Well, technically her famed Miranda Priestley performance in The Devil Wears Prada only had one traditional "clip" scene also and were it not for Helen Mirren's awards steamroll in 2006, I'm guessing Streep would have actually taken the statue. Exactly how many times has Meryl been in the runner up position on Hollywood's High Holy Night? Four times, I think. Though it's highly debatable.in spite of its ghastly trailer, it was quite good, solid. in typical ephron/meyers/etc fashion, it's a bit too long for a film without much plot (exactly 2 hours), but it was pretty well paced, while rarely-to-never wading into unnecessary sentiment or cheap stupid humor
meryl's great (duh), but it's really more of a "fun" performance than anything substantive -- they throw her an extremely short "oscar clip" dramatic scene where she responds to her sister being pregnant, but almost everything else she has is fun/light/funny/enjoyable. that said, i'm sure she'll still get a nomination. i have no idea how they're going to campaign her when the time comes, but it's unquestionably a co-lead. Streep and Adams both evenly split the screen time, and if anything, Streep gets a bit more. Also the movie opens and closes with her, so it feels a bit more like "her" story
Oscar vote totals are never released but wasn't she probably runner up for:French Lieutenant's Woman (81), Adaptation (02), Prada (06) and Doubt
(08)? Maybe even Out of Africa (85) and Bridges... (95)
But back to my point: "fun/light" isn't really an Oscar detriment for Streep in the way it is for other performers. The campaign issues on the other hand might be. The current studio plan is a supporting campaign for Julia (presumably to avoid competiting with her lead role in the Untitled Nancy Meyers Project) but there is a very slim possibility that the drawn out Kate Winslet Rev Rd/Reader situation from last year may signal that the Academy is a little less willing than in years past to honor forced categorizations... even when the precursor voting blocks urge them to do so. Another possibility is that the studio will go for double leads or switch Adams to supporting once they have a better idea of their competition. We'll know when we know.
Oscar predictions updates on the way (working on them right now)
*
Posts
43 comments:
I dont know why, but I always thought that Julianne Moore was the 2nd for The Hours.
I think she was definitely the runner-up in 81, 02, 04, 08. I'd think she was runner-up in 83 for Silkwood (even though I'm on the Team Debra side of Terms of Endearment)
I always thought that Whoopi Goldberg and Sharon Stone (Golden Globe winner??? God...) were the runner-ups in 85 and 95.
Who do we think was the runner-up in 88? It seems like that was neck-and-neck between Jodie Foster and Sigourney Weaver, but I think 4/5 (Melanie Griffith being the exception) nominees could've won. I'm still sad Sigourney and Glenn Close don't have Oscars...
Alex... 95 is really confusing because on the one hand AMPAS really liked Leaving Las Vegas but Shue couldn't even win the Globe. And Meryl had all the early year heat and then Stone won the Globe. So I'm guessing whoever came in second to Sarandon was a very distant second.
Runner up in 88 was unquestionably Glenn Close for Dangerous Liaisons. I remember the news coverage at the time and many people thought it might be hers (to make up for Fatal Attraction and for general love for Liaisons)
Don't you think if Meryl Streep wins again then it'll be for Best Actress? I can't see and don't want her winning another Best Supporting Actress statue.
I am convinced that Meryl will not get nominated. I am certain that I will love this performance and just like the fact that her Performance in The Hours was my favourite of hers and she got no nomination (unfairly) I feel it will happen again this year.
I could barely live with her getting nominated for Doubt. It's scary to think she was the runner up, I absolutely hated her performance. Now she seems to be hamming it up even more.
I want 'The Bridges of Madison County' Meryl back.
agredd agent69 i dont know how that perf was nommed she did not "get it" everything seems thought out and planned her worst nomination ever after music of the heart
It's debatable whether Meryl was runner-up all those years. Definitely in '81 and '08, I'll give you those. But it's easy to confuse "runner-up" with "deserved to win".
In '06 she may very well have been, as she was the only other nominee to win anything at all (globe) but it could just as easily have been Dench (also overdue) or Cruz (the most traditionally moving, rangy and surprising perf of the bunch).
In '83 I bet she was. She was SOOO good in Silkwood. But maybe Debra Winger? We'll never know.
In '85 maybe, maybe not. Probably Whoopi.
'87 and '88, who knows.
'95, quite possibly. But then, Stone did have the globe, and Shue had critical love. Tough to say. I agree that whoever was runner-up was a very distant second, so as to almost make it a moot point (Sarandon was always going to win).
'02, I think it was Moore. But maybe. I think Streep and Moore, as overdue veterans with big years, canceled each other out. Tough to say which was closer.
But '81 and '08 definitely yes. In both years I bet it was quite close.
Man, that's a lot of years to almost win.
I kind of can't believe the studio's pushing supporting for her Julia. It sounds just like the Prada sitch but with even more support for a lead nod. Just goes to show you these things are all about craven opportunism. If she has a shot at lead for the Meyers film (or if Adams has a shot in lead), then there you go. Plus they probably figure she can win in supporting but not in lead (they're probably right). But I wouldn't be surprised if plans change and Meryl's bumped to lead. We'll see.
I definitely think she will get a nom this year - not sure for which role but she'll be there. Especially with what I've seen so far this year in terms of actresses. I know it's early but the field seems to be very rarefied.
I agree she was definately runner-up in '81, '02, '06 and '08.
'83 and '85 are other possibilities. But MacLaine had '83 in the bag so it really didn't matter. One would have thought Goldberg would have been ahead in '85 but comparing Out of Africa's performance on Oscar night to The Color Purple's, maybe not?
'95 didn't matter. I agree with Nathaniel that whoever was second was likely a distant second. Ditto for Bates in '90. (Though I fear it was probably Roberts in #2...how horrific that would have been!)
'87 and '88 were both Close. '98 was clearly Blanchett, '99 was definately Bening.
I'll have to agree with Agent69 and mrripley.
I'm not sure I'm ready for another "this is la Streep's year". Last year was so disappointing. I expected so much from Doubt. I didn't hate her performance though, it was more a WTF reaction. Right now after some time, I think I really hate the whole movie for its non-existent contribution to cinema and acting altogether. It could've have been made 30 years ago and nobody would have noticed the difference.
And Mamma Mia! was ... what can I say? Some people even wanted a double nomination for that, THAT!
So, maybe La Streep should be treated like any other one and wait to actually see her performances before taking for granted she'll be great. But, is that possible with Streep?
All right, because it's uber-fun:
78: Streep probably came in around third or fourth, with Stapleton (after multiple nominations) seeming most likely to be in second.
79: She won.
81: I think one could make the argument that Keaton was second place (she, like Streep, had just won), but with Globe, it was probably Streep.
82: She won.
83: She probably was another second place here, but really, I'd imagine Shirley cracked 60% of the vote in '83.
85: I think Streep was third-Whoopi makes the most sense for second.
87: Streep would be lucky if she didn't get last (and she was marvelous that year). Close was almost assuredly second (followed by Kirkland).
88: One of the strongest years ever, it's hard to imagine Close wasn't second again.
90: Postcards love wasn't strong in 90, so I'm thinking Julia was probably second.
95: Like in 83, Sarandon likely got 60% of the vote, so second place is a distant prize. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was any of the other four women.
98: Clearly Blanchett (followed by Montenegro)
99: Clearly Bening (followed by McTeer)
02: I think the argument could be made that it was Bates or Streep, but my hunch says that it was Meryl.
06: Fairly clearly Meryl.
08: Fairly clearly Meryl.
I wonder if this means that Meryl has the most second places of all-time. I kind of wonder, however, if the title could be shared with Richard Burton-it seems like he was likely second place at least four times.
Hi!!!
I have been waiting for Meryl's month and here I am! =)
Well, I don't know if Meryl was the runner-up in '81-'02-'06 and '08, but I really think that she deserved to win at least 3/4 times after her last Oscar: Silkwood, Out of Africa, The Hours, The Devil and I'd also say Bridges of Madison County and- why not- Doubt ( I really appreciated her performance).
In my opinion the next Oscar should be for a lead role... and I'm neither sure if Julia is the main character of the new movie or if the Untitled Nancy Meyers will be a kind of movie deserving a nomination...
So, I'm quite pessimistic about a chance for Meryl to win next year. I would like to, but come on... the Academy had demonstrated to be fond of a certain kind of roles... And I also would like Meryl to get her 3rd Oscar for a really deep performance (like that in Doubt was).
Besides... tha campaign fact... I don't know how much campaign are important in awards, but you remember... this year Meryl declared that she was against any sort of sponsorship campaign and actually she hasn't done! Not so Kate Winslet...
Anyway...everyone says that every time Meryl does a new film she automatically gets a nomination... But it's so unfair to see her losing every time...
I think in 2008 the runner-up could have been Hathaway... but oc course I'll never know...
It seem that the thing with Meryl losing so much is that every year she's great and/or nominated there's always somebody else either more deserving (Close -tough she didn't win) or more overdue (Winslet) or that is an ustoppable force of nature (Mirren)... And there where some years in wich she was the best of the bunch (83, 90) but I guess the Academy doesn't really have the urge to give her another Oscar since she has already won two and maybe they are just happy by making her the person with most nominations ever without ever passing the trophy count of Katherine Hepburn.
oookay, well anyone who is saying she didn't deserve to be nominated for Doubt is out of their mind, and she undoubtably was runner up, and should have won all of these years..
French Lieutenants Woman,
Silkwood, I'm sure she was runner up because it is ranked 73 on afis list of best performances of all time
Out of Africa, I think she was either runner up for a very close 3rd because she was great.
Ironweed, she was runner up because Cher was not even great in Moonstruck, Meryl was great in Ironweed and it was a daring performance.
*** A CRY IN THE DARK. she was absolutely the best actress that year, I do not care what anyone says, she was better than Jodie Foster, 100%. and that was almost as good a performance as Sophie's Choice, I dont care what anyone says. this should have been oscar #3.
BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY.! again, she was better than Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking, I saw both of them and Meryl was soo much better it makes me so angry. that was also the year Meryl should have won her 4th oscar.
One True Thing was another extremely well given performance, I'm not sure who won that year, but Meryl was great either way.
Adaptation.. In all honesty, she did't deserve to win in 2003, that was Catherine Zeta-Jones's Oscar. She was amazing in Chicago and she deserved it. Meryl was no question runner up because she won the Golden Globe, if she was nominated for The Hours that year then she most likely would have won, in lead.
The Devil Wears Prada was Meryl Streep's 5th Oscar. 100%, she was better than Helen Mirren too. and she gets ripped off everrryyy time.
DOUBT** It was Meryl's 6th Oscar now, and she was better then Kate Winslet in The Reader, don't get me wrong, I was fine with Winslet's win, I like her and I was happy she won.. until I saw The Reader. She didn't deserve it, 100% honesty.
AND SHE BETTER WIN THIS YEAR, FOR JULIE AND JULIA. AND SHE HAS TO WIN FOR LEAD, NOT SUPPORTING. THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS, MERYL STREEP IS NOT A "SUPPORTING" ACTRESS SHE IS LEAD AND COMMANDS THE SCREEN EVERYTIME SHE IS ON IT. SO ACADEMY PLLLEASE BE SMART. AND DON'T RIP MERYL OFF AGAIIINN. AND HEY, IF THEY WANNA GIVE HER LEAD FOR THE UNTITLED NANCY MEYERS PROJECT THEN GO FOR IT.. BUT SHE BETTER WIN. AND I WILL BE SO ANGRY IF SHE GETS SCREWED AGAINN.
To everyone saying Meryl should win Lead and not Supporting... I don't see the point, Supporting its not demeritable at all, if she gives an amazing performance in a supporting role (Adaptation, A Prairie Home Companion) she should win... after all its because of the acting not the category.
And Alyssa... I actually think Renée Zellweger was way better than Streep in One True Thing. She should've been nominated instead.
And as much as I love Meryl I don't think she would have deserved to win for Doubt (nor Winslet for that matter) but Hathaway or Leo... Sally Hawkins (snub) was also better and hell even Diane Lane in Nights in Rodhante.
But I agree that Meryl should have at least 4 Oscars (Sophie's Coiche, Silkwood, Postcards from the Edge and The Devil Wears Prada -I don't like her that much in Kramer-).
I completley agree with you, Nathaniel. Meryl's specific niche in the film industry allows her light, comical work to still be appreciated basically as much as her dramatic work. Then again, maybe Oscar voters are like me, and find her brighter, sunnier work so endlessly enjoyable they can't resist.
I must reiterate (feeling bossy sorry) that ABSOLUTELY no one... including Meryl was in second place in 1987 and 1988 if their name wasn't GLENN CLOSE. I lived through it and those years were all about her. I'm convinced she lost narrowly both times. And she was PISSED in 1987*
*Or so some say...
Yeah totally agree that she was placed 2nd in 81, 02 and 08.
85 she had to have pulled less votes than Whoopi, surely.
06 she must've been 3rd - just behind Dench and a long way behind Mirren.
P.S. I LOVED her in Doubt. I think it's one of her best nominated performances. Ever. I really do. (And I'm not saying this just to be contrary.) Ah, her voice!
Does this make me a heathen round these parts?
Also - when did we decide she was going supporting for Julie & Julia? I thought the last word (just after the collective Best Actress predictions) was that she's leading for this one...
I second the person who said she ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT win another supporting Oscar. It's bad enough that she's won one of those already. 15 career noms - only 3 of those in supporting - and she had to convert one of those into gold? Agh!
It's like when I think that Judi Dench and Vanessa Redgrave (both with 6 career noms - 4 in lead, 2 in supporting) won theirs for supporting too. Wrong. It nearly happened to poor old Kate Winslet too this year, before crisis was averted on nominations announcement morning. Surely I wasn't the only one thinking she just cannot win a supporting statue?
Add to that: Renee Zellweger and Cate Blanchett. Wrong. True Leading ladies deserve leading Oscars. They should've waited longer to give Z and B their Oscars - and given them to Shohreh Aghdashloo and Virginia Madsen in their place.
Leave the supporting categories for the character actors, rising starlets and, ahem, American Idol contestants.
Oh c'mon... Meryl Streep alongside Julianne Moore, Michelle Pfeiffer, Glenn Close, Sigourney Weaver and a few others are amazing actresses that can very well lead a film and also give extraordinary supporting performances.
So if they give an amazing truly Oscar deserving performance in a supporting role why make them wait for the win. An actress is an actress wheter they lead or support a film and Meyl is great in doing both.
I know her name is Meryl Streep, but can you imagine supporting, comedic performance winning leading Oscar over Dench's work in "Notes on a Scandal"? It would be like Heath Ledger beating Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn this year in leading category (ummm... this actually might have happened... never mind). I love the performance, but I think that even Penelope Cruz got more votes, and Dench was the runner-up, definitely.
Nat ~ I'll agree with you about 1987. That was Close's to lose. How Cher won, you'd know better than I.
However, in 1988, I remember specifically a cartoon in USA Today, the Friday before the Oscars that had Close and Streep battling over the Oscar. It was only one cartoon, I know. Perhaps the assumption was Close was going to win, and Streep had an outside shot of taking it away from her (if anyone). But things played out quite differently.
But, I agree with you about the "make-up" Oscar theory.
Also, where was the Golden Globe love for Dangerous Liaisons?
A Cry in the Dark has to be one of the greatest performances of all time.
There was a 3 way tie at the Golden Globes with MacLaine, Weaver and Foster. They snubbed Meryl and Christine Lahti. But what do you expect from the Golden Globes?
My guess is she came in second for the French Lt Woman/Silkwood/ Out of Africa/Bridges/Adaptation/Prada/ Doubt.
It is a crime that Hilary Swank has two best actress Oscars and Meryl has only one best actress and one best supporting.
Listen, Streep will win her third Oscar someday, could be this year or not, BUT it may very well be for something less deserving. Remember, Hepburn was passed over for some of her best dramatic work and then won for the fluffy lack luster performance in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. So don't necessarily expecther to win for a hardcore dramatic role. Everyone knows Streep can do heavy drama like no one else, but like the other poster stated, her lighter work is more refreshing and enthralling.
The more time increases between her previous win and the present, the more likelier she was runner-up. The best arguments can be made for 06 (though I loved Dench) and 08. They were both hits and much of their success could be attributed to her strong portrayals.
83's TOE xoxo ballot-splitting surely worked in her favor, especially only a year after winning.
Otherwise, the other years, there was a clear 2nd place or an incredibly ambiguous playing field.
87 she was definitely 4th or even 5th. I don't know how much the academy loved Sara Kirkland, but Streep didn't even get a GG nomination.
okay, 81, she was probably runner-up too.
And Anon's 88 comment made me laugh. Now, THERE is a situation where losing is really losing: when there are more winners on stage than in the audience ...
Wow! So much Streep information... First Streep viewing was seeing her as Madeline Ashton in "Death Becomes Her", a personal favourite. To me she's more a comedic genius than a dramatic one. Its too bad comedy never gets its fair shake when it comes to the Academy.
These are my "predictions" about Oscar's runner-ups the years Meryl was in competitions:
1978: I think Meryl was the runner-up behind Maggie Smith, she was extraordinary in The Deer Hunter (and it won Best Picture).
1979: She won, with Manhattan's Mariel Hemingway as the likely second.
1981: She surely was the runner-up for The French Lieutenant's Woman (great film and great performance) behind Kate Hepburn.
1982: She won for Sophie's Choice over Jessica Lange for Frances.
1983: I think Julie Walters was the runner-up for her Golden Globe and Bafta winning performance in Educating Julia. Meryl had won yet two Oscars in four years, I don't think the Academy was ready to give her a third statue at the age of 35.
1985: First Geraldine Page, second Whoopi Goldberg, third Meryl Streep.
1987: I think Holly Hunter came in second place behind Cher (a well-deserving Oscar in my opinion) for the Best Picture nominee Broadcast News. Glenn Close was wonderful in Fatal Attraction, but the film was not that great (altough it was a huge box-office hit), she didn't win anything for her performance and she lost the Golden Globe to Sally Kirkland for a little indie film called Anna. Instead, Hunter had won a lot of precursors, so I have the feeling she was the runner-up that year, with Glenn Close (or Sally Kirkland) in third place.
1988: I'm not so sure about this year, I suppose the runner-up was either Sigourney Weaver or Glenn Close. The one thing in Weaver's favor is her (double) Golden Globe win(s), plus the film is all about her character. Close, instead, shared the screen with two other lead-characters (Malkovich and Pfeiffer), altough she gave a terrific performance in Dangerous Liaisons. I don't know, I thought it was Weaver who came in second place, what do you say?
1990: Kathy Bates first, followed by Roberts, Woodward, Huston (my fav) and Streep.
1995: I think Streep was third, behind Susan Sarandon and critical darling Elisabeth Shue.
1998: Cate Blanchett was runner-up. Streep was probably fifth place.
1999: Annette Bening was runner-up (sigh!). Streep always at fifth place.
2002: Julianne Moore was surely the runner-up for The Hours, followed by Meryl for Adaptation.
2006: Helen Mirren deserved to win for The Queen. Judi Dench was the likely second for a perfect Oscar vehicle as Notes on a Scandal, with Winslet in third place and Streep in fourth (Prada wasn't a typical Oscar-bait).
2008: Meryl was the runner-up (behind Kate Winslet) for her terrific performance in Doubt. But in a way, Kate Winslet was the real runner-up behind herself: remember that, if not for The Reader, she would have been nominated (and won) for her Golden Globe winning performance in Revolutionary Road.
So, in the end, I suppose Streep came in second place "only" three times: in 1978 (The Deer Hunter), in 1981 (The French Lieutenant's Woman) and in 2008 (Doubt, but with Kinslet as the "real" second behind herself). What do you think?
Actually, in my thesis study, Meryl is the FRONTRUNNER in '81. But I dunno what happened. Kate Hepburn got the award.
Kristin the book INSIDE OSCAR says that there was a "roar of surprise" when Hepburn won in 1981 but unfortunately the book doesn't say why people were surprised or who they thought was going to win. I assume it was Streep who people thought would win because she was THE new/ hot/ amazing/ everyone-astonished-by-her actor on the scene.
stefano again. I lived through 87 & 88 and it was Close as runner up both years. And I recall NO buzz whatsoever for a "win" for Dench in NOTES even though she was amazing in it (I personally think it's her best performance bar none)
vince regarding 88's triple tie at the GLOBES -- I KNOW. I don't remember that at all (maybe i wasn't watching the Globes yet? My obsession with Oscar grew fast but the extraneous ceremonies took longer to catch on to)
and re: CHER. It was definitely her year. That win was not a surprise. There was a lot of media backlash about her snub in 85 for MASK. And in 1987 she had a hit comeback album ("CHER") that tabloid beloved relationship with the much younger man ('you're my main man...') and three movies (SUSPECT, THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK and MOONSTRUCK ... two of which were in the top ten box office hits of the year).
It was CHER 24/7 that year.
really? I didn't know that, perhaps I wasn't even born that time...but I think the more nominations Streep has, the less chance of her getting her third win. Theoretically, that hurts one's chances of winning. (Poor Meryl...)
In my opinion, Kate Hepburn gave an amazing performance in On Golden Pond; plus, the film was a huge critical and commercial hit, and she was very beloved by the Academy. Meryl Streep gave also a wonderful performance in her double role in FLW... anyway, she would have won next year for Sophie's Choice. I really hope she wins a third Oscar soon...
About the best actress contest in 1987 and 1988, the buzz is not always the biggest indicator for awards-race. Close was terrific in Fatal Attraction, but she lost the Golden Globe to a little-known contender for a very little film, and she won no precursor. Obviously, Fatal Attraction had the biggest buzz in 1987 (it was the biggest hit of the year and became an instant cult), but Holly Hunter had won a lot of precursors and was the lead character in another Best Picture nominee (she missed the Golden Globe to Oscar winner Cher), so I think she came second in the ballot. Anyway, in the end, Close's performance has become a standard, and is regarded more than Cher's or Hunter's.
Close's performance in Dangerous Liaisons is one of my favorites of all-time (plus I love the film and the book). Anyway, I still have some doubts she was the runner-up behind Foster. Dangerous Liaisons was an immediate classic in 1988 and Close had just become a big star, but Sigourney Weaver had won the Golden Globe for a biographical film that was all about her character, with a much larger role than Close's Merteuil. So, I'm not so sure Close was the runner-up in 1988 (she surely was the runner-up in 1982 for The World According to Garp, anyway).
Judi Dench had no buzz in 2006, like any other contender that year except Helen Mirren. We all knew from the first moment that Mirren was going to win that statuette. Streep had some buzz because she was the star of the biggest comedy of the year and the "underdog" sensation of the whole season, in a role who has become a classic; still, she had an almost supporting role in a comedy where she had just one Oscar-baity scene (the one with no make-up). Dench, instead, was the veteran beloved by the critics and the industry with a terrific lead role in a big critical hit like Notes on a Scandal, a powerful drama with four nominations in main categories; she was at her sixth nominations in less than a decade, with only one supporting Oscar on her bag. If not for Helen Mirren, Dench would have won her first Best Actress Oscar. But Mirren was the only frontrunner from the beginning, so there was no buzz for any other contender.
I think it's pretty obnoxious to say that a supporting win is lesser than a lead win. Just about every actor out there would give their right foot for ANY Oscar, and just b/c it's MERYL doesn't mean that she has to get that third Oscar (lead or supporting) or the world will crumble, or that another supporting win would be such a bad thing. I would love to see her really get another meaty dramatic turn under her belt (and no, "Doubt" just didn't cut it), like maybe "August: Osage County." But I think her third will be for a comedy that shows "range" and all. "Julie & Julia" could be it, but I think it'll have to go lead, b/c I don't think Mo'Nique can be stopped in supporting at this point. Hopefully this Nancy Meyers film won't be fluff, but I'm not getting my hopes up. I do want to see if she can pull off Julia Child well, even if it's not a full-out biopic.
Hi!
I think she cannot win this year because the member of Academy seems to prefer dramatic role..and she did two comedy!
However I hope!!
ian i agree that most actors would kill for an oscar of any sort. I'm sure Ben Affleck is as glad to have won as if he'd won in acting.
i think the strange supporting is less notion emerged because once they started giving big stars awards for taking small roles (there didn't use to be so much willingness for stars to take supporting roles) it started to seem like an easy way out if you couldn't win for being a movie star.
i dunno. the blurring of the lines has definitely altered the perception of oscars.
OH STOP!
You Streep fanboys make me SICK! You are totally overstating her factors in the race for many years.
1978 was Smith vs Stapelton. Streep was either 3rd or 4th. Stop saying she was the runner up.
1981 Likely runnerup
1983 was ALL about Terms of Endearment and Shirley vs Debra Winger. Roger Ebert actually predicted Winger to win and she was certainly the runner up to Shirley.
1985 Goldberg was actually the favorite on Oscar night so she was probably 2nd.
1987 Streep was dead last. 4th or 5th? Please. 5th.
1988 was a clusterf---. People are diminishing Melanie Griffith's standing in the race that year. Back than she was thought of as a good actress and Working Girl was a huge hit and she won the Globe. Foster was a huge threat as was Close. It was thought of as Foster (comeback) vs Close (due) vs Griffith (IT girl in popular box office hit). Weaver was thought of as a slam dunk in supporting so she was discounted here. Streep was likely 4th in this race.
1990 was another non factor, she ws likely 5th.
1995 she may have been runner up, but Stone and Shue could have just as easily been ahead of her.
1998 4th
1999 LAST
2002 3rd behind Jones and Moore
2006 either 2nd or 3rd...I think Dench finished ahead of her
2008 2nd.
1978. I agree with Adam. If you haven't seen Interiors, you just don't know how amazing Stapleton as. And, obviously, the Academy was itching to reward her, because she ended up winning three years later.
1990. People are underestimating her performance. Some of her best work. 5th place? I don't think so.
1978... yeah that woulda been Stapleton's. It's kind of a Renee Zellweger/Cold Mountain situation -- with the main difference being Stapleton is great and not terrible ;) -- where the movie is one thing and then the supporting player shows up and obliterates / changes / takes over the rest of movie with totally different colors and energy.
above all things.. all I can say is meryl is sooo overdue. at least she should have got her 3rd oscar already. indeed.
But I think Julianne moore was clearly leading role in The Hours.
I love her performance both from The Hours and Far From Heaven. So in the "Surppoting" category the best was definitely Meryl in adaptation. though I enjoyed zeta jones's very much, Susan olean was so amazing.
and about Doubt.. well I don't say that's her best in 00's(That's AIA). But when I watched it, I got goose bumps. WHAT A PERFORMANCE.
If she got oscar this role, not a surprising. Winslet was much better in R.R than the reder,I think.
anyhow I just can not wait Julie&Julia!
if theres an question, its really will she bag a FOURTH
lovin those '09 predix
She should have won for: The French Lieutenant's Woman, Silkwood, The Bridges of Madison County, Adaptation and Doubt. She was the best all those years but she was double winner already and that plays a lot against her. Also, people think she has more awards than she actually has.
Post a Comment