Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

For the films of 2012
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Bog » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:29 am

Mister Tee wrote:
This to me is just further proof of the old adage that Life is no artist. The fact that there actually are people dumb enough to go so far with something like this -- without, say, after 15 minutes asking to speak to that supervisor the guy allegedly had on the other line -- doesn't mean I'm interested in watching them, any more than I'd care to watch Darwin Award winners enact their idiocies.


And yes, you're an educated, pragmatic person who frankly if we're going to this level, absolutely not an "idiot". Are you completely unfamiliar with Stanley Milgram or Philip Zimbardo and the work they've done in this realm of psychoanalysis? Maybe the world is littered with idiots, but the studies show these type of acts are perpetrated on a regular basis and it could be against someone you interact with daily. The life is not art argument is fair, but it's not as if he was going into big city law offices or insurance firms and having the same successes. This is a rural fast food chain and he is a male authority figure, and the way the caller is acting you can clearly see he usually does not get far into his proceedings, but that day he found the right person, but not just that, it also had to be the right person under the right stresses and the right circumstances.

I suppose I'm coming across as a crazy person, blindly defending this film...which is not to be the case, it had its flaws. However, where you apparently chose to be angry, I felt devastation that instances such as this have happened, happen today, and will continue to happen in our world. Saying everyone, real or written, was too stupid to watch just struck a nerve with me considering the amount of psychological study that has shown without a doubt the filmed one more common scenario than the one that has caused people to curse and walk out of the theater.

Take a minute to think, after being so angry cause it would never happen to you, what a shame and sad state of affairs it is that it will now happen to 2 out of the next 3 people that came after you...

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

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:57 pm

Bog wrote:
Mister Tee wrote: And I felt somewhat the same about Dowd in Compliance: she carried herself with conviction, but the film before very long required its characters to behave like such uncurious morons that i lost all patience with it)


Tee, not to derail this thread as Dowd failed a nomination, but Zobel did his research as nearly the entire film is word for word from a specific incident from a McDonald's in Kentucky. All the way up until the final "Dateline" scene it rang true to life's actual events. Whether or not they were all uncurious morons I won't fight you, but it also happened upwards of 80 some times around that same timeframe. It is hard to fathom, but as the writer/director took almost zero liberties with regard to the proceedings, up to and including the penultimate eye rolling act near the end, it's hard to dismiss I such a way, in my humble opinion.


This to me is just further proof of the old adage that Life is no artist. The fact that there actually are people dumb enough to go so far with something like this -- without, say, after 15 minutes asking to speak to that supervisor the guy allegedly had on the other line -- doesn't mean I'm interested in watching them, any more than I'd care to watch Darwin Award winners enact their idiocies. This was not presented as documentary to me, it was presented as a fiction film, and I found it impossible to be engaged after a while since my ability to empathize with the characters was zero.

This is not to take away from Ann Dowd's worth as an actress; I hope the level of recognition she's got from this, even without a nomination, opens up stronger roles for her, ones for which she'd be more likely to get Academy notice.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15729
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:59 pm

Not saying I agree, but Dowd can be deemed supporting if you consider the film an ensemble piece in which all the actors support all the others. She is off the screen for large chunks including the infamous rape scene. She's no more category fraud than Christoph Waltz or Helen Hunt this year, two more of whom could be considered either lead or support.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4203
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby The Original BJ » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:22 pm

I liked Ann Dowd's performance, and definitely think she's the kind of long-time working actress I'd like to see honored...but isn't her part AWFULLY big to be considered support? I'm genuinely interested in arguments from people who think her awards attention came in the correct category.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5830
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby flipp525 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:23 am

Isn't Anne Hathaway going to star in some Judy Garland biopic (Get Happy)? I see that as a much more appropriate place to honor her with an Oscar. She isn't a supporting actress and never has been (except in, I guess, Brokeback Mountain).

I also find it interesting that Jacki Weaver is automatically being cast aside from consideration for not having some big "Give me an Oscar!" scene, as if that's now necessary in order to win one. She gives a near silent film performance in Silver Linings Playbook in that she's reactive to those around her and expressive through body language and her eyes. It's a classic supporting performance (almost a throwback to another era, really) and I find it rather refreshing that she was honored this year.

Ann Dowd, of course, deserved a place in this lineup. Her character is stupid, but it's based on a real person who was that stupid in real life. The entire movie is triggered and fueled by bad decisions and Dowd's character's desire to please male authority figures and men in general. I find it a more authentic performance than anything Anne Hathaway is doing in Les Miz. The much-touted "I Dreamed a Dream" moment is, without a doubt, a showstopper, but it also practically begs for an Oscar. Grovels for one, in fact, in an almost grotesque fashion.
Last edited by flipp525 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:05 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2609
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Okri » Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:00 pm

[Sally Field] would be going an unprecedented 3-for-3 by winning, has to work against her with people (including myself) who "like" her, but don't remotely put her in the class of those deserving three Oscars.


Walter Brennan had three wins with his first three nominations.

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Bog » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:23 pm

Mister Tee wrote: And I felt somewhat the same about Dowd in Compliance: she carried herself with conviction, but the film before very long required its characters to behave like such uncurious morons that i lost all patience with it)


Tee, not to derail this thread as Dowd failed a nomination, but Zobel did his research as nearly the entire film is word for word from a specific incident from a McDonald's in Kentucky. All the way up until the final "Dateline" scene it rang true to life's actual events. Whether or not they were all uncurious morons I won't fight you, but it also happened upwards of 80 some times around that same timeframe. It is hard to fathom, but as the writer/director took almost zero liberties with regard to the proceedings, up to and including the penultimate eye rolling act near the end, it's hard to dismiss I such a way, in my humble opinion.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15729
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:17 pm

I haven't heard anything negative about Anne Hathaway aside from people's reactions to her lame acceptance speeches, unlike Lauren Bacall whose negative reputation spanned decade. However, Bacall was expected to win for stealing the film from Babs Streisand and Jeff Bridges, both of whom were pretty bad. In the end, though, I suspect not too many felt comfortable voting for anyone connected with that horrid film.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

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

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Greg » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:25 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:I bet a friend of mine money that Hathaway would make some crack about how things sure are going a lot better than the last time she was on this stage.

Her reputation in Hollywood is hideous, by the way.

Since I know you're not an idle gossip, I take this seriously, and wonder if it's some of the subtext to the fairly widespread "Man, her speeches suck" feeling. And this underlines a sense I've had for some time, that Hathaway could be Lauren Bacall -- from all appearances unbeatable, but once she lost people were quick to say "No surprise; everyone hates her". (Of course, I had a similar feeling about Renee Zellweger's run in '03, and she carried the day)


Wasn't the consensus that Bacall would win a career award and not really for her performance in The Mirror Has Two Faces? I suspect personal feelings would more likely derail a career award than one that is actually based on the perrformance.
"Wall Street is not the solution to our problem. Wall Street is the problem!"

Ronald Reagan, corrected

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3453
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:48 pm

flipp525 wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Amy Adams is the weakest of the nominees from The Master. Only a win for Joaquin Phoenix, which isn't happening and/or a win from Phuip Seymour Hoffman, which is also unlikely, would help her. I really don't see this as her year.

Which is a shame because I think it's easily Adams' best nominated performance since Junebug. And maybe even better (I'd have to watch them both again.) She's very much becoming the new Thelma Ritter or Glenn Close, isn't she?


I see her a little more like a new Susan Sarandon. Her range in the nominated performances is pretty staggering, as each of those characters are so completely different than the others. None of her nominations have been riding on the coattails of a movie, she just has the bad luck to keep running into tough competition...other people who are seen as more due, or stronger nominees from the same movie, or nominations for movies the Academy doesn't really like. She just needs that right role in the right movie to squeeze by.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

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

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:02 pm

The Original BJ wrote:I bet a friend of mine money that Hathaway would make some crack about how things sure are going a lot better than the last time she was on this stage.

Her reputation in Hollywood is hideous, by the way.

Since I know you're not an idle gossip, I take this seriously, and wonder if it's some of the subtext to the fairly widespread "Man, her speeches suck" feeling. And this underlines a sense I've had for some time, that Hathaway could be Lauren Bacall -- from all appearances unbeatable, but once she lost people were quick to say "No surprise; everyone hates her". (Of course, I had a similar feeling about Renee Zellweger's run in '03, and she carried the day)

I went back and checked the 1987 Tonys, and, son of a gun, the role of Fantine didn't even get a nomination, despite being played by the estimable Randy Graff (a Tony winner only a few years later). Eponine was your winner, Cosette a co-nominee, so it's not as if the show was ignored. What transformed the role into an Oscar slam-dunk -- the long close-up, or a year's worth of pre-campaign from fanboys?

The advantage Hathaway has, that makes her the sensible bet despite qualms, is a hobbled competition -- not hobbled in the sense of being untalented (I'd rate three of the nominees above her), but of being poorly positioned circumstantially.

I'm fine with Jacki Weaver being nominated (especially if she prevented the Marigold dreck from scoring a nod). She's a lively presence who, like most of the actors in Silver Linings, creates a vivid background. But she mostly remains background, without a big moment, and wouldn't be a deserving winner.

(To briefly note excluded possibilities: Nicole Kidman did indeed rise above the rest of The Paperboy -- she defied the bromide that one can't lie down with dogs and not come up with fleas -- but the movie was so hideous I can't imagine voters would ever have gone for it. And I felt somewhat the same about Dowd in Compliance: she carried herself with conviction, but the film before very long required its characters to behave like such uncurious morons that i lost all patience with it)

Two of our nominees are of course unlikely to win because they've already been, in the eyes of many, over-rewarded in the past. Helen Hunt is pretty wonderful in The Sessions, but her previous win has been the subject of so much derision over the years that for her, like Marisa Tomei in '01, simply being nominated again is as much a career victory as she could expect (esp. given the omission of Hawkes and the screenplay from competition, something I find hard to grasp).

If Sally Field had only won once prior, I'd think she'd be an upset possibility (well, theoretically she IS an upset possibility, but I mean a serious one). Her Mary Todd Lincoln is something of an uneven performance, but has its definite high points. I'd think there are people in the voting pool who'd enjoy the idea of saluting a comeback after such a long absence (not to turn this gooey, but the night Field won for Places in the Heart was the first Oscars I watched with my wife, so I know that's a LONG time ago). But the fact that Field is already 2-for-2, and would be going an unprecedented 3-for-3 by winning, has to work against her with people (including myself) who "like" her, but don't remotely put her in the class of those deserving three Oscars.

Amy Adams is clearly the one best positioned to challenge, based on her rapidly accumulated career points, and her solid role. No, she's not as much a standout as Phoenix or Hoffman, but that's simply due to the size/dominance of the part -- in the same way, Jason Robards wasn't as much a knockout as Jane Fonda in Julia, but within his own category he was plenty good enough. As I was watching The Master (finally, this past weekend) I was noting one potential Oscar clip after another for Adams; every time she swoops in, she takes command -- and once again she displays how much range she has beyond the Princess roles we initially thought her forte. Her problem, of course, is that The Master is the opposite of a beloved film, even among many PTA fans. I found the movie mesmerizing to watch -- as usual, you could get drunk on the images, and most individual scenes were exceedingly well written. But I have to side with Sabin/Sonic, that the whole didn't match the sum of parts...that, when I got to the end, I didn't feel like enough had registered for me to feel like I'd gone somewhere coherent (I had the sense Anderson had not really worked it out yet in his head). Given all the film's virtues, I'm happy to praise it regardless, but I can understand why a more average filmgoer -- which describes significant portions of the Academy -- would react against it. And Cate Blanchett's loss for I'm Not There, among others, tells us if voters don't respond to a film, they're not giving it a major Oscar. So, despite Adams' seeming ripeness for honoring, it's most likely the Academy will pass over her one more time.

Which brings us back to Anne Hathaway. You've got to pick her (and even if there's an upset, it won't hurt you in the Oscar pool, because everyone else'll be picking her, too). But maybe don't leave the room when the award's being presented, because there's just the slim chance personality factors will intrude and cause a wild surprise.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5830
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby flipp525 » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:54 am

Big Magilla wrote:Amy Adams is the weakest of the nominees from The Master. Only a win for Joaquin Phoenix, which isn't happening and/or a win from Phuip Seymour Hoffman, which is also unlikely, would help her. I really don't see this as her year.

Which is a shame because I think it's easily Adams' best nominated performance since Junebug. And maybe even better (I'd have to watch them both again.) She's very much becoming the new Thelma Ritter or Glenn Close, isn't she?

I see this as a pretty easy win for Anne Hathaway, but something tells me that Sally Field cannot be counted out. Can you just imagine the look on Hathaway's face if that were to happen? And as BJ pointed out, Hathaway's reputation in Hollywood right now is quite low. That should be taken into consideration.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15729
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:08 am

Amy Adams is the weakest of the nominees from The Master. Only a win for Joaquin Phoenix, which isn't happening and/or a win from Phuip Seymour Hoffman, which is also unlikely, would help her. I really don't see this as her year.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

rudeboy
Adjunct
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby rudeboy » Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:13 am

This is perhaps the one utterly set-in-stone big win of the night. I honestly see virtually no hope of an upset. Which is a shame - Hathaway does make a stunning impression with 'I Dreamed a Dream' but remove that song from her performance and there's nothing left which could be called remotely worthy of consideration.

Field has been mentioned as the only potential upset - however unlikely that would appear to be - but couldn't a pocket of support for The Master - and her pretty incredible track record of nominations in recent years - put Amy Adams over the top? I haven't seen either performance but if Hathaway was to lose, I could only imagine that it would be to one of them rather than to Hunt (who is wonderful in The Sessions) or Weaver (who struggled gamely but barely made an impression).

HarryGoldfarb
Assistant
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress

Postby HarryGoldfarb » Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:52 am

Big Magilla wrote:If only Maggie Smith had been nominated. :wink:


LOL

By the way, Smith could not join the (special, exclusive) group in 2001 even though she would have been a more deserving winner than Connelly and probably the most deserving of that honor from actors currently working. However, Field has a lot of charisma,and that, sometimes, is more important than a consistent career. In fact, Field's persona could be more likeable than those of Hathaway and Smith, so an eventual upset wouldn't be hard to explain.
If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime.
- Jack Kerouac


Return to “85th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest