We waited five long years for Michelle Pfeiffer's wonderfully spirited 2007 comeback (Stardust & Hairspray) but it looks like Miramax and the Weinsteins got a little over optimistic with that proposed December 2008 date for her next Oscar bid, Chéri. I thought that that movie happened awfully fast! Word, direct from the studio to this pfanatic's ear, is that I should stop holding my breath in pfeverish anticipation. It's probably going to be a 2009 movie after all. With or without La Pfeiffer, 2008's Best Actress race is jam-packed with viable contenders.*
Posts
19 comments:
well... it looks like we´re gonna have to wait...
mmm... maybe in 2009 she has a better chance of winning the f*****g Oscar... after all it´ll be 20 years since she was awfully robbed...
no chance now if they were that optimistic they would've stuck with it,period roles are not her strong point anyhow.
pessimistic much?
both Gangs of New York and The Hours were delayed by close to a year each and they both ended up with Best Picture nods (and plentiful others)
it doesn't always equal doom.
the optimistic spin:
it could be that miramax has too many contenders sandwiched in one year... (i mean seriously --they have a lot this year) why rush a film that just finished shooting and lose to yourself (presumably meryl streep for DOUBT) when you can win best actress two years in a row ;) Streep than Pfeiffer.
as always with the great actresses we should remain optimistic.
I'm having mixed feelings about this ... Sure it would be luvverly to see Streep win, then Pfeiffer. But this means la Winslet won't ... sigh!
well winning talk is all silliness anyway. For all we know it will be some young starlet just barely proving herself this year AND next. that's how they roll.
I just watched The Age of Innocence today, and I have to disagree with anonymous above- I thought she was great in that. It's just a very good movie overall, definitely one of the most unappreciated period films out there.
well 2 of her 3 nominations are from period pieces but after Age of... she stopped doing them regularly preferring less dramatic more mainstream dramedies and the like. i think she's convincing in period pieces (no weakness there at all) but her best performances have been in modern things (fab baker boys, white oleander, scarface, etcetera)
Period roles are not her strong point ?
She was great in Liaisons and in Age of innocence.
PERIOD.
I think it's a good move to wait until 2009. I was worried they were just rushing it.
Now let's just hope it's not a spring 2009 release or something like that, ack!
I believe too that, pfeiffer deserves a better chances in 2009 race instead this year's. This year the competition is tough and Miramax has to pull on two long shot actresses: meryl Streep and Sally hawkins with not count out the other options. Another fact, this year we have overdues actresses (Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore, Sophie Okonedo...)
Pfeiffer could be the Julie Christie's 2009 and she deserves unleast another nomination
I look forward to seeing it next year. If they can run a better, more focused campaign next year, then go for it. It's not like the material is going to be out of date.
Plus, I can see more related publicity could be done - photoshoots for Vogue or something, more articles about who Colette was anyway, creating more familiarity with the character, And also getting people used to the idea that Pfeiffer is due, overdue, so that it settles in their minds.
So maybe this year will be an Angelina-Brad year for nominations. I wonder if the tabloids would then do "Oscar history" pieces (to explain what Oscars are) and what on earth those pieces would look like.
Angelina Jolie, two time Oscar winner? Love her I do, but I refuse to believe she'll win a second when so many other actresses still need their first. Kate! Julianne!
dusty two words:
hilary. swank.
okay four:
sally. field.
nothing against Sally but Oscar voters don't care if they overreward some people and underreward others. That said, I really see this being Meryl's year. Think of it is as her Jurassic Park/Schindler's List. One for the massess that turns into a big hit... and one with the prestige for Oscar when she's riding the wave of public adoration.
that's my theory.
if DOUBT is any good of course.
I to prefer Pfeiffer in modern films - Married to the Mob, Fabulous Baker Boys, Frankie and Johnny (remember when actresses were attacked for deglamming), Batman Returns... Hell, I'd rank her performance in Into the Night above her work in The Age of Innocence, which I believe is a deeply flawed movie, from the ground up.
I'm kind of glad it's being pushed up. This was reeking of a slightly less embarassing Miss Potter (in the Weinstein "shove it in december 31" kind of way, I mean).
kamikaze just compared Michelle Pfeiffer to latter day Renee Zelwegger. Run, kamikaze, I'm pretty sure that's NAthaniel I see as a hopped up tasmanian devil in the distance.
I think Michelle was great in The age of Innocence. So many good scenes! And she was great in The Pfabulous Baker Boys.
She IS versatile, and her best performances have been in both, modern roles (fab baker boys, white oleander, scarface,...) and period roles. She only need decent movies to show it. And there aren't many of those.
Tachu
Nathaniel other two words:
Helen Hayes (I still don't know how won her first Oscar instead Lynn Fontaine and no nominated Marlene Dietrich; but that awful second Oscar... YIKES!!!!). Unleast Vivien Leigh has very well deserving two Oscars.
I forgot this, Michelle Pfeiffer should fight in the next year race because maybe if she doesn't Hilary Swank'll have the free way... Maybe I'm wrong but we never know!!
P.D.: I like Swank and no offense but two Oscars with a mediocre career and only four good performances?
Post a Comment