Monday, July 17, 2006

First Half Oscar Hopefuls (Part 3)

My preview of the top five Oscar-Most-Likelies from the year's first half is now complete. Read it to see just how much I love Meryl Streep's Prada performance, just how often she is actually nominated for acting (hint: her statistic is even better than Woody Allen's screenplay percentage. It's damn impressive!), and why United 93 is still two points short of sure thing status.

Read the Article... Then return and discuss. Do you think this will happen? Any chance Meryl actually takes the statue?

(Tomorrow there's one more thing regarding the first half and then I start the Oscar chart revamps)

Previous Prada Posts: Who's the Boss? and "That's All". Previous United 93 Posts: Review and Cheyenne Jackson

tags: Meryl Streep, United 93, movies, Oscars, cinema, Academy Awards


Derek said...

I figured these would be the top 2, and for good reason.

Re: Meryl. I'm absolutely shocked that you haven't commented on her category placement. To me, it's an ABSOLUTELY, 100% clear-cut supporting performance. I've seen the movie three times now, and the more I see it, the more clearly I see that she's supporting (well and to be honest, she gets more brilliant every time, too). The story is about Andrea, and there is much more to it than her interactions with Miranda. True, her interactions with Miranda affect almost all of her choices/interactions with other characters. But Streep is ONLY in scenes with Hathaway, whereas Hathaway has scenes with Streep, Blunt, Grenier, Baker...

I know that you obviously can't pick her category when it comes down to what her actual campaign is, but I think she will go supporting and win. If she goes lead, I still think she's good enough to win, but it depends on how well the competition turns out. Personally, I worship the ground Streep walks on and consider The Devil Wears Prada her second best performance EVER - so she will very very very likely be taking my supporting statue.

SOOOOO, I guess the point is: you're such a stickler for correct category placement... what say you?


I want to see it again before i choose ;)


but i should also state that at this point i think she'll go lead with Oscar.

Andy Scott said...

I agree with scott. I saw the movie twice and she is definitely, definitely, definitely supporting. The 2nd viewing only confirmed this theory.

But still, I could totally see her going lead.

Glenn Dunks said...

I haven't seen the movie (not out here yet, of course) but it just sounds like such a Lead role. A very Reese Witherspoon/Walk the Line type of role.

It would definitely be interesting seeing Streep, Winslet and Bening going head to head in Best Actress. Streep hasn't won in, what? 20 years or so, so awarding her this year wouldn't feel as Hilary-Swankish. But then Annette and Kate don't have any. And if you throw Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett or Judi Dench or whoever, you'll have one hell of a Best Actress category. We just gotta hope all the candidates at the moment turn out to be good.

And in my mid-year predix I had United 93 down for Best Director and World Trade Center down for Best Picture. Probably won't happen, but would certainly be an interesting development.

Also: On your Best Animated Film page you ask if you've missed any, and while I'm not sure of it's release date, there is the Danish Princess. And then there's Doogal, but who knows if they'll even bother submitting something like that.

Beau said...

If United 93 gets nominated for Best Picture, I'm going to be 1) ecstatic that the best picture of the year (thus far) got the accolades it deserves, and 2) that the Academy actually got its head out of its ass and acknowledged the fact that the first cinematic film dealing with September 11th doesn't shower the day with cliches (no "We will go on, we will survive" monologue, no action-film one-liners spread throughout, no tiresome love story) but instead reminds us that all the american 'ooh-rah' bullshit only detracts from the meaning of that day. (i fear stone's "wtc" will be much more 'yay america!!!' and 'boo terrorists!!', making it an inferior product.)

what i LOVED about united 93 is that it didn't turn the four islamic men into raging, evil cinematic villains that you can't wait to see get their cumuppance. it's not like that. i'm reading a book right now by jon krakauer (who wrote 'into thin air', his firsthand account of an everest tragedy) called 'under the banner of heaven' and deals significantly with violent faith. (aka: people who believe they're doing the work of God). it's terrifying, because you see that these people have no limit; there is no extent, no border, they will go as far as they can to ensure that they succeed in 'the lord, your god's' name.

the brilliance of united 93 is that it acknowledges this; it shows that these men are terrified of what they are about to do, but they really are under the impression that God wants them to do this. He needs them to do this, he's reqruited them specifically to carry out his word. It makes everything onboard much more terrifiying and yet, much more human. I was so thankful that the film didn't turn them into concepts and instead allowed them to be shown as real, true, flawed human beings who are doing this not out of spite, but out of a different kind of love.

the complexities of 'united 93' are boundless, and yet it's such a simple story that... i'm almost dared to call it miraculous. in a sense, it is. i've never seen a film as exhausting, as excruciating, and in the end... as rewarding as this one. genius.

...and meryl deserves to get nom'd. best actress, best supporting actress, whatever. the woman is brilliant in whatever role she chooses and how she maps out the character like a warzone. she nails every subtlety, every nuance to perfection and... personally, it's hard for me to put her in either category. i so badly want either winslet or bening to win for actress, and yet portman seems like she'll be placed in supporting for 'gaya'.
...but then, this woman hasn't won this award in twenty years. which is way too fucking long.
and what better perf to win it for? :)
i'll continue to deliberate on this subject.

Glenn Dunks said...

"Her performance is generating thunderous applause, she is FINALLY in a hit, and I couldn't be happier."

Too right! That's why I think she's looking very solid for a win if she get's nominated. She's finally in a big hit (almost definitely will have more cash in the till than Running With Scissors and Little Children) and is giving a performance that people are buzzing about.

Glenn Dunks said...

by "looking very solid" I mean, until we see the other performances in contention, she has as good a shot as any. Her nom for this movie probably won't be seen as a "let's just give Meryl a nomination". It's very deserved (or so it would seem).

Anonymous said...

I'm going to toss out another one here:

Best Supporting Actor - Robert Downey Jr. in A Scanner Darkly.

adam k. said...

Does this mean you don't think Prairie Home Companion has much of a shot anywhere? I guess that's true, but I'd like to think it has a good shot at an adapted screenplay nom.

Regarding Meryl, I really thought it was supporting until the end, when it suddenly seems that this is not only Andrea's story, but Miranda's story as well. But then thinking about it from a distance, that doesn't mean it's not still a supporting role. It really does seem lead just because of how Miranda's presence always haunts everything else around. It's just TOO. BIG. to think about it winning supporting awards. Hannibal Lecter is a perfect analogy. Here is a 20-something minute performance that just feels too much like a lead role for it not to be. Lecter, like Priestly, is spoken of right from the start, and represents the lead's link to power and/or the dark side, and also ends the movie feeling like a lead despite little screen time. My feeling is that she will go the Hopkins lead route and possibly win. It's just gonna be hard for people not to vote for this perrformance, whichever category it's in. Part of me hopes it's lead cause it could actually win that, and I want it to get all the mileage it can. But part of me thinks it would be really unfair if this beats Winslet, Bening, etc. in the lead category when it could just as easily have gone supporting. Whether it wins, I think, depends on how into it people still are, and whether any other performance/"overdue" story stands out from the pack enough to overshadow it... and as much as I thought Winslet would be this year's golden girl, I gotta say it'd be hard for her to compete with this in a little indie with a not-very-likeable character.

And I've thought ever since Streep lost for Adaptation that she would NOT lose the next time she was up; that would make 10 in a row and that would be just cruel. Plus she has momentum going... it's been Adaptation/The Hours, Angels, Manchurian (which many loved her in), Prime, Prairie, and now this. She will be a force.

adam k. said...

My thing is mainly that I hope she actually wins the globe for comedy and doesn't lose to fuckin' Beyoncé (shut up, it's SO possible), cause this may be her last chance to win that category.

Anonymous said...

Last chance? That it may. Could she pull a Katherine Hepburn maybe and win back to back in her early 60's (when she gets there)? Probably not likely in today's Hollywood. I don't know if it was anachronistic for an old fart like Hepburn to do it in the/her 60's. Today, it would definitely be strange.

I always thought that Streep could punch out four or five more nominations if she wanted, but maybe since she's set the record, it may preclude her for any further recognition in some Academy voters' minds. I mean, as bad of a movie the Manchurian Remake was, she was excellent and with a Golden Globe nom and a weak playing field, she should have been a shoe-in. I use to believe she was probably the sixth vote getter (as well as in the 2002 lead category), but now I don't know anymore.

Beau said...

yeah, exactly how did salma hayek get that nom?

against penelope cruz and paz vega, she's has always seemed to pale in comparison in my eyes.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree with Beau more about United 93 - film of the year for me so far. Stunning. Couldn't get it out of my head.

Prada is still to open in the UK too Kamikaze, and I can't WAIT!!


Javier Aldabalde said...

Did I hear someone refer to Kate Hepburn as an old fart? That's just mean and makes me rather sad.

adam k. said...

I think Streep will make it to 20 noms before she's gone... with more than one more statue to come.

Vertigo's Psycho said...

Also, check out costar Nicole Kidman's screen time in The Hours, then ask yourself if Meryl has a chance at Best Actress. Miranda is a star role and a star performance, limited screen time or no. And most of Streep's scenes are vivid, Oscar-clip worthy gems- this performance will stay with voters, and I'd be surprised if Streep doesn't at least make a strong run (nomination and among the front-runners status) preceding the Oscars.

Ironically, Miranda's muted, controlled personna probably didn't offer Meryl as big a challenge as many of her previous roles (and I do think other performers, such as Bening, would have been able to maintain the calm elan Streep brings to the role; a placid, icy demeanor is integral to Miranda's personality, and I think most experienced actresses would "get" the fact Miranda never shouts, and seldom even raises an eyebrow- she rules with a faint whisper and a masklike countenance).

I loved Streep in the part because, along with her firm understanding of the role, she really appeared to be enjoying herself onscreen, and damn, did she exude style and class with her 'look' and her natural beauty. I think it would be wonderful to have her win for a such a fun performance (that final moment is priceless) in a truly memorable role. I don't know if Frances McDormand in Fargo's been mentioned, but I think Streep in Prada would be the same type of win (less screen time than costar, classic character, seamless mixture of drama and comedy, unforgettable tagline, top-of-your-game work).

Anonymous said...

...sorry to offend your sensibilities, javierag. My point was to poke fun at the attitude Hollywood has towards women of a more accelerated age and maturity. It appears I was unsuccessful. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Anonymous said...

Well here's the thing. Trutfully, it's a supporting performance. Miranda is not the main character. There is only one main character, and that is Andy.

With that said--I don't think Reese Witherspoon's role was leading either (Walk The Line). So the Academy's a little wishy washy about the whole issue.

If Meryl tries to campaign for leading--she won't get nominated. It's as simple as that. Yes, she's Meryl Streep. But what she has going against her is that not only is the movie very female oriented, and those movies don't do well at awards shows, but it's also a lighthearted film. And those movies don't do well at awards shows either. People will be more likely to vote for her if it's supporting.

Glenn Dunks said...

But is it so hard to believe that when MERYL STREEP gives a performance that has everyone talking and everyone in Oscarland buzzing that it would get nominated? When she gets nominated for lesser performances, too!

She's been nominated for female-oriented/lighthearted movies before. Madison County and Postcards from the Edge come to mind.

At the moment, it just seems too hard to ignore. Take the five points that Nat wrote for United 93

1. critical support
2. media cheerleading
3. audience dollars
4. good timing or momentum
5. some degree of "prestige" or respectability.

It definitely has 1, 3 and 5. We'll have to see whether the media continues to champion for Meryl but as it stands she has that too. And while the timing may appear bad, that didn't stop plenty of other actresses such as Diane Lane who had early releases and still went through awards season consistently being nominated/winning.

Anonymous said...

Hmm...I dunno. I personally would like to see Anne get some nominations for the film (as I thought she was so snubbed for Brokeback--I much preferred her performance to Michelle's), so maybe that has a little to do with me not wanting Meryl in the leading category.

Derek said...

Kamikaze - totally agree with you about the five points, though I would say she definitely has media cheerleading. I stopped checking after about 30 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, but at that point EVERY SINGLE REVIEW was an absolute RAVE for Streep. I'll be shocked if she doesn't win critics' awards (especially considering how they like to award bodies of work and A Prairie Home Companion's in the mix). However, I think those awards will probably go to her in supporting - at least, if they are giving it to her for both movies.

Whichever category, I think she will be nominated and win. I also agree with Adam K - I think she'll make it to at least 20 nominations, with at least 4 wins.


i think that the female / light factor (which I agree does sometimes cause problems for the male dominated Oscars) is trumped by the box office success. Look at Terms of Endearment.

when you're a big success as this is --it's sure to break 100 million which is a big deal for what some (not me) thought this film would do -- you sort of transcend your genre. The Silence of the Lambs stopped being a "horror" movie when it became a huge $100 hit.

money / success / raves talk.

StinkyLulu said...

I'm fairly firmly convinced that Meryl's performance is of the "2nd lead" variety -- about which the academy gets very confused, especially when considering same-sex dyads. (I've recently taken to calling it "being JackTwisted" -- where neither lead nor supporting feels entirely correct, so the performance gets "JackTwisted" into whichever slot the movie's promoters feel will get the most traction.)

But in addition to the Kidman and Hopkins examples already mentioned, look at 1996 where Binoche got nominated in Supporting, while Kristen Scott Thomas (with roughly 1/3 the actual screentime) got nominated as lead. That same year, Marianne Jean-Baptiste was nominated as Supporting, which is also thoroughly debatable.

So I'm game for Meryl in either category. In supporting, she'd likely snatch it; in best actress, she almost certainly wouldn't win but would make the race much more interesting to track...

J.J. said...

1. Meryl will not be nominated for The Devil Wears Prada. Who are we kidding? If she couldn't pull it off for The Manchurian Candidate (not a great film, but better than Prada), she stands no chance here. The last actor who was nominated for playing exclusively to the Sex-and-the-City crowd was Zellweger for Bridget Jones's Diary, and that movie was a helluva lot better (and well-received) than Prada. I'd rather see Meryl up for Prairie. Her performance there achieves a quiet rhapsody.

2. United 93 will not be nominated for anything, even though it deserves mentions for its direction and editing (as mentioned earlier). It takes significant campaigning to get nominated, and I don't think Universal will be buying full-page ads in Variety for this particular movie. It will take the concentrated power of the blogosphere to keep its buzz going and give it a chance.

Glenn Dunks said...

But the argument could be made that she didn't get nominated for The Manchurian Candidate because the movie only grossed something like $50mil and was seen as a flop - The Devil Wears Prada is, by the end of the Summer, going to have the title of biggest surprise box-office hit. Very few predicted it to do this good and to actually be as good as it apparently is. It has critics, it has box-office, is has the performance, it will certainly have a killer ad campaign too. Plus, it's Meryl. Candidate didn't have box-office, didn't particularly have critics (some, but not feverish) and even the performance turned some people off and I don't remember any ads for it.

...United 93, I think, is certain to get some critics awards, but whether the Academy will bite is extremely debatable. We'll see.

Glenn Dunks said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John T said...

Yeah, I say Meryl goes lead for this particular performance. The critics are going to be trumpeting her, all predictions are going to at the very least mention Meryl Streep, she'd be a lock for a lead Globe nod in a comedy (and potentially win, as is pointed out, since she's never won this particular category) and actors LOVE Meryl Streep. Look at how many actors worship her in their acceptance speeches (I recall Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow both paying homage to the master in their speeches, and I'm positive they aren't the only ones). A win, I'm not sure about (it is a lighter film-a truly fluffy film like this hasn't won Best Actress since, I don't know, Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins?), but a nomination is a surefire thing.

As for the potential Best Actress lineup, if it ends up being Winslet, Kidman, Streep, Bening, and Blanchett, I will have to do cartwheels on nominations morning.

Anonymous said...

I can't see United 93 NOT getting a Best Picture nomination, to be honest. I think it's in the five. It's (a) unforgettable (including in ballot-filling season) and (b) drew mostly raves. If a divisive film like "Munich" can make it in with enough ardent supporters, "Utd" won't have a problem.



jj -i agree she was also awesome in aphc but the academy goes where the buzz is. i can't see her not being nominated. it's meryl streep + performance buzz strong enough to get a nonfavorite nominated.

john --see I personally don't think devil wears prada is all that fluffy. it's being marketed that way, sure, but it has some depth and a questioning spirit about a topic that isn't covered as well in other movies (careerism & work/life balance --what the choices do to you...)

rob --Munich made the cut based on the Spielberg factor and the year long "sure thing" December debut. It wasn't a sure thing after all once it opened but it was viewed as such for so long (which helps --i mean coldmountain almost made it in its year too) plus all the Spielberg extra points... i don't see how United 93 has Munich's advantage, though it certainly has some advantages of its own.

Derek said...

Sorry, JJ, but The Manchurian Candidate is no comparison for The Devil Wears Prada, aside from the fact that Meryl Streep is in both of them. Many, many, many people had huge problems with Streep's performance - on this very website, she received some sort of "worst of the year" award for it. The movie's box office was poor, and it was a remake of a beloved classic in which Streep was filling the shoes of a performance many consider to be one of the best of all-time. Realistically (and in retrospect), she was never going to be nominated for The Manchurian Candidate (even though I was predicting her come nomination morning, stupid move).

Every review I've read of The Devil Wears Prada is a complete RAVE of Streep's performance. From cinephiles to Joe Schmoes on the street, EVERYONE thinks she is GRRRRREAT in it. The box office is smashing and she has added momentum from A Prairie Home Companion.

Sorry, but there is really no comparison.

Anonymous said...

Meryl, if campaigned right, will win Best Supporting Actress in 2007 for "The Devil Wears Prada".
1) It's got enough screen time to trump her other nominees(the whole supporting/leading positioning)
2) Oscar loves to award "the comedic but wrapped in depth" performances here: (Whoopi, Dukakis, G. Davis, Tomei, Sorvino etc.) it should be noted that these are all actresses whose body of work pales in comparison Streep's and let's not also forget that in terms of 'veteran' actors oscar loves a stellar body of work.

Campaigning for Streep in Best Actress is just asking for a world of trouble, in my opinion. Sure if campaigned lead she'll have a great chance of getting nominated, she's La Streep and her Prairie performance won't likely be out shadowing TDWP (like "The Hours"/"Adaptation" debacle) but she will not by any stretch of the imagination win here and may not even make the short list. Although a heavily executed and nuance driven role would prove formidable against her competition in supporting, her competition in Lead will most likely be:

1) Not a chick flick released in June
2) Dramas or Serio-Comedies that include both sexes(meaning male voters will be turned off by the fact the TDWP is gerenally female oriented)
3) Actors who have yet to win or don't have the 2 oscars Merly has won
4) material that isn't as light as this and packs more of an emotional "baity" punch.

This will be a fun one to watch, especially since her likely competition won't have films released till towards the end of the year. If Lead Actress is a weak category like it was this year then the oscar is as good as hers, but with films from Winslett, Kidman and the continuously snubbed Bening generating good early buzz oscar voters may feel inclined to award actresses with less statues and nominations than Streep. But who the hell knows at this point? I just hope Meryl gets some love somewhere.


Alanna said...

To be honest, I really don't think Meryl deserves a nom. Sure, she was great, but the movie was a trifle. Being the best thing in The Devil Wears Prada was definitely not a difficult thing for her to do. Can the Academy acknowledge there are other actresses on Earth besides, like, Meryl, Nicole, and Gwyneth? And this is coming from someone who loves Meryl - I think her dial tone scene from Adaptation was perfection.

Anonymous said...

Streep was the only GG nominee not to carry over into the Oscars in 2004 supporting actress category. She was the 6th, if not the 7th highest vote-getter. Even her out-takes of the Manchurian Bad-Remake are some of the best work of her film career.

As far as Prada, I haven't seen it, but I've read the book and it's pretty similar to Working Girl. I don't know how much screen time Streep has, but it sounds like that had to beef her part up a bit. (Or maybe she just leaves that lasting of an impression) Personally, I think they should go for supporting, if they're going for a win. If they're going for another nom, then she just may well be able to slip in.

I don't know Prada compares with Working Girl, but Weaver got nominated, so why shouldn't Streep? Prada obviously isn't going to get the nom's Girl did (and would Girl really get the same recognition today? I don't think so), but though Weaver was commended for her work (and as well should have been), she didn't get the raves that Streep got, so it will probably all balance out for Streep ... in the supporting category no contest.


I personally think she'll go lead and the Globes will be the line drawn in the sand for that.

These are the best reviews she's had in 10 years and this is the biggest hit she's been central to since 1985 (!)

personally i don't think it will matter who else is in the running in either category. She's a short-lister. That fan feeling of 'she hasn't won in over 20 years' I see no reason to doubt that that hasn't also occurred to the industry that loves her.

If the actress lineup is all obsessed-upon divas (unlikely but feasible, sure), there will be cartwheels happening everywhere. Not just by John T.

Anonymous said...

One thing that I'm forgetting is that with the Academy ... never say never.

Now, in NO WAY, am I comparing the mastery of Streep to the following trifles, but ....

I never thought Helen Hunt would ever got nominated for an Oscar, much less win one. Same goes for Halle Berry. And Hilary Swank. And then Hilary Swank again.

I should remember that Whoopi got nominated in a Tour de Force comedic performance in ... Ghost. It was a supporting role, but she got the nom and then the win none-the-less. So, frankly, until I see the movie, I'm thinking supporting for Streep, but stranger things have happened. (Like Hopkins getting lead status in Lambs ... even though I didn't mind it and Dench getting nominated and winning for her two seconds in Shakespeare in Love)

Anonymous said...

Category is really irrelevant, this is Streep's year to win. It's been 23 years since she last received an Oscar but has had 9 nominations in thay period. For a long time she has been in the wilderness, nominations but no wins from anyone, In the past couple of years awards are going her way agian - AFI, Golden Globe et al. The timing just feels right to give her a third academy award, so many people just want her to win again. It's going to take a very strong performance to stop her doing just that.

adam k. said...

I don't think the globe decision will necessarily be the line drawn in the sand. Many GG comedy nominees and even winners have ended up in supporting - CZJ, Jamie Lee Curtis, etc. Though it would cement a lead campaign. I'm just saying I could see a situation where Meryl wins critics awards for both films, then wins the globe for comedy for Prada, then wins the supporting oscar for Prada.

As it stands now, if she goes lead, I say she gets nommed but loses and then wins in a year or two. If she goes supporting, then she wins there, and probably still wins lead again in a year or two.

Anonymous said...

GOOD BANNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I agree with everything Adam said.

p.s. was there a supporting actress campaign for JLC in True Lies? I didn't know that. I'm really surprised she didn't get nominated. (It was a Schwarzenegger movie perhaps? ... it was a slow year in both categories), because she was BRILLIANT. The strip-tease alone deserved a nomination.

adam k. said...

Well, JLC was SAG-nommed in supporting for True Lies... and then missed the oscar nom. So I assume they were campaigning her that way. I really need to see True Lies.

Anonymous said...

I love Meryl Streep...(I don't have the energy right now to verbalize the sheer extent) but

KATE WINSLET deserves that F*UCKING Oscar. As the Academy so bluntly reminded us on “Black Sunday”, the Oscars represent have so little to do with artistic merit. So give Streep (or any other incredible female performance this year) the GLOBE, SAG, BAFTA… and so as long as Winslet is at least decent in CHILDREN, just had her the damn OSCAR. It’s time. She deserved it what two? Three times already?

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I seem to also recall a great tango (?) scene with Arnold at the beginning and ...

And yet another tango (?) scene with his wife later on. With the strip-tease, JLC sure got a lot of dancing in!


Still on the subject of True Lies, my friend Hugh and I decided that there were people of two camps. Those that liked the Harrier (msp) Jet scene and those that didn't. Personally, I was in the anti-Harrier camp at the time.


I believe the film should have ended with the Arnold and Jamie kissing with the mushroom cloud in the background. That would have been a great ending. But, no, they had to tack on that stupid Harrier jet scene so they could dangle Eliza Dushku on the front end of it. Whatever ... lol! That scene was probably half the film's budget. So dumb.

Honestly, I don't care anymore, but, twelve years ago, it was fun to get in a fight about.

Anonymous said...

I know this is Oscar Hopeful discussion, but I just want to say, back on the subject of True Lies, I thought the opening credit music was a rip-off of North by Northwest. Just my two cents! I still remember it being a decent action flick, though.


Jamie Lee Curtis is one of the travesties of Oscar says me. Like Donald Sutherland and Mia Farrow she has been deserving multiple times and the chance has obviously passed the Academy by. SO sad.

Jamie's problem is that she's brilliant at comedy and they have issues there. (once can make a case that she has deserved three nominations in her time: True Lies, A Fish Called Wanda, AND Freaky Friday says me)

and Mia. I can't go there. I get so angry.

Anonymous said...


You mean to tell me you wouldn't make a case for Trading Places?

Vertigo's Psycho said...

Another reason Meryl will definitely place in the Best Actress category: She is the top-billed star of Prada.

I can't think of an instance wherein the #1 billed star (not just an above-the-title name, but first name to appear on the credits, posters, publicity campaigns) has ended up in the supporting category.

adam k. said...

Vertigo's psycho: Holly Hunter was such an instance.

The posters always read: "Holly Hunter. Evan Rachel Wood. Thirteen." And she was put in supporting where she belonged.

Anonymous said...

George Clooney, Syriana? I haven't seen it.

Vertigo's Psycho said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vertigo's Psycho said...

Good call, Adam and Vince- I should have remembered Clooney, at least.

I still think Meryl will place in BA, where she belongs- along with the reasons already mentioned (and #1 billing still bodes well for lead placement, Hunter and Clooney notwithstanding), Meryl as Miranda is no one's "supporting" player (Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci play the two main supporting roles in the film, backing up Streep and Hathaway).

Time will tell, but I can't imagine Academy voters viewing Miranda as anything other than a starring, leading role for Meryl- she's too dominant and memorable in the part.

Glenn Dunks said...

But everyone in Syriana was supporting, essentially, so it was just a matter of biggest name first.

The thing with Jamie Lee Curtis is a travesty. Not one single nomination. And to think, she WON the Golden Globe for True Lies. How many times has the winner not gone on to even be nominated? But yeah, True Lies, Freaky Friday and A Fish Called Wanda are all genius.

"Can the Academy acknowledge there are other actresses on Earth besides, like, Meryl, Nicole, and Gwyneth?"

lol, Nicole only has 2 nominations and Gwyneth has 1. I'm pretty sure they know there are others.

Anonymous said...

Her reviews for Angels in America were pretty peerless, I thought.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't happened in the last three years, but it does happen .... (since Jamie's win)

Hugh Grant, Four Weddings
John Travolta, Get Shorty
Nicole Kidman, To Die For
Madonna, Evita
Jim Carrey, Man on the Moon & Truman Show
Michael Caine, Little Voice
George Clooney, Oh Brother
Renee Zellweger, Nurse Betty
Gene Hackman, Tenenbaums
Richard Gere, Chicago

It is mostly a male thing and when it does happen to the women it can be a competitive year (i.e. 1995). I haven't seen Evita, but I saw Nurse Betty and I think the Oscar snub was warranted.

But there isn't any reason JLC shouldn't have been nominated for True Lies. She brought it and then some. I haven't seen Little Women or Blue Skye, but I can't imagine WRyder being better than JLC that year. And JLC was definitely better than SSarandon in The Client.

I won't comment on Nell, so the only nomination I really supported that year was Miranda Richardson for Tom & Viv.

... which reminds me, I just got done watching Miranda July's "Me and You ..." thanks to Nate and the roomie and I LOVED it! Thank you. I was a little skeptical at first with the whole fire scene, but thought the characters were wonderful and endearing. Thanks again.

Beau said...

yeah, AND Curtis got a SAG nom for Lies as well, in addition to the Globe. (she was pitch-perfect in A Fish Called Wanda, too)

Glenn Dunks said...

BTW, I'd like to imagine if the Oscars were held today that some space could be made for another Aussie film (not The Proposition, which I disliked) Look Both Ways. It made a pittance, but at least it was well-received! Justine Clarke!!!

Anonymous said...

I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! » »