Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
I’m getting so many mixed messages about “The Reader,” I don’t know what to make of it anymore. Some concrete reviews would help, but the embargo is obviously still in place. I admit I’m unfamiliar with the intricacies of the business, but I’m not sure how beneficial it is to withhold word on a late arrival with see-sawing buzz. (I think Nat Rogers summed it up well by giving the film a citation for “Weirdest Foreplay of 2008.”)
As we know, Kris wasn’t entirely persuaded by the film, dropping it from a couple of key categories on his chart, and declaring Kate Winslet an “outside shot” for Best Supporting Actress. Winslet, of course, is the film’s most-discussed contender, with many anticipating dual nominations for her come January.
Tom O’Neil was hearing opposing voices yesterday, and now Dave Karger has weighed in. Humming quite a different tune from Kris, he calls the film “a definite top-10 Best Picture contender,” and Winslet’s performance “amazing.” (Can anyone remember the last time Karger really disliked a contender? I’m just asking.)
He does, however, smell blatant category fraud, an issue Kris didn’t really have a problem with. But with the Weinsteins dodging lead categories entirely — campaigning both Winslet and co-star Lena Olin for Best Supporting Actress, and both and David Kross and Ralph Fiennes for Best Supporting Actor — Karger smells a rat:
Now, other movies, like Crash and Babel, have tried this tactic before with some success. But those two were indisputably ensemble films, whereas The Reader, which spans five decades, clearly has two main characters: one shared by Kross and Fiennes and the other played entirely by Winslet. Obviously, the all-supporting decision is meant to keep Winslet from competing against herself (she’s up for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road), but now that I’ve seen in print, it does seem a little disingenuous.
If the Weinstein Co. had placed Kross in the Best Actor category (he has much more screen time than Fiennes), there would have been at least one official lead to speak of. Still, if the Academy follows the campaign directives, it’ll turn out to be a smart move, since Winslet’s amazing performance in The Reader should be a sure thing for a supporting nomination.
I’ve mentioned before how much I dislike category fraud, particularly for prominent stars like Winslet, largely because it often comes at the expense of gifted below-the-line players who could really use the recognition. (From my own perspective, I’d rather see a slot go to a breakthrough supporting performer like, say, Hiam Abbass in “The Visitor,” than to a perennial nominee like Winslet, fine actress that she is.)
The Academy often falls for the ploy when a film has two leads — thus gifting supporting nods to the likes of Ethan Hawke in “Training Day” or Cate Blanchett in “Notes on a Scandal.” This year, some think Universal foolish for campaigning Michael Sheen in lead for “Frost/Nixon” against the flashier turn of Frank Langella, but I commend them for their honesty. A lead is a lead, no matter who plays the role, or how.
However, the actors’ branch is also capable of readjusting categories to their liking. Keisha Castle-Hughes (”Whale Rider”) and the then-unknown Susan Sarandon (”Atlantic City”) are two examples of actors who were campaigned for supporting awards, but were ultimately nominated in lead, where they truthfully belonged. To do so for Winslet in “The Reader,” meanwhile, would force them to make yet another choice.
Not having seen “The Reader,” I can’t offer an opinion on whether the accusations of category fraud are justified or not. But given that Winslet already seems comfortably on course for a Best Actress nod in “Revolutionary Road,” I can’t help but wonder whether she really needs the double-dip.
More to the point, does she actually want the double-dip? Strategically, I’m not sure it would be to her advantage. Many think Winslet could actually win in lead for “Revolutionary Road” — could an extra nomination pull vital votes away? Of course, several actors have been nominated in two categories before and won one, but that often comes when one of the wins is a foregone conclusion. Al Pacino and Holly Hunter, for example, both scored long-anticipated lead-category wins in 1992 and 1993 respectively; their simultaneous supporting nods were just gravy.
However, things can go wrong when an actors is nominated for two performances that are potential winners. If neither one is a clear slam-dunk, support can be damagingly split between them, resulting in the double defeats endured by Sigourney Weaver in 1988 and Julianne Moore in 2002. If Winslet is to receive the Oscar this year that so many believe she is due, one of her two performances needs to emerge as the stronger contender, and soon.
Ironically, I think Winslet may be a far greater threat if she is only nominated once, thereby potentially drawing support from fans of both films. The body-of-work factor arguably played a role in past victories for actors like Michael Douglas, whose campaign for “Wall Street” was aided by his presence in Best Picture nominee “Fatal Attraction,” and Jim Broadbent, who surely benefited from being seen to such contrasting effect in “Iris” and “Moulin Rouge!” the same year.
It doesn’t always work — strong unnominated work in “The Others” wasn’t enough to push Nicole Kidman’s “Moulin Rouge!” campaign over the top in 2001. However, with neither of Winslet’s performances drawing unanimous “frontrunner” declarations, and strong potential opposition in both categories, I think concentrating her campaign may be her best bet.
16 responses so far
1 11-27-2008 at 6:34 pm
Chris said...
Well, there surely aren’t many big names in contention for the Supporting Award and we only have to think of last year to realise that the Academy likes to reward big names even if their performance is dreadful. And since both of Winslet’s performances seem to be good, I don’t really see what should prevent her double nomination.
But then again I haven’t seen either film, so I’m not really the one to say anything yet.
2 11-27-2008 at 6:52 pm
Bing147 said...
I agree with Chris. Especially if some people really love her. Remember, you can’t vote against someone. 65% of the Academy can hate a performance and it can still win if the other 35% love it.
3 11-27-2008 at 7:26 pm
Casey said...
im really pullin for kate. i think she shouldve won a couple times already and i think shes the best actress of the generation.
4 11-27-2008 at 11:33 pm
MARK said...
i am really rooting for her to win this year and i think she will win,i always said that she n leo would win an oscar in the same year!!!!
5 11-28-2008 at 4:30 am
Rob said...
Really its true “the whole world is wondering, when is Winslet gonna get one ?”
6 11-28-2008 at 4:39 am
Rob said...
It’s all very interesting, because there are two supposidly great performances this year, so I hope it pans out well for two nominations. I think it probably will based on word on both the movies. Aside from Kris, the four or so other opinions have praised her highly.
I understood Kris’s view that the role was “difficult” in that the character is seen as cold and unrepentant – but this could well be one of those times when the actress transends the role.
Ian McKellan once said “parts win roles”, but this may be one of those occasions (and we all know they happen), when the actress wins in spite of the difficult (or cold) material.
The novel for me was a facinating insight into much wider issues than the two key characters, but I’m interested how Hanna will transfer to the screen. You feel her presence throughout the novel, but there isn’t massive amounts of dialogue – I guess there will be some fleshing out of the role.
I honestly think the key awards will be a battle between Winslet and Cruz or perhaps Henson if the Benny Button streamroller takes effect.
There seems to be a genuine warmth for Winslet in the acting community, and I sense a somewhat embarassed feeling about her never having won.
For Davis and maybe Tomai or DeWitt the nomination will be the reward.
7 11-28-2008 at 5:26 am
PJ said...
lol Winslet’s cameo in Extras comes to mind; her insistence that Holocaust films guarantee an Oscar may prove to be the case this year. And I don’t think her desperate longing for one was entirely fictional either.
As an aside, does Cate Blanchett last year qualify as having ‘gone broke’?
8 11-28-2008 at 5:44 am
Jim said...
This Winslet thing has become the puzzle of the Oscar race. Will she get 2 nominations? If she does, will that be the reason she gets no Oscar? Will the actors agree she is supporting in The Reader or will they put her against herself resulting in her not getting any nominations? For all we know, she could get from nothing to 2 nominations and a win. So I guess this year the Winlset fans (I’m one of them) will be more anxious than any other actor’s fans because whatever happens, it will not be predictable.
9 11-28-2008 at 6:04 am
Guy Lodge said...
PJ: Blanchett last year was in a slightly different situation, as she only had a shot (and a good one) in the supporting category — that lead nod for “The Golden Age” was a token extra. All the campaign energy was concentrated on “I’m Not There,” for which I maintain she was robbed.
Come to think of it, I think the “Golden Age” nod did damage her whole campaign, simply because it was such an unpopular nomination. (I still think she deserved it more than Jolie, though, but nobody will agree with me!)
And Winslet makes no secret of her desire for an Oscar — just check out this month’s Vanity Fair. (Choice quote: “Do I want an Oscar? You bet your fucking ass I do!”)
10 11-28-2008 at 7:18 am
Dan said...
Well, no offense to Kris, but his taste doesn’t usually agree with the Academy’s. He didn’t think she was going to get nominated for Eternal Sunshine.
11 11-28-2008 at 7:51 am
Rex said...
Guy, I totally agree with you.
First account, Cate was robbed for her performance in I’m Not There.
Second, Cate did infact earn that Best Actress nomination, her performance was amazing and far better than the others who were left off of the ballot.
When will people realize that just because the movie is bad doesn’t mean the performance of the actor is bad too? This is why there are two catagories: Best Picture – Best Actress.
12 11-28-2008 at 9:17 am
Rob said...
Jim – I’m not sure that scenario will arise – ie Winslet missing out all together.
I guess academy history suggests that typically well known actors make at least one nod, where there are 2 performances in the same or seperate catergories (Nicole Kidman – The Others and Moulin Rouge, Anthony Hopkins Shadowlands and The Remains of the Day, Jamie Foxx, Collateral and Ray, Blanchett in I’m Not There and Elizabeth II: Bearly Regal, Julianne Moore in The Hours and Far From Heaven)
In fact the only situation with blatent catergory farud was Scarlett Johannson, which cost her. Streep managed one nod in 2002.
Of course she could miss in the lead catergory, because its more crowded. But as Revolutionary Road has a strong shot at a BP nod, I think that’s unlikely.
I’d say the globes will start things and finally award her. That will set our trend for which catergory.
Winslet is well liked – and so two nods isn’t such a daft suggestion, when one considers that Supporting Actress is quite weak at the moment.
13 11-28-2008 at 9:21 am
Rob said...
And I don’t think there is anything strange with Kate wanting to win. She’s been to the party 5 times, and maybe she feels because she’s always so gracious and never overtly lusts after the Oscar – she misses out because people think she doesn’t care.
She’s setting the record straight. I doubt very much whether it motivates her choices.
I think most actors who are nominated and show up, actually WANT to win.
14 11-30-2008 at 3:18 am
alex said...
of course you want to win the Oscar
like a journalist wants to win the Pullitzer
15 11-30-2008 at 9:57 pm
head_wizard said...
If Revolutionary Road continues as it is and gets more secure for a best picture nod and no up coming best actress winner (unless Cate’s Benjamin Button reviews pan out) then I doubt that a double nod will hurt to much.