Really?Big Magilla wrote:Um. no, explain it to me.Sonic Youth wrote:I'm sorry, Magilla, but do you not see how belabored that reasoning is?Big Magilla wrote:I wouldn't remove Mirren who has already won the Best Actress award at the Rome Film Fest. While it may not be the most prestigious award out there, she is the only one of this year's best actress contenders to have actually won an award for their performance. It may be enough for the old-timers who are reluctant to give an award to a newcomer they know very little about.
a). The Rome Film Festival. Enough said. Do you think the Oscar voters have even heard of it before? The Rome Film Festival award is going to be the game changer?
b). It's absurd to believe that in January, voters are going to think "Hmmm.... Remember back in late October? That was when Helen Mirren won something called the Rome Film Festival award. Good enough! Let's freeze that moment in time and vote for her on the basis of that, while disregarding everything that has transpired (for example, other awards and citations given out to other actresses) since then."
c). By the time the Oscars come about - after months of publicity, magazine covers, heavy campaigning and inevitable mentions from other awards and/or critic's groups, Mulligan will no longer be someone they "know very little about".
d). I get that there's a lot of politics or strategy involved in Oscar voting. But it seems really, really unlikely that "old-timers" are going to vote for what they may consider to be a lesser performance, because the better performance is little-known and the lesser performance won an award at the Rome Film Festival. That suggests that the Old Guard have long outlived their cognitive usefulness.
Going by this logic, we can only conclude that Julie Christie lost the Oscar to a newcomer because she had the misfortune to not win an award at the Rome Film Festival.