Emily Blunt, Keira Knightley and Tilda Swinton on BAFTA's red carpet. Kate Winslet at the BAFTA/LA event across the water.
With the biggest movie awards night less than a fortnight away, common wisdom has the big six Oscars going like so...
Pic: No Country For Old Men
Dir: The Coen Bros (more locked up than for pic itself)
Actor: Day-Lewis
Supp Actor: Bardem
Actress: Christie... um Cotillard? ...maybe Page sneaks?
Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett --no wait, Ruby Dee! But Amy Ryan... here comes Tilda Swinton...omg, could Saoirse Ronan actually surprise? It's the only race where all five nominees feel like true possibilities.
pssst (remember to vote on your preference but clicking any of the category links above!)
Yes, the ladies are proving unruly. Or at least this weekend's BAFTA awards would have us believe so. So, time to do some digging. How well does BAFTA correlate to Oscar? It's more complicated than just "does it match" since the nominees are different and in some cases, the year doesn't even line up. I've only gone back to 2000 because prior to that BAFTA only had 4 nominees in the acting categories and they took place after the Oscars.BAFTA Lead Actress
Can Cotillard repeat? She's looking like a stronger spoiler possibility for the grand Julie Christie (Away From Her) than we expected. The media seemed to be leaning towards Page as the spoiler until this past week. Christie has won the majority of prizes but it's been nothing like a Mirren size "sweep" which leads one to wonder... why the backlash she seems to be facing? I'm none too pleased about this though the internet throngs will be happy as clams. In Marion's favor: When BAFTA varies from Oscar (in blue) it's only been in years when the eventual Oscar winner was not up for the BAFTA. The only nominee who qualifies: Laura Linney (The Savages) for that upset statistic. In Christie's favor: There is only 7 years of history to draw from and that is very little to base "always" and "never" and any statistics on, you know.
2007 Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 4/5
2006 Helen Mirren for The Queen
She won all but one media covered prize in the world. It wasn't a race so much as a slow royal waving parade through awards land... 'Yes, you may worship me.'
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 5/5
2005 Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 3/5
2004 Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake
She won this prize but her late surge was not enough to defeat Hilary Swank's Million Dollar Baby. However, Swank and Bening (her cheif rivals that year in America) were not nominated. Staunton only had to overcome a vote splitting Kate Winslet (BAFTA allows dual nominations in the same acting category. Oscar does not) and the previous year's Oscar winner Charlize Theron (Monster). Many pundits believe that Staunton would have won the Oscar that year, too if the voting had been a month later as the media might have tired of the Bening/Swank rematch and Staunton's momentum could've happened a little sooner.
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 2/5
2003 Scarlett Johansson for Lost in TranslationThe winner was not Oscar nominated but then only one of BAFTA's nominees (Naomi Watts in 21 Grams) was. 2003 was unarguably the most volatile Best Actress year from the past decade of awards history. As many as 12 different women seemed possible for quite some time for the coveted shortlist positions. The confusion resulted in a surprising Best Actress lineup that bore little resemblance to precursor "guessing"
2002 Nicole Kidman for The Hours
In a rare year that was very similar to the Oscar lineup (only Julianne Moore in Far From Heaven was missing) Kidman won both.
2001 Judi Dench in Iris
Oscar winning Halle Berry (Monster's Ball) was not nominated.
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 3/5
2000 Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich
Beat out the 99 Oscar winner Hilary Swank in Boy's Don't Cry. Even though BAFTA has very similar taste in Best Actress winners, they shun the ones who weren't eligible in the same year... more backup for the argument that awards are mostly about timing, not the acting.
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 2/5
SUPPORTING ACTRESSCan Tilda Swinton repeat her surprise BAFTA win and take this year's Supporting Actress Oscar? The history looks promising for the red headed icon and it would be a way to reward a film (Michael Clayton) the Academy loves that could go home empty-handed otherwise. Two worrisome things for Tilda though:
1. In each of the years when BAFTA matched Oscar (in red), there was a clear frontrunner who was winning everything. This is the first thing she's won.
2. In each of the year's when BAFTA did not choose the same winner (in blue) the eventual Oscar winner was not nominated for the BAFTA in that category. So if Tilda doesn't win, that's good news for Ruby Dee and Amy Ryan and very bad news for Cate Blanchett and Saoirse Ronan. So, if you trust in BAFTA --a short term statistic --the Oscar race is between Swinton, Dee and Ryan.
2007 Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton Nomination similarity to Oscar: 3/5 (Ruby Dee & Amy Ryan are not nominated)
2006 Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls
Nomination similarity to Oscar: 2/5
2005 Thandie Newton in Crash (pictured to the right from last weekend's event)
This is the only time in BAFTA's "precursor" history that their supporting actress winner was not even nominated for the Oscar. The actual Oscar winner (Rachel Weisz) was nominated in BAFTA's lead category. Nomination similarity to Oscar: 3/5
2004 Cate Blanchett in The Aviator Nomination similarity to Oscar: 2/5
2003 Renée Zellweger in Cold Mountain Similarity to Oscar: 2/5
2002 Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago Similarity to Oscar: 4/5
2001 Jennifer Connelly in A Beautiful Mind Similarity to Oscar: 5/5
2000 Julie Walters in Billy Elliott The Oscar winner (Marcia Gay Harden for Pollock) was not nominated. BAFTA and Oscar lined up: 3/5
Your turn: Do you think the BAFTA wins for the ladies mean anything? Especially since both men seem more than locked up for Oscar wins (would Oscar really go 4/4 match?) Or do you think that with AMPAS ballots due in less than a week that most of them are turned in already and BAFTA only reflects voting prejudices over the pond?
Posts
36 comments:
Previous BAFTA winners for the ladies usually have more precursor support than Swinton does and are generally considered frontrunners. There is no such thing as a frontrunner in this year's female Oscar race.
I think Christie and Blanchett will take it home, but I'm bracing myself for any surprise.
I still think Christie is fairly certain for the win. I wouldn't quite call her a LOCK, but it would be quite an upset if she didn't win.
As for supporting... I had this gut feeling about Tilda before the BAFTAs and so I started predicting her, assuming that Saoirse would take the BAFTA. I don't quite agree with you that anyone can win... I think if Saoirse couldn't even win the BAFTA or BFCA Young Actress, or get a nomination from an organization that has been VERY kind to youngsters in the past (SAG), then I highly doubt she WINS the Oscar. Amy's day in glory was back when the critics' groups were announcing. Her time has passed, and I do think that she could pull off an upset, but I think her buzz has diminished too much. Cate had all the makings of a sweeper and just didn't catch on. If she hadn't just won, I'd say she wins easily, of course, but she did just win, the movie is weird, and the performance didn't seem to catch on like it could have.
Which brings us to Ruby and Tilda. In all honesty, I expect Ruby to win, but I'm going to stick by my optimism and predict Tilda. Ruby's win would not only complement your BAFTA statistic with Supporting Actress, but would ensure than an American wins at least one acting award (to my knowledge, there's never been a year where all 4 acting winners were foreigners, and since we have Day-Lewis and Bardem locked, and Best Actress between Christie, Cotillard, and Page, the only possible place for an American is either Ruby or Amy in supporting actress).
However, like I said, I can't shake this feeling of Tilda, and that BAFTA win certainly helped that feeling of mine. It's a good way to honor the film, and really the only place the film CAN win. And those who like her work in the film are pretty passionate about it.
So, in conclusion, I'd give Ruby the best odds of winning, BUT I'm going against the "rules" and predicting Tilda.
Oh, and also - I'd call Cinematography the only race where all 5 nominees seem like possible winners... not Supporting Actress.
History shows the Cinematography winner usually has an Art Direction nomination to go along with it, which bodes well for There Will Be Blood and Atonement. Also, a lot of times, the Art Direction winner is also the Cinematography winner - also possibly boding well for either TWBB or Atonement. Voters could throw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly a bone here if they like the film enough. The work is extraordinary, though I do think it's the least likely winner of the bunch since Kaminski has won twice already. (Still more likely, I think, than Saoirse winning Supporting Actress.)
Then there's Deakins. Will people vote for him for his better work (Jesse James) or the film they like more (NCFOM)?
I'd say cinematography looks like this:
1. There Will Be Blood
2. No Country for Old Men
3. Atonement
4. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
5. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
But really, I could see any of them win.
I don't think Cotillard will steal so many votes from Julie Christie to win or even let Ellen Page win. I don't believe it is as deeply loved by American Academy voters as by BAFTAs, who even nominated Audrey Tautou for "Amelie".
As for Tilda Swinton, I'd like to believe she has any chances, but Dee seems more probable for me since Holbrook isn't winning in his category.
I really don't think "Atonement" has any chances of winning award for cinematography. It's either Elswit or Deakins, because Kamiński has already 2 Oscars.
I'm predicting Elswit because that's the one I consider the best and I think there will be vote split for Deakins (because there will be some Academy members who would vote for "Assassination", as its cinematography seems more crucial to the film itself, and some for "No country...", since the film is BP frontrunner.
I do not think I was yet religiously following the Best Actress race in 2003.
Were there really that many contenders? I was definitely surprised that ScarJo was snubbed for both of her beautiful (arguably personal best) performances, so I am curious as to against whom she was competing for the last slots.
Personally my vote was for Naomi Watts in 21 Grams.
WOW, those are some fabulous dresses.
Anyway. I still see no reason to bet against Julie Christie. In a way, the Cotillard win actually improves Christie's chances, cause it means Cotillard and Page are fighting for the "spoiler" title. When nobody can even agree on who is the spoiler, the frontrunner wins. I think winning the SAG pretty much sealed the deal. I'd think it troubling that she lost on her home turf, but when you take into account that she's a Brit but she's PLAYING a Canadian, and that she was up against a European playing a European icon, it's not that surprising. The Brits do love the Europeans.
Supporting actress, though, could go any which way. Any of them now would sorta feel like a surprise. But I think it's really Blanchett vs. Swinton vs. Dee. Ryan is over. Saorsie just doesn't have enough love out there (she really shoulda been able to take the BAFTA). I also had a feeling about Swinton before the BAFTA win, and this confirms that people love the performance.
BUT the BAFTA win for Swinton can sorta be chalked to British bias. All things being equal, someone British wins. Of course, Tilda did beat other Brits (i.e. Ronan) so that does count for something. But still. She's a Brit, through and through.
And your BAFTA vs. Oscar stats do favor Dee. Plus, globe snubbees who go on to win the SAG often win the oscar, too, I think. BUT then again, SAG loved American Gangster (ensemble nom). The academy did not. Also, Dee's overdueness is kind of appeased by the nomination itself.
And don't count out Blanchett. With the race so close, the double nom and baitiness might be enough to win. I do think this "Blanchett backlash" thing is mostly just a figment of Nat's imagination. If there were a backlash, she wouldn't have been nominated twice. She lost the SAG, sure, but this is the kind of esoteric perf that I'd expect to win the globe and lose SAG and then come back to win the oscar. Anyway, with so much in her favor, a win for Blanchett wouldn't surprise me at all.
All things considered, I'm leaning (ever so slightly) toward Dee. But I REALLY wanna predict Swinton. Really a lot.
2003 contenders in no particular order :
nicole kidman - cold mountain
jennifer connelly - house of sand and fog
charlize theron - monster
scarlett johansson - girl with...
scarlett johansson - lost in translation
uma thurman - kill bill vol. 1
diane keaton - something's gotta give
helen mirren - calendar girls
naomi watts - 21 grams
evan rachel wood - thirteen
samantha morton - in america
keisha castle-hughes - whale rider
cate blanchett - veronica guerin
if you weren't following in 2003 you can see my final predictions that year as a cliff notes on how confusing it was. the precursors and buzz were all over the place.
19 women were recognized in some way throughout the season (that's so much more than usual) and the only two performers who didn't miss anything: Theron & Keaton. Predictions varied considerably from pundit to pundit
Morton had only Indie Spirits and BFCA before the nomination and Keisha Castle Hughes had only "supporting" notices ---HA. the one time in modern history that Oscar has actually refused the category fraud!
sorry it's OT but it was for rosengje
Also Nat, how happy would YOU be if the winners turned out to be No Country/Christie/Day-Lewis/Bardem/Swinton (a real possibility)? Can't get much better than that. Or even if Blanchett wins supporting... as much as you bitch about her not deserving to win for that performance, she's still your second choice of the nominees, so you couldn't really complain.
I think Nathaniel should check Pfeiffer's boards on imdb. Not only it is almost confirmed by Variety that she's going to star in Cheri, but someone posted a link of her demo tracks for Evita.
OT : Uma Thurman has been cast in Eloise in Paris. Glad to see her working again, I hope she can get at least an Emmy nod for My Zinc Bed this year.
marla i already downloaded them a few hours ago ;)
ha
honestly... nobody seems to notice when i post NEWS bits.
i was the first blog to cover the CHERI thing and a week later everybody is posting it and asking me why i didn't post anything.
sigh...
adam funny little dig there about the Blanchett backlash being "all in my head" --I'm sure it is ;)
but my overall point still TOTALLY applies. The only people who will be voting for Blanchett are those who were already going to vote for her. What I meant by the "enough already" feeling is that the double nomination will be seen as MORE THAN ENOUGH by anyone who is trying to decide between
...two performances, you know?
I fail to see why cate blanchett could escape the "rewarded enough" or "enough already" factor when people as popular and famous as nicole kidman (her cold mountain performance did well in the precursors) and russell crowe (same thing for a beautiful mind win and for the cinderella man) couldn't.
now admittedly Cate is better "liked" than either of them, but honestly if you were undecided and you were an Academy member wouldn't your vote being going to one of the other four since she just won 4 years ago ---and for another star to star transformation?
i seriously don't think she's going to win.
One perhaps meaningless observation on Cotillard's chances:
In an interview on the red carpet at the BAFTAs Keira Knightley was very clear that she wanted Marion to win both the BAFTA and the Oscar. (So that's one vote for her already). She also admitted to not having seen Away From Her.
If this are others who see it the same way - and given the BAFTA result there might be some - then Christie's win is perhaps not a foregone conclusion.
This is all getting fooled by randomness. You have a few years of random draws from different distributions for uncorrelated events. Don't be fooled. There are no patterns, just some that haven't been disproved yet.
I want to point out that for the past 6 years (or for every year in the new century), BAFTA and SAG have each gotten the winners right 4/4 on only one occasion. BAFTA last year in 06 and SAG in 04.
I'm predicting a 3/4 split with the SAGs and I'm taking in consideration the American rule. Well we all know that Daniel Day-Lewis is British and Javier Bardem is Spanish so which American will win? What's interesting though is that out of the 10 (well 9) nominees in the actress categories, there are only THREE, count them, THREE Americans in the bunch. Laura Linney, Ruby Dee, and Amy Ryan. Laura Linney is a loooonnnnggg shot and the eventual winner of Actress is gonna either be British or French (or Canadian! or Australian?), so I'm thinking it'll be either Dee or Ryan for Supporting. I don't know how strong the American rule is though. so hmmm.
Also, I've made a chart comparing the Oscars/BAFTAs/SAGs since 2000. There have been 15 instances in which the SAG/BAFTA have chosen different winners in a category and only 4 times have neither of the winners gone on to win the Oscar. Twice in 2000 (which is forever ago), Actor in 03 and S. Actor in 05. So it's very likely that either Cotillard or Christie // Dee or Swinton will win. Dee is the only American of the bunch so that's why i really want to pick her! Plus she's a veteran actor who has never been awarded. (only con though is her verrrry limited screen time).
Anyways, I need to stop. I think I'm ranting a little now. So those are my thoughts. Any thoughts on my thoughts?
Also, just to justify the Day-Lewis/Bardem win, I want to say that there have been 13 occasions when the SAG and BAFTA have gone to the same person in a given year and category. Only three times has that person not gone on to win the Oscar. Day-Lewis's infamous loss in 02, Walken in the same year, and Crowe in 01 (only cause he won the Oscar the previous year, whereas he didn't win the SAG or BAFTA the previous year). But this hasn't happened since 02 so they're obviously solidified. I just want to point that out.
I didn't even consider the Globes winners in trying to figure out a trend. oh well.
Daniel Day-Lewis is also rooting for Marion Cotillard.
The things is have many people seen either La Vie en Rose or Away From Her? One's foreign and one's a very small film. I want to think that either Cotillard or Christie will prevail because I don't think I can stand Ellen Page winning against either of them (Juno is just starting to bug me with its omnipresence... I didn't even hate the film). I can't help but think that Cotillard might get a push because of the film's possible win in the makeup category. Not really sure if everyone votes for makeup, but voters will surely see that the film is on the list of nominees and may mistake makeup for performance. Not that the performance isn't worthy (I think it is), but you just never know how these people are voting. It's really a tough call, and it's probably my wishful thinking that is predicting a Cotillard win. It's pretty exciting to say the least.
~Steven
So I added the Globes to my charts and I see that no Actor/Actress has won the Oscar without winning either the SAG, BAFTA, or Globes since... 2002 with Adrien Brody's win.
It also happened in 2001 with Denzel and then twice in 2000 with Russell Crowe and Marcia Gay Harden.
So it hasn't happened in a loooong time and 2003 was when awards show winners started looking the same (evident in the SAGs when they were going 1/4 from 00-02 to 3+/4 from 03-present). So based on this, I would count Page out of Actress. and Ryan out of S. Actress. I wish I could give you my chart. You see a lot of trends/patterns. Like if you win all 3 (SAG/BAFTA/GLOBE) you win the Oscar. this has occured with 8 people and none have failed to win the Oscar after winning the other 3. so ya. Day-Lewis/Bardem have already basically won (unless some freak thing happens). so ya. that still doesn't say much about Actress or Supporting Actress.
UNLESS. haha. i'm flooding your commments.
It terms of these 3 awards (SAG/BAFTA/GG)...
Actress: Split 2 and 2 between Cotillard and Christie. This has only happened one other time in the Actres race in this century and that was in 02 with Kidman and Zellweger. Oscar winner went to the BAFTA winner, Kidman (they both won GGs and Zellweger got the SAG).
Supp Actress: Three different actresses have one one each. Dee = SAG. Swinton = BAFTA. Blanchett = GG. This happened one other time in the Supporting Actress category and that was in 2000. Dench won the SAG, Hudson won the Globe, and Walters won the BAFTA. The Oscar winner went to someone completely different (Gay Harden). If that happens again, this could mean good things for Ryan (American! haha) and Ronan.
sorry to kep commenting on you with these things.
right yes. i like comments don't worry about it.
but yeah. i just don't see BLANCHETT winning. I know that sometimes statistics are silly (i.e. there's a first time for everything) but the very short BAFTA specific statistics are favoring a COTILLARD Oscar win and saying SUPPORTING ACTRESS is between SWINTON, DEE, or RYAN
I think Christie losing a couple things is keeping it just close enough for there to be some suspense... but in the end, she'll win. I think Nat is just afraid to consider that maybe just MAYBE the academy loves Christie as much as he does.
Supporting actress I still say is between Dee, Swinton and Blanchett. Specifically, let's say...
1) Dee
2) Swinton
3) Blanchett
4) Ryan
5) Ronan
And really, can we just keep best actress in perspective a little bit, here? We all seem to be comparing it to Mirren '06, and no, Christie is not quite that unstoppable. BUT she has still won nearly everything that's important. The ONLY thing she's lost is the BAFTA. And can we all agree that that's the least important/predictive of the major precursors?
Christie has the critics awards, BFCA, GG (drama), SAG. That is a winning combo. Cotillard only has the comedy (i.e. ghettoized) GG and the BAFTA. I think everyone's blowing this out of proportion in terms of Christie's chances of losing, either because
A) they want her to lose, or
B) they really really want her to win and are scared to believe she will.
And isn't it rather telling that even though Knightley prefers Cotillard, she HAS NOT EVEN SEEN CHRISTIE'S PERF. Most voters probably have. Also, most are older and can relate better to the subject.
Just sayin... if you predict a loss for Christie, you're kinda nuts. There's just no reason to believe she won't it.
...just no reason to believe she won't *WIN it.
Sigh.
Oscar Odds Favors Cate Blanchett.
The critics' Best Supporting Actress usually does not go on to win the Oscar.
Neither does the sentimental favorite (Joan Plowright, Lauren Bacall, Gloria Stewart) - the later 2 were both SAG winners.
7 of the 10 double nominees have gone on to win 1 of their nominations.
Only twice have all 4 SAG winners repeated an Oscar win.
With the major precursors split, industry support and star power gives Blanchett the edge. She has appeared in 6 Best Picture nominees the last few years, so odds are more Academy members are familiar with her work than the lesser known nominees.
Cate Blanchett has won 2 career BFCAs, 2 Golden Globes, 2 SAGS, 2 BAFTAs. Looking at her stature in Hollywood, a 2nd Oscar is forthcoming.
how do Oscar odds favor Cate Blanchett because she's won many prizes in the past few years?
since when did winning a lot (including the Oscar) make you a favorite to win again real soon...?
i don't think having the Globe as your only significant prize is a sure sign of winning. Just ask Natalie Portman in Closer. or Kate Hudson in Almost Famous
oh and please save the snarky "you just hate Blanchett" comments. It is my second favorite performance from among the nominees. ;)
i just wonder why people think she's going to win at this point. She couldn't pull off critics awards in any majority. She didn't win the BFCA. She didn't win the SAG. what statistic is convincing people that she'll win?
why would she all of a sudden roar back for a movie that was so poorly handled (i'm still stunned that they had all that press and they didn't manage to open it quicker or get it really going)
"The things is have many people seen either La Vie en Rose or Away From Her?"
I've never bought that argument when it comes to major categories like best picture and acting. If enough people saw them to nominate them then enough saw them to vote for them. And if using the "have enough people seen them?" argument, Cate Blanchett should be considered null and void in supporting actress. More people saw Away from Her and La Vie en Rose (they have other category noms too so there's more confirmed viewers) than saw I'm Not There I can guarantee you that.
I'm still thinking the supporting actress award tips to Ruby Dee. If you're unsure go with a) the oldest nominee, b) the nominee with the highest box office or c) an American. Considering Ruby Dee is a, b and c (while Amy Ryan is the only other american she's not in a hot nor is she old/legend-status).
I JUST HAD A REVELATION...
Picture the weirdest year for Supporting Actress EVER. 2000, right?
Walters got the BAFTA
McDormand had the Critics
Hudson had the Globe
Dench had the SAG
Gay Harden got the Oscar? Huh?
Sounds strangely familiar?
Saoirse, anyone?
three things for blanchett:
-s. actress winners tend to have something of an "it" for the moment factor. someone who's cast so much has it more than the other four
-the other two double supporting actress winners won them w/ only a few years from first to second, and were among the most prolific actresses of their day. (obs that everyone on here knows this, but those two are dianne wiest and shelley winters.)
-in a vote which is so split, the minority who don't bother to see any of the movies, and vote based on saying "isn't so-and-so just divine" are most likely to insert blanchett for so-and-so, don't you think?
i get'cha. in a vote splitting situation anything could happen. But i think Wiest and Winters are different cases. For one thing with Wiest it's almost a decade apart and even though they're both from woody allen films the characters are NOTHING alike. I mean people were shocked at her work in Bullets (plus it picked up most of the awards if i recall... which Blanchett hasn't done)
the "it" factor and the "isn't she divine" are, you're right, helping Cate's cause. Everybody does seem to love her.
Bottom line I think is it's really close in supp actress and no one will be a surprise... especially not Cate.
I would be very surprised if Cate won. It's a divisive film, and while people do really seem to love the performance, she did just win three years prior for a performance that is superficially similar (impersonation of famous superstar)
Right now, I'm thinking it's Swinton's. Why?
She's in a best picture nominee that really only has two chances at a win: here and in screenplay. She's clearly in the most popular film. The early frontrunners, Ryan and Blanchett, are the only nods from their films (the last time we saw a winner here be the only nod from her film was Angelina Jolie, and that was as perfect a crystalization of buzz that benefitted a performance very few people seemed to love.)
Ruby Dee is only an acting legend if Gloria Stuart is. She's an old timer who's been around forever, who's done a lot of work promoting social causes (with Ossie Davis) and has lucked onto a sentimental streak here. Sentiment doesn't work like it used to (see Lauren Bacall in 1996).
Ronan feels like she should've won something by now, but I really don't think that precludes anything in a category this fucked up. The fact that they liked her enough to vote for her above Vanessa Redgrave (this is what an acting legend looks like) and Romola Garai (who handles the tricky midsection) suggests she has real fans. Anyone who wants to praise the acting only has one option here. I just don't think there are that many people who do.
I'd love a Ronan or Blanchett victory (still haven't seen Swinton or Dee; I enjoy Ryan as a performer, but her performance in Gone Baby Gone didn't bowl me over. It's a deserving nomination, and in a weaker year, I'd be fine with a win).
Nathaniel, surely you don't mind a little Blanchett ribbing?
I'm going to go with Ronan. She is the one that people should be talking about and I've heard a lot of support for her. And it isn't like Abigail Breslin, this is a real adult performance. Just like Anna Paquin 14 years ago....
Best Actress in a Leading Role:
Now, I believe that Marion Cotillard has better chances for the victory:
*She is in the media for the age of the winners. marion has 32 years old and that media is between 25-35.
*her caracther is a real person-an iconic french singer and she took the risk of physical transformation (Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank and Nicole Kidman)
*It's not a stop the favoritism of her film (75% in RT). Russell Crowe, Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry and Renee Zellweger are good examples.
*Example of the race of 2002. Julianne Moore took every prize since venice, except three importants. The SAG goes to Renee Zellweger and The Golden Globe and BAFTA goes to Nicole Kidman. We know the winner
*"That's caracther is in foreign language"... We know that reason. She took the twpo big obstacles... The last affirmation and that film isn't the favorite for foreign film. I remember that "Two Women" wasn't nominated for foregin film and actually Sofia Loren won.
My prediction is this:
"A battle between Christie and Cotillard. Cotillard wins in a 90%"
About Tilda Swinton, the surprise is possible. Binoche only won the big prize of the BAFTA, Bacall won Golden Globe, SAG. Allen won The Critics Choice and Who won? Binoche won over important contenders
what doyou mean by "wins in a 90%"? I'm not sure I follow.
and i know you're not the first to say it so this is not a knock on you but what do people see as "risky" about physical transformations? to me it's actually a safe way to win critical favor be you an actually great actress (Kidman) or an intermittently good one (Swank / Huffman) or someone ready to step up the career to a new more dramatic level (Theron)
to me it seems like a 99% sure way of winning good reviews or fresh reevaluation of your talents... so it seems like the opposite of risky to me.
Post a Comment