Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
It’s been interesting to note that many of the conversations concerning the Oscar race that I’ve had with people lately revolves around category placement for a number of the year’s contenders. It was a topic Anne and I addressed directly in Friday’s Oscar Talk, in fact.
There tends to be dueling ideologies on this, as well as what makes a performance a lead and what makes it supporting. But purely from a marketing standpoint, it’s understandable that sometimes studios might play the landscape of the picture for an array of acting shots on goal rather than perhaps be true to the realities (that are, again, subjective) of the role within the narrative.
We mentioned the anticipated classification of Marion Cotillard and Vera Farmiga in the lead actress category for “Nine” and “Up in the Air” respectively in the podcast, but as Pete Hammond points out in a recent Notes on a Season item, the category musical chairs are taking place elsewhere, too.
“The Last Station,” Hammond reports, is being played by Sony Pictures Classics as a supporting vehicle for Christopher Plummer rather than a leading one. If so, smart move:
According to studio sources never-nominated veteran star Christopher Plummer is going in the supporting category for their December release, “The Last Station,” a movie in which he stars as Leo Tolstoy opposite Helen Mirren as his wife. Mirren is being pitched for Lead Actress even though their actual screen time is similar. Is it a coincidence that there is perceived lesser competition in the Best Supporting Actor race this year, than the crowded Best Actor contest? Or that there seems to be less competition in Best Actress than in the logjam over at Supporting Actress? Crafty, those Sony Classics consultants are. Plus they were facing an added problem with another of their December releases, “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” in which Plummer plays the title role. In the same letter they are suggesting Plummer as Best Actor for that picture.
There’s that false perception of the lead actress race as “weak” again, but anyway, like I said, I think this is wise. I’ve been saying since day one that Plummer’s performance isn’t the grand slam, dominating leading turn that might be expected of a film in which he plays a character such as this. And that could hurt the perception of an otherwise fine supporting performance as a result. Classifying the turn honestly might pay off.
Hammond also notes that James McAvoy will be relegated to lead, which is precisely where I think he should be. Actually landing a nomination is a different story.
Meryl Streep is mentioned in the Notes on a Season piece, very much in direct competition with herself with “It’s Complicated” and, of course, “Julie & Julia.” The suggestion is that her role in the latter could be pushed into a supporting campaign. That’s how I saw things at the start of the season, but she seems to have too much going for her there now.
All in all, it is indeed dizzying. There was even a rumor that Christoph Waltz would go lead for “Inglourious Basterds” (totally not happening). Tis the season of confusion…
65 responses so far
1 10-12-2009 at 8:00 pm
JAB said...
putting Farmiga as lead would make things interesting, with her and Cotillard out of the supporting battle there might be room for Laurent?
2 10-12-2009 at 8:15 pm
Marshall said...
I’m not too heartbroken about the apparent category shift of Plummer. Hopefully, it could make way for Renner to get nominated!
Plus, Plummer has never been nominated for an Oscar. Can you say “Hal Holbrook syndrome?”
3 10-12-2009 at 8:18 pm
Marshall said...
@ Kris – Do you see a potential double nomination for Streep if they choose to campaign her for Supporting for “Julie & Julia?” Or will the voters just say, “It’s Meryl Streep. Doesn’t she have enough of these nominations already? She’ll be fine with one.”
4 10-12-2009 at 8:21 pm
JAB said...
It’s Complicated doesn’t really seem like Oscar material
5 10-12-2009 at 8:25 pm
Marshall said...
People might say the same thing about “Tropic Thunder,” or “The Devil Wears Prada,” which got Meryl her 14th nomination.
6 10-12-2009 at 8:26 pm
Andrew R. said...
I don’t understand why supporting actress is being viewed as super crowded if indeed Cotillard and Farmiga are bumped to lead. That would leave
Mo’Nique
Julianne Moore
Penelope Cruz
Anna Kendrick
Judi Dench?
Rachel Weisz?
Susan Sarandon?
Kidman and Loren have too small/not showy enough parts, the only other feasible contender I can think of is Mariah Carey
I don’t see two films netting two supporting actress nods. And as much as I loved Melanie Laurent in Inglourious Basterds, that seems like a huge HUGE long shot to me.
7 10-12-2009 at 8:29 pm
Marshall said...
The only way I see Laurent getting nominated is if a huge wave of “Basterds” love comes (which is plausible). I think it would need BP and BD, possibly even BOS, to get her nommed.
8 10-12-2009 at 8:43 pm
"Julianstark" said...
Agree with Marshall about Inglourious Basterds… even though I think that Picture and Screenplay nominations are plausible and even likely, considering that we haven’t hit the precursors yet…
9 10-12-2009 at 8:56 pm
Aaron said...
WHEN did Vera Farmiga get pushed to leading actress? Does that make any sense? I haven’t seen the film, but what I’ve heard is that her and Anna Kendrick have almost identical screen time.
P.s. Melanie Laurent DESERVES a best supporting actress nomination. I will be disturbed if Mariah Carey gets in now. She was good in Precious, but in no way do I see Oscar!
10 10-12-2009 at 8:58 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Aaron: Haven’t written about it in detail and it may not stand for long but for now, due to reasons stated in that podcast, she’s planned for lead.
11 10-12-2009 at 9:01 pm
"Julianstark" said...
Not to get all cliche, but when does absolutely deserving something equal getting nominated???
Ironically, I’m gonna cite Inglourious Basterds: I prefer Brad Pitt to Christoph Waltz in the film, but Pitt has no buzz and Waltz has all of it, so Pitt isn’t in my predix, while Waltz is…
But I do agree agree with you that she would be a very deserving nominee. It just seems like too much of a longshot at the moment
12 10-12-2009 at 9:02 pm
Harmonica said...
Although I think the Christopher Plummer shift was really unexpected, it does help putting things in perspective. The Supporting Actor category is the weakest field right now, where only four actors seemed like total contenders (Waltz, Molina, Tucci and Damon). Now that fifth spot seems taken by Plummer. Not a shabby lineup, if you ask me.
And it also clears the way for a Lead Actor. Right now it seems people are starting to bet on Holbrook, but I think it would be great to see Renner nominated for his daring turn in “The Hurt Locker”. My predictions as of now:
ACTOR
Firth (A Single Man)
Clooney (Up in the Air)
Freeman (Invictus)
Day-Lewis (Nine)
Renner (The Hurt Locker)
ACTRESS
Mulligan (An Education)
Sibide (Precious)
Farmiga (Up in the Air)
Mirren (The Last Station)
Cornish (Bright Star)
SUPP. ACTOR
Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
Molina (An Education)
Plummer (The Last Station)
Damon (Invictus)
SUPP. ACTRESS
Cruz (Nine)
Moore (A Single Man)
Mo’nique (Precious)
Streep (Julie & Julia)
Kendrick (Up in the Air)
13 10-12-2009 at 9:30 pm
AmericanRequiem said...
I see basterds really gaining momentum in the coming months, its by far the most fun in the best picture category and the acting is fantastic all around. if 500 days of summer beats inglorious for an original screenplay nod ill be upset, and time will only prove that choice wrong. I think we might have a picture director screenplay and acting along with others in basterds, and i hope so
14 10-12-2009 at 9:33 pm
AmericanRequiem said...
ha if meryl gets two nominations this year, and they voters vote for both to avoid splitting, and she wins two, id laugh my ass off, and be fine with it, it would be a while until she got another nomination though
15 10-12-2009 at 10:13 pm
Marshall1 said...
Good list Harmonica!
16 10-12-2009 at 10:15 pm
"Julianstark" said...
Harmonica, your list for Supporting Actor matches mine exactly!
17 10-12-2009 at 11:09 pm
"Julianstark" said...
Speaking of category confusion, where are A Serious Man and Up in the Air being campaigned at the GGs? I would assume Musical/Comedy for both of them, but Awardscircuit has them both in the Drama field.
18 10-12-2009 at 11:33 pm
JAB said...
Isn’t Inglourious Basterds an adapted screenplay?
19 10-12-2009 at 11:42 pm
Ali E. said...
Inglourious Basterds is loosely based on an 1978 Italian movie, so I expect it to be considered adapted…
Meryl Streep may win Lead Actress with Julie & Julia, but would have no chance at winning with It’s Complicated. So that wouldn’t be a smart move…
20 10-13-2009 at 2:54 am
CCA said...
Don’t forget that the academy doesn’t always go with the campaigned categories… like last years best actress winner, Kate Winslet, which had been campaigned as supporting… So maybe they can nominate some of the performances discussed in this thread in another category (like Plummer in best actor, or Cotillard in best supporting actress)
21 10-13-2009 at 3:28 am
nanoush said...
people won’t vote for Plummer for supporting, they’ll vote for him as LEADING, same thing happened this year with Kate Winslet in THE READER.
22 10-13-2009 at 4:29 am
Andrew said...
I don’t think An Education and Bright Star will make it to the final because of their very limited releases. I would personally prefer Meryl Streep winning in the Lead category for Julie + Julia. The supporting category is already crowded and most people have bought the hype surrounding Precious so I think Mo’Nique will win that. Don’t see Helen Mirren being nominated either. Cotillard would be a surprise, I don’t really like her and I think her fanboys are totally blind about her capabilities. I don’t understand how some people expect that she will be nominated for her mediocre performance in Public Enemies. Same with Penelope Cruz in Broken Embraces.
23 10-13-2009 at 5:10 am
DHE said...
Has anyone actually seen Invictus? Not sure why there is so much Morgan Freeman love this time around, unless this pic is truly exceptional…
24 10-13-2009 at 5:51 am
nanoush said...
the trailer for INVICTUS should be released before October 31.
25 10-13-2009 at 6:55 am
TWC said...
One thing I just realized: if meryl is put in supporting for J&J, well the last time she was in supporting was the year of chicago when there were two supporting from rob marshall’s film, and one of those eventually winning (zeta-jones). Now I don’t know how strong her role in adaptation was, but if she does go supporting this year it could be a similiar showdown, because even though cruz did win last year, her role is the highlight….so we shall see!
26 10-13-2009 at 7:25 am
John said...
Grrrrr, the very talented James McAvoy is gonna get pushed out AGAIN.
Here I thought BSA could look like Waltz, Damon, Tucci, Molina, McAvoy.
Now, if Plummer goes BSA, then I highly doubt McAvoy would have a chance in Lead.
Grrrrr.
27 10-13-2009 at 7:28 am
John said...
On a related front, with Plummer, Mirren, McAvoy, Screenplay, technicals looking solid … anyone see a smallllll chance of ‘The Last Station’ making a Top 10 campaign?
It’s an acting movie (biggest branch). And the film went over very well at Telluride with audiences.
I know, no chance, right? haha.
28 10-13-2009 at 8:00 am
KBJr. said...
Kris, why doesn’t the Academy just adopt a minimum-maximum screen time rule for Lead and Supporting campaigns?
Wouldn’t this eliminate the ridiculous “strategies” from studios trying to maximize their awards potential? Every year it seems this debate goes on, and every year there are always a crop of nominees in the wrong categories…
29 10-13-2009 at 8:38 am
The Other James D. said...
That’s a good idea, KBJr.. It’s too…whack right now.
If McAvoy is as excellent as mentioned previously in this, and the Academy realizes they’ve overlooked him twice now, I think it’s possible TLS could get him the nom he deserves. It all depends on how the bigger candidates fare in the long-run.
I really don’t see Farmiga going lead in the end. Like Sarsgaard, I think they’ll both go to supporting because it makes their role seem stronger. If your performance is a big supporting role, it has a better chance than a smaller co-lead role.
Kris: What about Peter Sarsgaard? Which way does it look like the studio is leaning regarding him?
30 10-13-2009 at 9:42 am
Phil said...
I totally see this happening: Ronan being marketed for supporting. For whatever stupid reason, children get a free pass when it comes to category shifting. I will say this IF she gets nominated for “The Lovely Bones” I think it will be in the Supporting Actress category.
31 10-13-2009 at 9:46 am
"Julianstark" said...
I’m not sure what you mean “marketed for Supporting”… she’s already been confirmed as being campaigned as Lead, but I do agree that she could be demoted to Supporting
32 10-13-2009 at 10:26 am
mike said...
i hate the oscars.
33 10-13-2009 at 10:30 am
Rob said...
If Farmiga indeed gets pushed for lead, she will NOT be nominated.
34 10-13-2009 at 10:30 am
Rob said...
If Farmiga indeed gets pushed for lead, she will NOT be nominated. I think she was kind of a stretch for a supporting nom.
35 10-13-2009 at 10:38 am
billybil said...
AmericanRequim – from your mouth to the academy’s ears!!! Holy crap, that would be a hoot!!! 2 for 2 for Meryl this year!!! Yay!!!
36 10-13-2009 at 10:59 am
austin said...
mike: AGREED
37 10-13-2009 at 11:00 am
Ben M. said...
JAB and Ali,
back at Cannes QT stated that Inglorious Basterds was getting classified as an original screenplay, I believe it didn’t really take anything from the Italian film but the title.
38 10-13-2009 at 11:34 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Just curious, for those who hate the Oscars. What brought you to a website that focuses on the awards season?
39 10-13-2009 at 12:08 pm
markus said...
I think Streep will be marketed as lead & J&J and nominated in lead for J&J. Kris, don’t you agree?
40 10-13-2009 at 12:12 pm
"Julianstark" said...
She’ll probably go for both. And I wouldn’t worry about a vote split. She’ll score enough #1’s and #2’s (you can switch It’s Complicated and Julie and Julia around for those spots) to where she won’t cancel herself out. There’s enough overdue consensus for her to technically get in for both, but as by Oscar rules, she’ll only make it in for one
41 10-13-2009 at 12:25 pm
Jeff said...
Lots of good thoughts here, but one thing I’d like to see more on this website and the message boards is a more proper assessment or speculation on the race through the lens of what’s actually been seen. Will “Invictus” or “Nine” be great? Could be. But who’s seen them? No one yet. Instead there should be more trumpeting of what is out there, is great and is worthy of talk, like “The Hurt Locker” and Jeremy Renner. I’m glad to see this site and its fans continue to exalt that brilliant war film. Same with “Ingourious Basterds.” And for my money, there should be more talk here about the splendid supporting peformance of Melanie Laurent in “Inglourious Basterds” as well as the deserved technical nominations for “Coraline”, specifically art direction, original score and costume design. I’d also put “Coraline” on the 10 for Best Picture too. For what it’s worth, “Coraline” had a Rotten Tomatoes critical rating of 88% vs. an 86% score for “A Serious Man.” It’s frustrating that there is so little talk about “Coraline” and only “Up” for the top prize. Don’t get me wrong, I loved “Up” and its RT rating was 97% – the highest of the year so far among Best Picture considerations. But “Coraline” should be considered a top contender too.
42 10-13-2009 at 12:33 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Jeff: I think we do a fine job of covering what happens as it happens. Not really sure what else we could do, actually. We predict here, which means you forecast. The Hurt Locker was covered rather extensively upon release and will be brought up more and more throughout the season, but to pretend certain films aren’t coming down the pike (and that those films don’t have buzz circling them) would be a real disservice, I think.
Also, if you think an animated film, however expert, will be nominated for art direction and/or costume design, I don’t think you fully understand what we do here.
By the way, it was reported here before anywhere else that Coraline would be getting a Best Picture campaign. We’re on it. But we’re also realistic.
43 10-13-2009 at 12:54 pm
Mike said...
Isn’t The Last Station about Leo Tolstoy? So shouldnt Plummer be in lead, not supporting? Also, I think that Merly could win in lead for It’s Complicated because the role seems much like Diane Keaton’s in Somethings Gotta Give. Had Charlize Theron not deservadly steamrolled the competition that year, I think that Keaton might have even won. I personally think the Cruuz has actually a good shot at winning in supporting for Nie, as it seems that a Mo’Nique backlash is starting and she seems to be a higlight. My personal pick would be Julianne Moore (so overdue).
44 10-13-2009 at 12:58 pm
The Other James D. said...
I’ve been thinking Cruz might winfor two reasons:
1) Supporting Actresses in musicals often win;
2) First consecutive S.Actress winner (occurred in evry other acting category already but this one).
45 10-13-2009 at 1:08 pm
"Julianstark" said...
Personal Supporting Actress opinion:
Mo’Nique is still the more likely frontrunner
But Julianne Moore could win for several reasons:
1. She is long overdue (even though people seemed/seem to like Winslet more, I can’t see the Academy letting her into a three-way tie with Deborah Kerr and Thelma Ritter for biggest Oscar loser ever, especially considering that at least two of her nominations were huge Oscar bait)
2. Mo’Nique is getting tons of backlash already for all of the “things she’s said” concerning Oscar campaigning
3. Mo’Nique’s new show
As for Penelope Cruz… I’d think she’d have a better shot if Broken Embraces/Los Abrazos Rotos was still a huge Actress contender. It’s lost a lot of steam to the newer, less famous actresses (Mulligan, Sidibe, etc.)
46 10-13-2009 at 1:19 pm
Jeff said...
I don’t disagree with the idea of speculating, Kris. It’s what drives this website and keeps us movie fans enraptured with Oscar sites like yours. The trouble is it’s conjecture. Especially since so much which is thrown around here, particularly on the message boards, tends to talk in absolutes. And at the end of it all, it’s all guessing.
Nonetheless, I do like your site a lot. And your contributors and the fans here too. I also applaud you for mentioning films like “The Hurt Locker” as much as you do. But here’s where I take umbrage. Who says that a movie like “Coraline” cannot be a possible contender in the art direction or costume design categories? And why not? Because it usually doesn’t happen? A movie like “Bright Star” or “Cheri” which are not hits but have a certain pedigree are better guesses than a cartoon? Maybe. And perhaps I’m naive to suggest that “Coraline” should be considered in those technical categories, but that doesn’t change the fact that it could be and maybe should be. Heck, I’d argue that you would be a better site if you realized that a site like yours does influence and frame the contenders competition. So why not talk about worthiness more than just good bets? Your list on the far right is so chock full of guesses it’s startling. You had Richard Kind in there for months. Not now. So why no “Coraline” when it’s a proven entity and has incredible art direction? Because a film like that usually is skipped over? Really. That’s the best you can defend with? If that were the case, Kevin Kline would have never been a possibility for an Oscar for “A Fish Called Wanda”, what with it being a silly genre picture and the type of film the Academy usually doesn’t recognize. But he did win. And the unusual does happen. So why not champion the art of the possible?
You think highly of “Coraline” and it’s look was amazing. The world it created was as stunning as anything in “Bright Star ” or “Cheri.” Why not use your intelligence and perception to help drive the conversation, rather than just guess it?
47 10-13-2009 at 1:21 pm
The Other James D. said...
Re: Moore–That wouldn’t happen just yet. If she gets in this year, that’s her fifth nom; Kerr/Ritter have 6 each.
48 10-13-2009 at 1:26 pm
"Julianstark" said...
Oops. Sorry. My bad. I’m still not sure if they’d wanna put her in that potential position though… of course, they did with Winslet and they seem to like her a lot more than Moore…
49 10-13-2009 at 2:07 pm
m1 said...
You guys are forgetting one more contender. Move Peter Sarsgaard to supporting! Is he even LEADING?
50 10-13-2009 at 2:29 pm
m1 said...
If they doubled the acting categories, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel could have a chance for (500)DoS.
51 10-13-2009 at 2:34 pm
The Other James D. said...
Actually, I didn’t, m1. Check #29 =).
52 10-13-2009 at 2:47 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Mike: No, the film isn’t about Tolstoy. It’s about McAvoy’s character. Much like Last King wasn’t about Idi Amin.
Jeff:
“Who says that a movie like “Coraline” cannot be a possible contender in the art direction or costume design categories?”
The Academy has been pretty clear with its actions. I have no problem thinking a film deserving in this field or that, but there are certain rhythms worth observing in the voting body at hand. It’s not speaking in absolutes, it’s making informed guesses. That’s what I do here, and have done for eight years. I don’t expect that to change now.
And yes, Bright Star and Cheri are MUCH better guesses than a “cartoon,” because it’s the respect commanded by the people behind the work that seems to be lost on you. Janet Patterson and/or Consolata Boyle with stand-out period work in modest films are indeed better bets than an animated hit in the same fields. It’s just not how the fields are perceived by those voting on these things.
You might think it all empty conjecture, but I’d say my approach (at least to this particular topic) is more realistic than what you’re putting forth. I’m not even sure a costume designer is credited on Coraline, because it would be part and parcel of the art direction (which is credited to Selick).
Finally, I have no interest in influencing the Oscar race so I certainly wouldn’t be making any moves to emboss any influence I might have. However, to reiterate, I think I talk about what’s worthy much more often than you’re giving me credit for. It makes me wonder if you’ve read me for long at all, because I frequently will spotlight what I think may be an under-the-radar contender or deserving possibility.
And I’m really not sure what’s so “startling” about a list of guesses. My record pretty much speaks for itself on getting “guesses” right.
Anyway, I think much of this seems to be owed to a misunderstanding on your part about what I do. I use the sidebar to predict how I expect the Oscar nominations to shake out. I won’t toss an arbitrary personal favorite into that list just because I think it deserving. I offer that kind of commentary in editorials posted on the site throughout the year. And I’m not concerned with swaying the vote because in my view, the process itself is somewhat corrupted and no better than the next — after all, awards are subjective nonsense at the end of the day in any case.
Hopefully that’s clear.
By the way, you may be surprised to learn that Kevin Kline was a pretty safe bet going into the Oscar ceremony in 1989……
53 10-13-2009 at 2:48 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
FYI, to those interested, it’s looking like Sarsgaard will be considered supporting.
54 10-13-2009 at 3:02 pm
The Other James D. said...
Yessss. Score.
Hopefully he can slide in now, with the category being as stark as it is.
And P.S.: Yeah, I don’t see how you think you can logically reason a plausibility for “Coraline” to get in for Costume Design, Jeff. I can’t imagine that branch giving a nom out for outfits that weren’t able to be seen in the typical way on a human.
55 10-15-2009 at 8:31 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
This is back up now, guys. There was a bit of verbiage that needed correcting in Pete’s story, apparently. Nothing worth discussing, but sorry to break up the conversation.
56 10-15-2009 at 1:38 pm
KBJr. said...
So I guess a minimum-maximum screen time rule for lead and supporting campaigns is out of the question, right?
57 10-15-2009 at 2:00 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Yeah I would say so. I don’t think screen time defines lead or supporting, though. I think the narrative does. So personally, I would be opposed. I imagine plenty of others would feel the same, but other than that, it would be an arbitrary stipulation in a rule set that is already rife with them.
58 10-16-2009 at 7:50 am
Andrew said...
People, you have to watch the movie before wanting someone to win an award. Yes, I am looking to Penelope Cruz’s fans. I’m liking more The Film Experience’s predictions, specially Actress and Supporting Actress: No Nine girls. Oscars are becoming so predictable. So, Rob Marshall makes a musical = Tons of Oscar noms. Hillary Swank plays a dyke = Oscar. Morgan Freeman plays the I-know-it-all type of character = Oscar nom.
Can we have some inspirational noms at least once? Like Joseph Gordon-Levitt for 500 Days of Summer or Maya Rudolph for Away We Go? Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker? Zooey Deschanel for 500 Days of Summer?
59 10-17-2009 at 3:38 pm
Gary of WEHO said...
No, it’s not complicated. Meryl Streep is this year’s Kate Winslet (The Reader, Rev Road). It works to her advantage– Meryl Streep is stronger for J& J though. Here is the thing, she is a sure winner now at the Oscars— Julie & Julia or It’s Complicated. Go Meryl!
60 10-17-2009 at 3:42 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Jeez, way to take a tongue-in-cheek headline seriously……
61 10-17-2009 at 5:50 pm
The Other James D. said...
Andrew: I agree. Renner and Gordon-Levitt are among two of my favorite performances this year. Renner is holding strong as my Best Actor winner, while JGL could get edged out (except in my awards, there are six acting categories, so he may be fine). Just wanted to say I like/dislike the same things as you.
Gary: Oh, here we go. Nothing is “sure”, dude. Winslet had pure Oscarbait: Holocaust, nudity, controversial role, de-glam, cougar (just for fun)–those first four, and in particular Holocaust + de-glam, are key essentials in Oscar favoritism throughout the years.
Streep, meanwhile, is in a biopic. But it’s a fluffy romantic comedy and that lightweight approach, no matter how slickly performed, is not a guarantee. Will she win the Golden Globe? Most certainly, barring Marion Cotillard winning for “Nine” (her only other contender in Musical/Comedy that I can forsee). But I still think Oscar voters will want to restrain themselves in anticipation of a juicier, more gut-wrenching role.
62 10-18-2009 at 9:20 am
Andrew said...
Thanks The Other James D. I agree with your comment, but I really do think that Streep will win for J+J.I would love to see her winning.
As for Gordon-Levitt and Renner, I’m not so sure if they will get noms. They definitely should but if the “professional predictors” are not even counting them in, I doubt it. Just look at this page’s predictions or any other. They just list performances that sound and look Oscary, not the ones that SHOULD BE nominated.
That’s sad. I mean, Morgan Freeman, the Nine girls, Daniel Day Lewis, that new Cohen Bros. movie, etc. will all be nominated but just because they sound Oscary and people buy the idea that they will be GOOD by default. Oscars are becoming such a boring thing to watch and even to think about.
George Clooney? UGH!
63 10-18-2009 at 11:58 am
m1 said...
@33-34: I agree with you on that. Farmiga and Anna Kendrick should be in the same category so they can secure locks without anyone else butting in. Peter Sarsgaard will probably get a supp. actor nom, but I think Abbie Cornish should make it for Bright Star. As for the Netflix hit State of Play, if there was an ensemble cast award, it could be a major contender.
64 10-18-2009 at 1:27 pm
The Other James D. said...
Haha, just because the professionals aren’t predicting it now doesn’t mean they won’t change post critics-awards, nor does it mean they are correct anyway. Their prognostications do not decide what the Oscar voters will do. How many people were REALLY predicting Melissa Leo or Richard Jenkins, like I was? Critics awards can change everything (for Renner; JGL has a Globe nom in his future, I think, but that is all).
I would not love to see Streep winning, so we’ll see what happens.
But relax, Andrew. This early, Invictus and Nine seem infallible for one reason only: They haven’t been seen by most people! Nothing is guaranteed a spot just because it sounds Oscary. If so, Cate Blanchett would’ve gotten in last year for TCCOBB. Or Clint Eastwood would’ve gotten some nom for being Eastwood. How did Terrence Howard, Amy Adams, Ryan Gosling, Laura Linney, Melissa Leo, and Richard Jenkins edge out larger names to get well-deserved nominations? Campaigns and due factors, among other things.
Snubs happen all the time, for various reasons. It’s more about who’s time it is to be nommed at the end of the day than who has the bigger name.
@m1: I hope Farmiga remains supporting, too. It is kinda “her time” for a nomination, ya know, and they’d be screwing her over by making her lead.
Hopefully, she and Sarsgaard get in. They deserve it, especially Sarsgaard for being snubbed in 2003 and 2004–or at least one of those two years.
65 10-19-2009 at 2:44 pm
Andrew said...
Thanks The Other James D. You really know how to back up your point without getting aggressive like most people do nowadays.
I really do hope that Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jeremy Renner get nominated next year. Same for Maya Rudolph, Zooey Deschanel, John Krasinski, etc.