Page 9 of 11
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:56 am
by Sonic Youth
Big Magilla wrote:Sonic Youth wrote: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.
I'm sorry, Magilla, but do you not see how belabored that reasoning is?
Um. no, explain it to me.
Really?
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.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:00 pm
by Zahveed
flipp525 wrote:rolotomasi99 wrote:
I am assuming you mean a nomination for her performance in ALL ABOUT STEVE. I did not see it, but I hear she plays a deranged stalker who hunts down this man she has become obsessed with to force him to fall in love with her. Supposedly, there has not been as terrifying a performance as her's since Anthony Hopkins in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
All About Steve is a comedy featuring Thomas Haden Church and Bradley Cooper in the titular role that was almost universally panned upon its early September release.
I think he's referring to Bullock's role in the upcoming The Blind Side.
Buzz kill.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:39 pm
by OscarGuy
Actually, I'm referring to The Blind Side. I'm not sure the movie's going to be that good and it's probably a very wild possibility, but it's a "heartwarming" story and if it really is a "weak" year for actresses, then I see no harm in considering her.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:39 pm
by flipp525
rolotomasi99 wrote:OscarGuy wrote:I guess I don't see this as such an non-crowded year for lead actresses.
But, here's the shortest list of names outside of the five above I can come up with:
Sandra Bullock (you guys claim it's a weak year, so she should at least be considered)
I am assuming you mean a nomination for her performance in ALL ABOUT STEVE. I did not see it, but I hear she plays a deranged stalker who hunts down this man she has become obsessed with to force him to fall in love with her. Supposedly, there has not been as terrifying a performance as her's since Anthony Hopkins in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
All About Steve is a comedy featuring Thomas Haden Church and Bradley Cooper in the titular role that was almost universally panned upon its early September release.
I think he's referring to Bullock's role in the upcoming The Blind Side.
Edited By flipp525 on 1257284728
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:11 pm
by rolotomasi99
OscarGuy wrote:I guess I don't see this as such an non-crowded year for lead actresses.
But, here's the shortest list of names outside of the five above I can come up with:
Sandra Bullock (you guys claim it's a weak year, so she should at least be considered)
I am assuming you mean a nomination for her performance in ALL ABOUT STEVE. I did not see it, but I hear she plays a deranged stalker who hunts down this man she has become obsessed with to force him to fall in love with her. Supposedly, there has not been as terrifying a performance as her's since Anthony Hopkins in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:10 pm
by Big Magilla
Sonic Youth wrote: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.
I'm sorry, Magilla, but do you not see how belabored that reasoning is?
Um. no, explain it to me.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:47 am
by rolotomasi99
Mister Tee wrote:Off topic, but it's amazing to me Wells repeats the info in this second paragraph without realizing what an ass it makes him appear. First, he left the initial screening three-quarters of the way through the film, yet posted a reaction on his site without mentioning that fact. And then he tried (and does here, again) to justify this by claiming that, in his experience, no film that was solid for 75% of its length ever collapsed in the last reel. All I can say to that is, he must have lived a charmed cinematic life. I can come up with about half a dozen films most years that fit that disappointing-in-the-end profile.
To take your off topic post even more off topic, I think it is interesting how movie audiences and critics are far more forgiving of films which might have a slow or troubled first quarter or even third but eventually end strong than they are of films which are strong for their first 2/3 or 3/4 but end weakly.
With film, we tend to take away what the movie leaves us with rather than what it presents us at the beginning. Just kind of interesting.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:42 am
by Eric
By that reasoning, Charlotte Gainsbourg is also a shoo-in.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:50 am
by Sonic Youth
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.
I'm sorry, Magilla, but do you not see how belabored that reasoning is?
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1257263476
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:33 am
by Mister Tee
Sabin wrote:According to Jeffrey Wells. No more Annette Bening this year.
Mother and Child Acquired
Sony Classics' deal to acquire Rodrigo Garcia's Mother and Child "came together shortly after Toronto but took some time to close," reports Indiewire's Peter Knegt. The plan is to open it sometime next year so Annette Bening's Best Actress nomination is of course out the window. I remain persuaded that Bening gives the best performance of her career in this film.
My initial TIFF gush review was a mistake as it was based on having seen most but not all of Mother and Child. I'm still a bit stunned, looking back, that a film that delivered as well as it did for the first 70% or 75% didn't quite maintain the same on-target current during the final 25 or 30 minutes. A very rare, almost unheard-of thing in my experience. Live and learn.
Off topic, but it's amazing to me Wells repeats the info in this second paragraph without realizing what an ass it makes him appear. First, he left the initial screening three-quarters of the way through the film, yet posted a reaction on his site without mentioning that fact. And then he tried (and does here, again) to justify this by claiming that, in his experience, no film that was solid for 75% of its length ever collapsed in the last reel. All I can say to that is, he must have lived a charmed cinematic life. I can come up with about half a dozen films most years that fit that disappointing-in-the-end profile.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:19 am
by OscarGuy
Good deal! I can keep Mirren in and toss Bening. This might also mean Swank doesn't make it in...after all, Swank can only get nominated if she can compete with Bening. 
j/k, there, I'm leaving Swank in for the moment.
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:12 am
by Sabin
According to Jeffrey Wells. No more Annette Bening this year.
Mother and Child Acquired
Sony Classics' deal to acquire Rodrigo Garcia's Mother and Child "came together shortly after Toronto but took some time to close," reports Indiewire's Peter Knegt. The plan is to open it sometime next year so Annette Bening's Best Actress nomination is of course out the window. I remain persuaded that Bening gives the best performance of her career in this film.
My initial TIFF gush review was a mistake as it was based on having seen most but not all of Mother and Child. I'm still a bit stunned, looking back, that a film that delivered as well as it did for the first 70% or 75% didn't quite maintain the same on-target current during the final 25 or 30 minutes. A very rare, almost unheard-of thing in my experience. Live and learn.
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:34 pm
by Big Magilla
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.
Ronan is an unknown quantity so it may be a safe bet to leave her in .
Swank, already a two time winner, in a film that was poorly received both critically and commercially, has little chance of being nominated but everyone should have a wild card among their predictions so you could leave her in just in case.
Bening's film will not be given an Oscar qualifying run so she should go regardless of what other changes you make.
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:16 pm
by OscarGuy
Okri, I already decided to remove Mirren. Thanks for the rundown, though.
And I have to disagree with you on Ronan. She's an up-and-coming talented young actress in a film that may have fantasy elements but is a celebrated book and in the hands of Peter Jackson who helped get Kate Winslet noticed with Heavenly Creatures. So, I think Ronan's one of the stronger contenders this year, but that's my opinion.
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:50 pm
by Okri
Who would you replace?
Ronan, Benning or Swank.
Swank's film is getting truly ATROCIOUS reviews. Yes, people mention Blanchett/The Golden Age, but using rotten tomatoes, the sequel garnered a 34% to Amelia's 17%. The only reason to keep it is that Fox Searchlight tends to be very aggressive with it's campaigning, and after 500 Days of Summer, they have nothing.
Or Bening. The fact is that Sony Pictures Classics has A LOT on their plate. It's not being released this year. I'd wager on it. Mister Tee, SPC also has An Education (which I think is their main horse this year), The Damned United, Broken Embraces, Dr. Imaginarium..., Coco before Chanel and The White Ribbon for this year, mostly still to come.
Or Ronan. The Lovely Bones, for me, has the most confusing profile of all the major films. I simply don't know how it's gonna go. The trailer doesn't convince me that the mixing of tones/genres is gonna go over well, and I have yet to really hear major buzz on it.
Anyway, the reasons for Mulligan....
1. She's managed to sustain extraordinary buzz since JANUARY when An Education premiered at Sundance.
2. She DOMINATES the film. There's an acclaimed ensemble going on (the thread here has praise for a half dozen performers), but there's no denying that it's her film.
3. It's getting strong reviews that'll likely garner it a best picture nomination. How often does a best picture nominee with a lead actress (singular, as in not two leading roles, but one and it's her) get in without her?
4. She's young, pretty, charming and will likely have an extraordinary career ahead of her.
5. She's terrific and awardworthy in the film.
6. People who don't like the film still have swooned for her.