By all means I am no Oscar pundit at all. I just happen to take an interest in it and sometimes have an opinion or a special angle in seeing it (then again, who doesn't?). I read what the true pundits write, and collectively form my own ways of looking at it. Don't expect me to write a full on coverage of the event like I'm the Oscar expert now when in fact I am far from it. I was often so wrong in my predictions. I played safe and it often made me wrong (remember Emma Thompson for Saving Mr. Banks?) because once in a while there were surprises, but when I predicted some surprises they usually weren't the surprises that actually happened.
So, let's get a different way that allows me to still write about it. I am a Business Analyst, I am good at (or at least I hope I am, that's my livelihood for God's sake) analyzing past data and trends so I'm going to do an article that compare this year's contenders to someone in the Oscar history. Perhaps by doing so I can see a clearer picture of who will get in and who will not?
The reason I start with the race of Best Actress is actually because it is the category that inspires me to do this. At this moment it seems like it is down to these six women, so someone has to be out. I read somewhere (I didn't save the link, thus not able to verify the source anymore) that Reese Witherspoon, once thought to be a shoo-in for nomination or even a threat to win, is no longer safe for a nomination now due to a shaky critics' groups journey. True, she still has the three that really matters (Critics' Choice or formerly known as BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG), but then again so did Emma Thompson earlier this year. However, in the case of Reese Witherspoon I think she's safe. I believe she'll get in the final five. The combination of her and Julianne Moore (shoo-in for nomination, in the lead for the eventual win) reminds me of a pair of last year's contenders -- Cate Blanchett and Sandra Bullock. That's how this article started.
Reese Witherspoon - Wild vs. Sandra Bullock - Gravity
Hear me on this: In the rush to award Cate Blanchett for her brilliant portrayal of Jasmine, Sandra Bullock did not actually win a lot of Best Actress trophies from the 100 or so critics' groups (it seems every state in America has one, some even two) for her work in Gravity. Some groups came with 5 shortlisted contenders then yes she was among them but usually she did not win eventually. If you scout through the Wiki page "Accolades received by the film Gravity" you will see she only won in North Texas, Houston and Kansas. But we never doubted for a moment that she won't make it to the final five at the Oscars. We shifted the position of Judi Dench, Emma Thompson, Amy Adams and Meryl Streep up and down but Cate and Sandra were always the top two.
Both films are almost entirely a one-woman show, undeniably adding points to their already impressive performances. When you carry a film like this, it's hard to ignore.
True, the movie Sandra Bullock starred in was so adored by the critics and the public that it helped her case. Wild, on the other hand, is unlikely to score big in other categories and the movie itself has been going low profile for a while. But not to worry, there is another similarity between Sandra Bullock and Reese Witherspoon that makes the latter still a safe bet: the likability star power of a past winner. Both had gone through the America's sweetheart phase, Reese Witherspoon has transformed herself into a believable dramatic actress and even added in the role of a producer in her resume.When you say she's low profile nowadays, yet her "low profile" is still relatively higher profile than other actresses. She never really left the spotlight since her movie premiered. She might not win the prize but I think she has no difficulty getting into the race.
Julianne Moore - Still Alice vs. Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine
When you lead a race for so long, people feel bored and start making up stories and theories of how "you might be defeated" or "it's no sure thing you will win yet". Somewhere last year when the whole Woody Allen scandal erupted, people actually thought it would hurt Queen Cate's chance of winning, or how a late surge of Amy Adams in a popular film could surprisingly toppled Ms. Blanchett. Both scenarios didn't happen.
This year, there are some concerns that Queen Julianne will probably not able to carry her victory all the way to the finish line, with a late surge of Jennifer Aniston (we'll come to her later). I tend to think these are the diehard Julianne Moore fans that refuse to believe something so good could have happened (because it is too good to be true that they are finally crowning Julianne Moore) that they have to say something (anything) to make it seems like a real race and not just a dream. I don't know, do you agree?
Both actresses (Cate and Julianne) never went through the rom-com queen or comedy-actress-turned-dramatic route. They were respectable dramatic actresses right from the start. Both had waited a long time for their crowns to arrive (Cate Blanchett won a Supporting Actress on the way, but we've come to learn that for a queen-size actress like her only Leading Actress really counts). The overdue factor is there (see also, Kate Winslet), and there might be no better chance to crown her in the near future if they miss this one (they missed once, with Far From Heaven), much like they missed Elizabeth and had to wait another 15 years to crown Cate Blanchett (FYI, I didn't begrudge Shakespeare in Love for winning Best Picture because I actually love the film, I just happen to think Cate was a better choice than Gwyn for Best Actress).
Both films are with the names of their characters in the title, and from how I see it this almost works like a biopic called Lincoln or Elizabeth. Both films are seen as star vehicles for the actresses to showcase their acting and both feature physical / mental illness to highlight their incredible range. Though not winning as many critics' groups as Cate already had at this point of the race last year, Julianne Moore has collected Chicago, Los Angeles (she was the runner-up but the winner was Patricia Arquette which will be nominated in the supporting race), San Francisco, Washington D.C. and National Board of Review (unfortunately NBR has not been aligned with Academy Awards since Helen Mirren won for The Queen, but that's another story). Julianne Moore will surely be nominated, and now her team should focus on getting her the win.
Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl vs. Kate Winslet - Little Children
According to Wikipedia, Rosamund Pike has won even more critics' groups than Julianne Moore. She has Austin, Detroit, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, Phoenix, St. Louis Gateway, Utah, and Online Film Critics, on top of landing in the BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG. She is most certainly landing a spot in the final five of the Oscars, but she's unlikely to win this year yet. Why? For one, AMPAS never really cared much for the critics' groups (so what if Gabourey Sidibe and Carey Mulligan won most of the critics' groups in 2009? They never really had a shot at winning the Oscars). And Academy Awards are not all just about the performance but a combination of performance, timing and popularity. In all three cases, they have a better choice this year (performance = Julianne, timing = Julianne, popularity = Resse). Rosamund Pike finds herself placed in the middle of every aspect, and being in the middle is even worse than being at the bottom. Either nobody notices you or everyone takes you for granted.
The comparison of Rosamund Pike to Kate Winslet is not based on the accolades they both received. Because Little Children was released in the same year as The Queen, Kate Winslet was not awarded with many Best Actress trophies. No, the comparison has more to do with the movie itself. Both films were adapted from acclaimed novels, and had some early award prospect going in the award season only to be reduced to mostly acting and screenplay categories. Nominated beside Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep (in a role so different from her previous thus creating lots of buzz), Kate Winslet never stood a chance at winning although they realized she was overdue (but Helen Mirren was also overdue).
Rosamund Pike will be nominated, no doubt about it. But if you search online, people are actually discussing about either Jennifer Aniston or Reese Witherspoon will topple Julianne Moore, and there are some very rabid Marion Cotillard's fans who would never give up on her. Not much people actually lauded for Rosamund Pike to win. Give her some time to build up the body of work, she will win. Just not for Gone Girl.
Felicity Jones - The Theory of Everything vs. Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
I tried to prioritize the most recent years for the comparison, yet to demonstrate my point for Felicity Jones I have to look all the way back to 1995 (which was the first year I started to pay attention to the Oscars). Internet was not as common as today, and I didn't actually start paying attention until the award ceremony so I am not entirely sure of all the stories behind the nomination that year. I can only guess. The thing with 1995 is that there weren't a lot of critics' groups yet, so precursors were so much simpler back then.
Why I chose Elisabeth Shue for Felicity Jones is because I suspected a big factor behind Elisabeth Shue's nomination was because the award prospect of Nicolas Cage was so strong in a two-lead film he played a big role in helping Elisabeth Shue in her race. It might be unfair to say so and she did in fact give a terrific performance in Leaving Las Vegas, but I think without Nicolas Cage it would be a much bigger challenge for her to make it to the shortlisted five on her own.
Now imagine Eddie Redmayne did a terrible job as Stephen Hawking and screwed up the possibility of him getting nominated. In a biopic about Stephen Hawking and his relationship with his wife, do you think they will nominate her alone? When it comes to judging the quality of a performance it is highly interactive. Even if she performs brilliantly most people will still deduct points from her partner thus affecting the overall credit she deserves. Looking at the list of nominations she collected so far, she did not make it to any of them without Eddie Redmayne in the mix of Best Actor shortlist. What does it mean in terms of her chance? I think she stands a solid chance as the shortlisted five, as Eddie Redmayne is a shoo-in in his category, and she did make it to all BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG (they both are), but like Rosamund Pike, she's stuck in the middle and Eddie Redmayne is more likely to emerge as the winner.
Footnote: I toyed with the idea of picking Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) or Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line). But in both cases they actually won and their leading man did not which is the reverse of Felicity's situation. I do not think Felicity Jones will win. For Jennifer Lawrence, she was even the more prominent precursors winner than Bradley Cooper, as the latter's category was unfortunately too competitive for him to gain more traction.
Jennifer Aniston - Cake vs. Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
So Jennifer Aniston seemingly appeared out of nowhere at the last minute of the award season to claim the nominations in all BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG without any mention by the critics so far. Sound familiar? That's probably because Sandra Bullock went through a similar route and emerged as a front runner at the very last minute after most of the critics' groups were done giving prizes. Both actresses were coming from an America's sweetheart image and successfully transitioned themselves into dramatic roles. People like this kind of story (see also: Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon in their winning years) so when people thought Jennifer Aniston is a threat to Julianne Moore they were probably looking at it from this angle.
But I would also like to point out the differences in these two. Sandra Bullock was having one very good year. She had a huge success in the summer with The Proposal, and The Blind Side opened big and became a very popular and successful family film at the end of the year. She even had a very unique narrative angle in the award season as the only actress to win both Razzies (for All About Steve) and Oscars in the same year. And when she hilariously showed up at the Razzies to accept her trophy it only added on to her likability.
So what does Jennifer Aniston have? Besides Cake that is not shown to public yet, she has a little seen indie (Life of Crime) and a forgettable supporting role in a not-so-well-received sequel (Horrible Bosses 2). Her movie star power and likability are no equal to Sandra Bullock, and many still think of her as that TV star from Friends who stars in films now. Not many will be as lucky as Helen Hunt.
Marion Cotillard - Two Days, One Night vs. Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole
Marion Cotillard had been missing from the Oscars since her win in 2007. Since then, every time she made a film people speculated her chances at being nominated. In most of the roles she was actually good and every now and then she got the attention of a few award bodies. Even in movies like Inception and Nine she garnered some award talks. In Rust and Bone, she actually received quite a handful of precursor nominations and wins only to fall short come Oscar nomination. This year, she's back with a pair of films: The Immigrants and Two Days, One Night. There's no deny that critics' groups love to do the "win for this film, and also for that film" thing. It gave her the advantage in the critics' groups but not at the awards that need to choose only one performance. Luckily it soon became clear that Two Days, One Night is the one to stay. She quickly collected quite a number of critics awards like Boston (both of them), New York (both of them) and San Diego in addition to being nominated in a bunch of others. Unfortunately she was left out from the Golden Globe and SAG, and while she was nominated by BFCA, they have six nominees and all five others in this article were nominated as well. Nevertheless the number of precursor awards and nominations she grabs this year has been the highest since her Oscar win in 2007.
So why Nicole Kidman? After her win in 2002, Nicole Kidman had been consistently giving some award-worthy performances. She had some award heat with Dogville, Cold Mountain, Birth and Margot at the Wedding. None of those made it to the Oscars, until she received unanimous praise for her role as a grieving mother in Rabbit Hole. Unlike Marion Cotillard, she did not actually win a lot of precursors but her name was always in the shortlist. And she eventually got into the final five at the Oscars. I still think Marion Cotillard will be unfortunately shut out come nomination morning, but picking this Nicole Kidman's nominated performance for her is me sending my best wishes for her. I hope she gets in over Jennifer Aniston.
So yes, I predicted Moore, Witherspoon, Pike, Jones and Aniston to be the final five at the Oscars. They are all in the shortlist of BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG, and Oscars can be lazy and unimaginative sometimes. But once in a while there comes the Emma Thompson snub and the Quvenzhané Wallis surprise, so who knows if Cotillard or even Amy Adams or Hilary Swank will get the last spot.
No comments:
Post a Comment