong performances. I can’t see it happening. We’ll have to wait and see.

SW: Sometimes they go with the overdue. Sometimes they invest in the future. And sometimes the actual role counts as much if not more than the career status of the nominee. As much as I love Mamma Mia! I am not sure about Phyllida Lloyd’s skill as a movie maker — therefore to me Iron Lady is a question mark.

And as much as I think Close does deserve an Oscar, after seeing Alfred Nobbs, I am not so sure this role will do it for her. For one, Janet McTeer pretty much steals the show. For another, her performance did not move me as much as I would have expected. It’s not like how I felt after seeing Bullock in The Blind Side. Meanwhile, someone like Williams could be akin to Portman or Cotillard in terms of their preference. The influx of young actors who vote could also cause more shifts in the conventional wisdom side of things. Basically, I think it is too early to hand it all to one actress candidate.

Oh and my choice of overdue status this year is Vanessa Redgrave, who is astonishing in Coriolanus — but in supporting. Her Julia statue is pretty dusty too.

SS: Susan, you make great points. But remember, we’re still talking about a performance no one has seen in Williams. It’s sort of like talking about War Horse winning Best Picture – yes, if the stars align perfectly it will happen but it’s unknowable. It’s impossible, then, to really read the Best Actress race accurately without having seen everything. But I’ve not yet seen Michelle Williams turn in the kind of performance she’d need to beat Davis, Close, Streep, etc. I think she was wonderful in Blue Valentine but she wasn’t playing someone whose voice we all know so well, whose face we have studied for decades, someone whose relationship with the camera was second to none – and that’s Marilyn, and those are big, big shoes to fill. I’ve seen many actresses try to nail Marilyn over the years and somehow I am still skeptical that this one girl can do it that well. Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s really good. But playing Marilyn is like playing JFK – almost impossible.

Cate Blanchett is a different actress from Michelle Williams. Blanchett can completely disappear into a persona, as she did with Hepburn and with Bob Dylan. That has not yet been what Williams has done – and it’s really hard to do. You have to be a mimic and a good actress at the same time.

I agree that McTeer pretty much steals Albert Nobbs and that Close’s performance wouldn’t win on its own. But then I think of Paul Newman in The Color of Money and that quiets my doubt. I still think Viola Davis has it in the bag but my next in line, at this stage of the game, without having seen Williams, is still Close.

TA: Well, Sasha and Susan, I’m hearing early buzz on Marilyn the movie is that it’s light, lighter than expected. That said, it’s still in the New York Film Festival. And the reaction to Nobbs at Toronto was, in general, respectful rather than passionate. And Susan raises a red flag regarding Director Phyllida Lloyd — can she pull off a movie about Margaret Thatcher that is as complicated as that world leader, or equal to Streep? Again, early buzz is that The Iron Lady is not The Golden Statuette material above and beyond the central performance.

Of course, only seeing the films will tell, but does the success of the movie overall (not just box office, but emotionally) have an impact on who wins? That’s an open question to those joining our virtual roundtable.

[OscarGuy]

I doubt Super 8's going to be nominated. But yes, Spielberg's listed as a Producer, not an Executive Producer so if by some miracle the film does get a BP nod, Spielberg will also get a nod.

I don't think War Horse should be compared to E.T. As I understand it, the story isn't really for kids. But maybe it is, I don't know. It seems more like a film that compares to the likes of Saving Private Ryan. And I would say that Catch Me If You Can, A.I. and Minority Report, none of which were really Oscar-oriented films, also lacked a sentimentality that often carried Spielberg to awards recognition.

Here's my Oscar Preview on Spielberg I wrote a few weeks ago. I talk about his chances and his Oscar history there. Oscar Preview: The "War Horse" - Steven Spielberg

[criddic3]

That's true, I suppose. The Academy could have nominated Minority Report, A.I. or Catch Me If You Can, but chose not to despite good reviews and mostly good box-office. I disagreed with the Munich nods, and would have preferred any of the previously mentioned films. Also, is Spielberg eligible to be a nominee for Super 8, as he was one of the producers? Or will the voters have forgotten it by the time the year ends?

[Sonic Youth]

E.T. was made, marketed and viewed as a high-quality children's film. If War Horse isn't perceived as one, will critics really react similarly to it as they did to E.T.?

Not only did Munich get a Best Picture nomination, it was also his only Best Picture nomination of the decade. And only his third in the past 2 decades. I expect more from someone with such a big name.

[criddic3]

I suspect that Spielberg will ratchet up the sentimentality and the movie will have the same effect, although if that's the case I would also expect some critics to look deeper and be dismissive.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. You know how some critics are about emotionally affecting films, especially from Spielberg. If you are going to compare War Horse's chances to that of E.T., it must be remembered that critics largely glowed about that film. Of course, it wound up losing the Oscar to Gandhi, so who knows. But from the trailers, it looks like a big epic movie. Epic + lots of emotion = good Oscar chances if your name is Steven Spielberg. Besides, his Munich got five nominations, including Picture despite some very mixed reviews.

[Sabin]

I'll try to read the book. I can't say I'm terribly excited about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Stephen Daldry handling whimsy churned through the mind of Eric Roth and delivered by Tom Hanks (who is not effective on-screen these days) and Sandra Bullock (whose appeal at its best always seems to be Julia Roberts at her worst)...plus 9/11? Yeesh.

Best Picture Winner?...sigh...maybe.

[Damien]

First they said no distributer would touch it, now... I dunno, I vividly remember the same arguments being made against There Will be Blood four years ago. It's not a film that would win , or probably even be nominated for Best Picture, but I could see the actor's branch embracing it.

The Academy has shown that they take far greater umbrage with graphic sex than they do with graphic violence.

This reminds me of a Jack Nicholson quote from the early 70s, when he was complaining about the rating system: "You show a breast and you get an R. You shoot an arrow through that breast and you get a GP"

[kaytodd]

I predict Sandra Bullock's role in ELIC will be expanded from the mother's role in the novel. This could result in a supporting nom if the film is well received. The narrative spine of the film should focus on how Hank's widow and son deal with his loss, with suddenly becoming a family of two instead of three, and with living in a city where almost everyone they meet has been touched by the 9/11 tragedy. The son's memories of his father, represented by the flashbacks, should take up a greater portion of the time in the film than it did in the novel. I thought the parts of the novel in which two other major characters remember tragic events in their lives were well written and moving. And also a reminder of how often people commit mass atrocities against each other. But I hope the screenplay drops that storyline in favor of more scenes between the father and son and especially the mother and son, because the ones in the book are terrific and should bring out the hankies.

Hmmm. Could there be an Oscar caliber role in there somewhere for Max von Sydow as a holocaust survivor?

Interesting. I know nothing about the film other than who is in it. I do not know what parts of the novel are included. imdb gives the names of the actors but does not give the names of the characters most of them play. The characters I was referring to, who were remembering tragedies in their pasts were not really Holocaust survivors. They were German civilians who survived the firebombing of Dresden. I thought that was an interesting decision by the author, for that was an atrocity committed by British and US forces against non-combatants. Whatever the nature of von Sydow's character, I hope it is a role worthy of his talent. Unless his screen time is negligible, or the film sucks, he will get support for a nom. We all know he will do excellent work.

[bizarre]

First they said no distributer would touch it, now... I dunno, I vividly remember the same arguments being made against There Will be Blood four years ago. It's not a film that would win , or probably even be nominated for Best Picture, but I could see the actor's branch embracing it.

The Academy has shown that they take far greater umbrage with graphic sex than they do with graphic violence.

[Reza]

May I also say how annoyed I am to see people -- if not here, elsewhere -- pimping for supporting nods for Hanks and Bullock in the film? I know, when you're doing these prior-to-screening predictions, you have to hunt to fill out a slate of supporting contenders. But when you throw big name stars in support like that -- two people who deserve another shot at Oscars when hell freezes over -- you normalize such thinking, and that's how we end up with Matt Damon nominated for Invictus, while notable performances by little-knowns are left by the wayside.

You've mentioned this a few times, but I've gotta point out that your thinking means we get Casey Affleck in support. Do you think that "stars" can't be in a supporting role by definition?

Of course they can. There are many examples one of which is Jennifer Jones nominated in the supporting category for Since You Went Away (1944). She had won in the lead category a year before for The Song of Bernadette.

[Okri]

May I also say how annoyed I am to see people -- if not here, elsewhere -- pimping for supporting nods for Hanks and Bullock in the film? I know, when you're doing these prior-to-screening predictions, you have to hunt to fill out a slate of supporting contenders. But when you throw big name stars in support like that -- two people who deserve another shot at Oscars when hell freezes over -- you normalize such thinking, and that's how we end up with Matt Damon nominated for Invictus, while notable performances by little-knowns are left by the wayside.

You've mentioned this a few times, but I've gotta point out that your thinking means we get Casey Affleck in support. Do you think that "stars" can't be in a supporting role by definition?

[Big Magilla]

I predict Sandra Bullock's role in ELIC will be expanded from the mother's role in the novel. This could result in a supporting nom if the film is well received. The narrative spine of the film should focus on how Hank's widow and son deal with his loss, with suddenly becoming a family of two instead of three, and with living in a city where almost everyone they meet has been touched by the 9/11 tragedy. The son's memories of his father, represented by the flashbacks, should take up a greater portion of the time in the film than it did in the novel. I thought the parts of the novel in which two other major characters remember tragic events in their lives were well written and moving. And also a reminder of how often people commit mass atrocities against each other. But I hope the screenplay drops that storyline in favor of more scenes between the father and son and especially the mother and son, because the ones in the book are terrific and should bring out the hankies.

Hmmm. Could there be an Oscar caliber role in there somewhere for Max von Sydow as a holocaust survivor?