Categories One-by-One: Actress

For the films of 2012
Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7394
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Sabin » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:03 pm

What I meant was Julianne Moore could definitely get a nomination over Naomi Watts. Maybe Quenzhané Wallis too.

criddic3 wrote
Either it's a forgettable TV movie or it's a powerhouse central performance that would be getting Oscar nominations.

Since when? I'm sure there have been forgettable TV movies that have or could have gotten Oscar nominations.

criddic3 wrote
You are right when you say that a better, more cinematic director would have given Moore the room to create something more interesting in a movie that was at least on The Iron Lady levels. For instance, the character of John McCain in this version is very bland. I know Ed Harris could have made a more compelling McCain under a better director.

This is essentially what I'm saying. Better director? Multiple nominations. Same film/director, Julianne Moore is nominated in Naomi Watt's spot and likely loses.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12546
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby OscarGuy » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:38 pm

He's right. Sometimes spectacular performances get nominated even when the film its in isn't so great. I disagree with the Naomi Watts comparison because I thought The Impossible was fantastic, but I might suggest Meryl Streep in any number of execrable films, including and specifically The Iron Lady.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby criddic3 » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:33 pm

You confused me in the end there. At the beginning you say that the movie is basically a bland "Politi-Fix" movie and Jay Roach is "pretty awful at it." Then at the end you say "Take this movie exactly and drop it into the theaters and Julianne Moore is a lock for a nomination over Naomi Watts." I see this as a slight contradiction. Either it's a forgettable TV movie or it's a powerhouse central performance that would be getting Oscar nominations. Don't get me wrong: I think Moore was fine considering the portrayal required by the script. And I give her credit for trying to convey the more human aspects of Sarah Palin as a mother and relatively untested politician thrust into the national spotlight. Yet the movie doesn't do a whole lot with this performance. You are right when you say that a better, more cinematic director would have given Moore the room to create something more interesting in a movie that was at least on The Iron Lady levels. For instance, the character of John McCain in this version is very bland. I know Ed Harris could have made a more compelling McCain under a better director.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7394
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Sabin » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:22 am

He's right.

Well, let me rephrase that: it's irrelevant. It's very much a Made-for-TV movie. For whatever reason, Jay Roach has laid claim to the Made-for-TV Politi-Fix HBO series and he's pretty awful at it. If this was going to be a theatrical release, it would not be directed by Jay Roach and the budget would be three times bigger. So we'd be talking about an entirely different film with an entirely stronger emotional grasp.

criddic3 wrote
Honestly, I don't think she would have been a factor. I think Julianne Moore is a terrific actress, and I was disappointed she wasn't up for A Single Man a few years ago, but her performance as Palin would not have been Oscar-worthy.

With a real director like Mike Nichols and a theatrical feel and she'd be a goddamn mortal lock.

criddic3 wrote
They tried to seem like they were being "fair," and from their standpoint they probably were sincere, but I thought some moments were obviously made up to make her look more clueless than she really was.

Are you serious? By all accounts, she was a ruinous terror on the campaign trail.

criddic3 wrote
Maybe the bulk of the Academy agreed with that portrayal, but regardless the whole project was very "TV movie" style. There wasn't anything cinematic about it.

You did it! You're back on the truth train. I completely agree with you. A totally anonymous production visually and tonally. There's one awesome moment where Woody Harrelson eats a grapefruit while grilling Moore on a plane but everything else is just coverage. There are few directors more boring than Jay Roach tackling contemporary politics.

criddic3 wrote
Besides, with most members predisposed to not liking Sarah Palin, they might have felt like they were voting for her rather than Moore, and would have avoided doing so.

No. Baseless.

criddic3 wrote
Then again, the Emmy voters did it, so I could be wrong. Just to clarify, even though I have a bias in this (since I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket) I defended the idea of someone making this movie to friends who said it would be a hatchet job. It wasn't quite that, but it clearly would not have been Oscar material.

Not a hatchet job, a wiki-film. Take this movie exactly and drop it into the theaters and Julianne Moore is a lock for a nomination over Naomi Watts. People talk about her winning and then they see the film, it's all right, and she struggles against Jennifer Lawrence for the Golden Globe and likely loses. Put some oomph behind the film (and just to be fair, keep it the exact same script) and the film would likely make it into the Best Picture lineup.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12546
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:28 pm

Of course, the Right Winger doesn't think it would have been an Oscar contender. Now, how about the people who've actually seen the thing who aren't right wingers.;
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6499
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:56 pm

Greg wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:And I can't help but cling to the thought that stuck me months ago: that, like in the 1969 best actress race, voters will see two very promising but young/up and coming actresses and think they're both a bit too new to be enshrined as yet, and pick the more seasoned entrant instead.


Although Maggie Smith is only three years older than Jane Fonda.

Yeah, I realize. But, in perception terms, Fonda was young and hot, and Maggie Smith was born middle-aged. (She also already had, by 1969, a slew of respectable credits, where Fonda was a year from Barbarella)

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2735
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Greg » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:35 pm

Mister Tee wrote:And I can't help but cling to the thought that stuck me months ago: that, like in the 1969 best actress race, voters will see two very promising but young/up and coming actresses and think they're both a bit too new to be enshrined as yet, and pick the more seasoned entrant instead.


Although Maggie Smith is only three years older than Jane Fonda.
"Wall Street is not the solution to our problem. Wall Street is the problem!"

Ronald Reagan, corrected

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby criddic3 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:50 pm

Honestly, I don't think she would have been a factor. I think Julianne Moore is a terrific actress, and I was disappointed she wasn't up for A Single Man a few years ago, but her performance as Palin would not have been Oscar-worthy. They tried to seem like they were being "fair," and from their standpoint they probably were sincere, but I thought some moments were obviously made up to make her look more clueless than she really was. Maybe the bulk of the Academy agreed with that portrayal, but regardless the whole project was very "TV movie" style. There wasn't anything cinematic about it. Besides, with most members predisposed to not liking Sarah Palin, they might have felt like they were voting for her rather than Moore, and would have avoided doing so. Then again, the Emmy voters did it, so I could be wrong. Just to clarify, even though I have a bias in this (since I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket) I defended the idea of someone making this movie to friends who said it would be a hatchet job. It wasn't quite that, but it clearly would not have been Oscar material.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6499
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:36 pm

The Original BJ wrote:I still wonder...if Game Change had been a theatrical release, might Julianne Moore -- on her fifth nomination, and with a highly acclaimed performance in a biography -- have hit the sweet spot between the too-new and the too-foreign candidates and actually won this prize?

A question there would be, would Game Change have been as well received by film critics as it was by TV critics? With all the talk about how television is frequently the superior adult programming medium -- and god knows I'd put most of Mad Men above most movies I've seen in recent years -- I think there's still some sense that TV movies are judged by a lesser standard...by which I mean, film critics might have thought Game Change as a film was more on the level of Hitchcock than Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln, as opposed to "the year's best", and Moore would thus not have quite as strong a foundation as she did for the Emmys/Globes etc., even if the performance was still seen as pretty impressive.

But it is probably the first such performance in some time to raise the question. What others have there been? Streep in Angels in America? I'd strongly argue that Alfre Woodward in Miss Evers' Boys could have taken hold of the Helen Hunt/Judi Dench/Helena Bonham Carter race in 1997.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby The Original BJ » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:17 pm

I still wonder...if Game Change had been a theatrical release, might Julianne Moore -- on her fifth nomination, and with a highly acclaimed performance in a biography -- have hit the sweet spot between the too-new and the too-foreign candidates and actually won this prize?

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6499
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:11 pm

Let's start by saying any of Riva, Lawrence or Chastain would fall well within respectable-winner range. And I like Wallis/Watts as the balance of the slate, even if I wouldn't want either to win. They make for one of the least filler-laden best actress groupings of recent vintage.

Zero Dark Thirty's apparent slippage in the best picture race (unless you view last night's WGA prize as momentum) makes Chastain look like the number three runner. (Her Broadcast victory feels like it took place some other year)

Sabin describes Lawrence's performance quite perfectly: yes, she's probably miscast, but she floods the zone with such heartfelt emotion it doesn't matter to those of us who love her film. If she wins -- and the odds say she will, esp. with Harvey behind her -- I won't begrudge her.

But with Riva's splendid performance the Academy has a chance to do something special: to honor a non-Hollywood film notable for work that isn't easy/ingratiating but reaches real depths. It's not like the Academy has never done such a thing -- though I'm showing my age when the examples I can cite are all from decades ago. Glenda Jackson in Women in Love, Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously, Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot -- these are all cases where the critically acclaimed performer was largely unknown to Hollywood, their vehicles were less than box-office triumphs, and there were perfectly justifiable populist alternatives poised to win, but voters came through for the pros in the end. I say Riva has a fighting chance -- enough to make the opening of this envelope one of the more interesting of the night. And I can't help but cling to the thought that stuck me months ago: that, like in the 1969 best actress race, voters will see two very promising but young/up and coming actresses and think they're both a bit too new to be enshrined as yet, and pick the more seasoned entrant instead.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7394
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Sabin » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:22 pm

Emmanuel Riva does not get the speech. She does not get the crying scene. She does not get any sense of closure. The brilliance of Riva (and Amour) is that you don’t just watch her slip away. She is dragged, horrifyingly.

Jennifer Lawrence does some of the best miscast acting I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t change the fact that in such a messy, human film, she is twenty-two years old and brilliantly trying. Brilliant, and in such a part! Although Riva has a good shot, the only reason Lawrence could lose is if the Academy collectively decides that Jennifer Lawrence does not need to win just yet, which would sound more convincing if between her first and second nomination, the Anti-Trampire found time to hoist a mega-franchise up on her shoulders. Instead, I say it’s pretty gracious of the Academy to wait until she could legally drink.

Jennifer Lawrence is a very weak front-runner, but Emmanuel Riva would stand a better chance of winning if the film was Away from Her.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
Precious Doll
Tenured
Posts: 3470
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Precious Doll » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:54 am

Whilst I'm predicting Riva I do think the Academy will award Jennifer Lawrence.

Recent Academy history does not bode well for older women unless you are Meryl Streep (and then she had to get up to 17 Oscar nominations) or having a juggernaut year like Helen Mirren did with The Queen. That Helen Mirren, at her age, is still very sexy didn't hurt her either. She could still run rings around most actresses young enough to be her granddaughters in the 'sexy' league. She also screams 'classy', something you can't say for most of the younger set.

If I really thought Mademoiselle Riva was going to win I'd watch the Oscars direct. Instead I will record the show and only watch it if she does.

And by the way Emmanuelle Riva prefers Mademoiselle Riva to Madame Riva, as she has never married and is not one for traditional conventions (that older women tend to be called Madame regardless of the marital status).
"I have no interest in all of that. I find that all tabloid stupidity" Woody Allen, The Guardian, 2014, in response to his adopted daughter's allegations.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15728
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby Big Magilla » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:18 am

Yes, but I'd feel more confident if the Weinstein Company were behind it instead of Sony Classics, though it's difficult to imagine what tricks Harvey would be playing to convince the Academy sheep that singing Happy Birthday to an 86 year-old woman on Oscar night would be cooler than awarding a blazing hot new star.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5223
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Categories One-by-One: Actress

Postby anonymous1980 » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:00 pm

Jennifer Lawrence seems like the front-runner in this category. But I get the feeling that she's a weak front-runner. Is anyone else predicting an Emmanuelle Riva upset?


Return to “85th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest