Best Actress

Of the Big 8 Academy Awards, it's seems typical that the most contentious is Best Actress.  It makes no difference on the perception of whether it's been a good year or a bad one-- even though with the scarcity of roles that Big Hollywood provides for strong female characters those good years tend to bring out a magnetism and bitchiness like nothing else-- and yet it's not just the ugly word of sexism that rears its head, though that's a major part of it; why does Best Actress tend to egg on the most fights?  Mind you, this is something that carriers itself well after the arduous campaigning of Oscar-ing is far over, but the mantles that grace the Best Actress Oscars tend to carry over a wave of something else that permeates into a broader conversation well after memory of that certain year's whatsits have long ended.  It seems foolish to think that harsher words would be spoken about a male counterpart than, say, Halle Berry's post-Oscar resumé, and while it's true that Catwoman would stink with anyone's insignia, her post awards doldrums aren't in way more or less offensive than, say, Adrien Brody's post-Oscar filmography, not that many seem overly fixated on that.  Furthermore, even if a stat held true for the men, there would be little mention of an alleged post-Oscar curse after the personal relationships dissolved for past winners like Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock and Kate Winslet.  Pure coincidence, or not, or really. who should particularly care?  Furthermore, the nastiness of the Mean Girls variety when pertaining to Best Actress is hardly a new thing whatsoever, for even in prior ages when the campaigning was less magnified and scrutinized, the bitch flag comes up over and over again from the fans and press eager to further flames-- the 1954 Oscar race between Grace Kelly (nominated in pure ingenue mode for deglaming in The Country Girl) was up against Judy Garland (for her massive comeback movie A Star is Born); Kelly won and the vitriol has never really stopped.

There's not much of an exception is this years race, one of many that's still in active play as we reach the homestretch.  This years frontrunner-- Jennifer Lawrence for her zesty turn as the manic Tiffany in David O. Russell's Silver Lining Playbook seems ripe for a can't win for losing or winning position because this category has always had an acidic aftertaste to it.  Lawrence has swept the precursors, winning the Golden Globe and SAG Award and is featured in the film nominated in all four acting categories (a coup that hasn't been achieved since 1981's Reds), and on paper looks like the victor.  It looked like a race between Lawrence and Zero Dark Thirty's Jessica Chastain (winner of the Golden Globe for Drama and the Critics Choice) up until that film became an ultimate problem child, seemingly taking her down with the sinking ship, however unruly that should seem.  Then, last week, a wrench was thrown when Emmanuelle Riva took home the BAFTA for her rich performance in Michael Haneke's Amour.  Riva, the oldest woman ever to be nominated for Best Actress (and whose birthday falls on the day of the ceremony) has been the dark horse that the critics and aficionados have been rooting for since she won the Best Actress prize at last years Cannes Film Festival.  A vote for Riva, in many circles, would be a vote for right, especially in sight of the 22-year-old Lawrence, massive movie star and hugely talented-- surely she will have another day to fight on.

Yet there's more to the narrative, as there always does seem to be, because in today's world of winning awards for the merits of talent; there's a perception of what our winner should be, and how they should behave.  While this stands true of the men in some respects as well, and is a part of the narrative on which will doom Joaquin Phoenix from potentially ever holding an Academy Awards, the ladies have always tended to be more doted upon, and Mo'Nique's impassioned grandstanding aside a few years back, that does seem to hold true this year as well.  Perhaps second only to Anne Hathaway, another Oscar frontrunner this year, Jennifer Lawrence's speeches and appearances have been scrutinized and publicized and examined in that rarefied Oscar fish bowl.  Upon winning the Golden Globe, she received snarky soundbites for her innocent, "What does it say...I beat Meryl," one-liner, and furthermore for her Saturday Night Live monologue/roast of her fellow nominees.  I'm not certain that any of this reduces her status in the race, but her age just might.  While its bullish to think that the Academy wouldn't reward a hot young thing versus someone like Riva, the critical darling, that's where the sexism charge comes once again into play, and it's kind of a bitter pill on both sides.  In truth, there's a nasty discharge of snide backlashes that provoke many Best Actress winners...even some of the more seasoned ones of recent memory like Kate Winslet and Nicole Kidman; it's further bullishness to think that will bypass Lawrence, who is incredibly talented and likely has a greater awards worthy performance in her in the near future.  Riva, by extension, would not just be the critical favorite, but the classier choice on terms both relevant and not to the Oscar race itself.

And so who will win?  Will, like many races this year, I'm a bit all over the place but I bet on gut so here we go:

WILL WIN: Emmannuelle Riva, Amour

Here's the Guru's of Gold and their say on Best Actress.  Courtesy of Movie City News.

Martha Marcy May and Oscar?

The Sundance hit Martha Marcy May Marlene opened in Los Angeles and New York this weekend, and to warm critical reception.  A few hiccups here and there; A.O. Scott of The New York Times was the highest profile descender, but one thing seems clear, that whatever one takes away from the murky, intentionally unresolvable film, its leading lady-- Elizabeth Olsen-- is a genuine find and prime elevator of the film.  The question is how far she will go.  She's already a recipient of a Gotham Awards nomination for Breakthrough Performer, which suggests she will likely add many more such breakthrough honors as the critics prizes start being handed out (The New York Film Critics Circle will get the ball rolling this year, a scowling effect that the critics prizes will now start to unveil November 28th), but the question is if Oscar is in her foreseeable future.  On a personal perspective, I'd love to say yes, as a fan of the film and her performance, the work is there, and it's wonderful.  Of course, Oscar doesn't work that way.  What she has going for her, aside from an outstandingly nuanced and perceptive performance, is Fox Searchlight, a canny awards promoter, even for films that read less than middlebrow Academy fodder (think Black Swan), and while the distributor has their hands full this year, as it does every year (The Descendants, Shame and The Tree of Life are all products of Fox, Jr.), this is their only shot at Best Actress; one must assume they have faith in it.  The other side is Olsen has an infinite media hook as the younger sister of billionaire twin Mary-Kate and Ashley-- the narrative of a smart young woman becoming classically trained and make it good on screen, despite perceived seemingly spoiled upbringing, will play well-- that in the press, she presents herself with such charm and sense of humor doesn't hurt either, nor does it hurt that she's young and pretty-- it's always a bit sad, but the performance in the awards game matters nil anymore.

The rest lies in her competition, so far her competitors might be:

• Viola Davis, The Help (the only way this doesn't happen is if there's a confusion of whether she's a lead or supporting, but that's doubtful-- at this early stage, she's the only lock, potential winner.)
• Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs (the film earned mixed reviews at Telluride and Toronto, but she's an Oscar-less legend working on a passion project-- as long as it isn't a huge critical\box office embarrassment, she's in)
• Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady (she's Meryl Streep, and the film doesn't need to be great, nor her performance for a nomination, it just can't be a joke-- sight unseen, it might be-- question mark.)
• Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn (New York and London film festivals came with mixed thoughts of the movie, but nice words for Williams-- she's playing a legend, which helps-- the movie just needs a big push-- that Weinstein Company is behind it helps too-- question mark.)
• Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin (hit at Cannes with wonderful reviews, but the film will likely be a hard sell-- set around a school shooting-- she needs the critics, as does Olsen; however the Academy must know by now they owe her for snubbing her so often.)
• Charlize Theron, Young Adult (question mark because nobody has seen it-- on the surface this dark comedy from Reitman\Cody looks solid.)
• Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia (perhaps not likely, but her Best Actress prize at Cannes makes for a nice FYC ad, and her reviews are the best she's ever gotten.)
• Kristen Wiig, Bridesmaids (I wish, but she'll have to settle for a Golden Globe in a Comedy trophy.)

Am I missing anyone?  While this year may not be the vast richness of last year, it's (on paper) not looking too bad...can Olsen make it in?  Or will Academy members be left chilled by the haunting ambiguity of the acclaimed performance and the foreboding film that surrounds it?

Lovely Ladies

It's been reported officially that Focus Features will rightfully campaign both Annette Bening and Julianne Moore for leading actress for their tremendous work in The Kids Are All Right.  That's a sigh of relief for true believers, I'd say, especially since studios usually do the usual trick of mixing co-leads of the same gender into lead and supporting categories, respectively-- the numerous examples are staggering (Brokeback Mountain's Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal springs to mind.)  And if by some miracle both awesomely talented creatures were to get nominated it would be the first time two women in the same film were nominated for lead actress since 1991, when both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis got in for Thelma & Louise.  It's a rare Oscar occurrence that's only happened five times before:

• Thelma & Louise (1991)- Davis & Sarandon
• Terms of Endearment (1983)- Shirley MacLaine & Debra Winger
• The Turning Point (1977)- Anne Bancroft & Shirley MacLaine
• Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)- Katharine Hepburn & Elizabeth Taylor
• All About Eve (1950)- Anne Baxter & Bette Davis

The drawback (and rational reason why studios are weary of it) is of course two nominations in the same category means at least one loss.  Of the ten women above, only one won the statue; that would be MacLaine for Terms of Endearment.  In some alternate ideal movie-land world I like to visit sometimes, I envision both Bening and Moore winning together-- it's unfortunate both sublime actresses are Oscar-less, despite loads of nominations (Bening has three to her credit-- The Grifters, American Beauty, and Being Julia; whereas Moore has four-- Boogie Nights, The End of the Affair, The Hours, and Far From Heaven), massive acclaim, and the fact that at this point both have to be assumed Hollywood royalty.  In this dream, I picture both accepting their Oscars in characters as Nic and Jules, gracious, but perhaps bored, as Bening eyes it to the bar for some red wine.

Bening and Moore, despite being completely deserving do have their work cut out for them in the long haul however.  2010 is shaping up to a rich year for leading actress, a welcome treat for a category sometimes bereft of solid choices.  This year appears on paper to be an embarrassment of riches from films already opened, film festival favorites, and speculative guesswork.  Here's some options:

• Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right-- earned some of her best reviews for the arthouse hit, but faces internal competition from Julianne Moore.

• Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole-- when the film premiered at this year's Toronto Film Festival, she received lovely notices and career comeback type press releases.  Lions Gate Films snagged the film up, readying it for an awards qualifying run.  Kidman plays a mother mourning the loss of her son.  Based on the acclaimed play that won Cynthia Nixon a Tony Award.

• Anne Hathaway, Love & Other Drugs-- speculative awards worthiness here, but she has a lot of buzz right now, and the mixture of light romantic comedy\tragic love story\topical subject might work well within middlebrow academy settings. 

• Sally Hawkins, Made in Dagenham-- the film, which seems sort of a British-Norma Rae, played really well at Toronto, and Hawkins, who previously should have been acknowledged for Happy-Go-Lucky, might be in the film hits the right the notes with the critics and public.

• Diane Lane, Secretariat-- while this Disney racehorse film isn't exactly the hottest film of the year (the cool internet kids, which I would never identify myself as) certainly aren't looking forward to it, but Lane is a hard-working actress, who surely still has some academy good will from her wonderful nominated performance in Unfaithful (2002), and if the film (thinking on terms of Seabiscuit + The Blind Side) performs well at the box office, she may have a better shot than we believe.

• Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone-- the film did fairly well for a summer art film (over $5 million), and the reviews were blistering enough to think that the critics might bring the movie back come end of the year time with their awards and top ten lists.  But Lawrence is very young, and the dark indie flick (winner of the Sundance's Grand Jury Prize) might unsettle those you actually watch it, or might be too underseen.  Indie Spirit nomination seems like a lock however.

• Lesley Manville, Another Year--  the latest film from Mike Leigh (Vera Drake, Happy-Go-Lucky) which was very warmly reviewed at Cannes this year, many critics pointing out Manville's performance.  A familiar character actress in Leigh's work, it could be strong and awards bait, but rumor has it could be in the supporting category instead.

• Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right-- great as Annette Bening's lover in the summer arthouse hit, but Bening received the majority of the best in show accolades; I fear as worthy as Moore is, it may not happen.  I strongly believe Focus will plan a big DVD release to raise it's dwindling profile, reminding the movie elites how good the film really is.  Focus is quite good at Oscar campaigns.

• Carey Mulligan, Never Let Me Go-- she's strong in the divisive film, but I have a feeling if the older members of the academy respond well to the emotional story, than the film might have a better awards showing than most may expect at this point in the game.

• Gwyneth Paltrow, Country Strong-- speculative guesswork here, as nobody has seen the film yet, and honestly the trailer was a bit nausea-inducing.  But Paltrow plays a fading, alcoholic country star, and that may well fit the academy just fine (ask last years winner Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart.)  I'm guessing if the movie is tremendously popular (like last year's nausea-inducing The Blind Side), it has a fair shot, and Paltrow is a movie star, that never hurts.

• Natalie Portman, Black Swan-- has received the best reviews of her career so far (based on festival audience, not always the most reliable) for Darren Aronofsky's ballet freak out film.  While many have noted the film itself may be too cool or intense for general academy taste, Portman could well get in.

• Emma Stone, Easy A-- okay, Oscar is definitely out of the question, but her reviews have been terrific, and the films is looking like a success, so a Golden Globe (musical or comedy) nomination is not out of reach, and one could make a point that she's playing one of Oscar's favorite types of girls, in the whore with the heart of gold, though she's a fake whore in the film.

• Hilary Swank, Conviction-- Ms. Swank and myself don't always see eye to eye; Boys Don't Cry being the only exception, but she's playing to her strengths here, and the film might catch on, even if the early word out of Toronto is ho-hum, and members of the academy strangely have quite the affinity for her.

• Naomi Watts, Fair Game-- playing ousted CIA agent Valerie Plame is a plum role, and Watts received kind words out of Cannes this year.  The real test will be when the film opens (courtesy of Summit Pictures, in November.) 

• Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine or Meek's Cutoff-- Williams has been a film festival darling all year so far with Blue Valentine likely being her real awards bid.  She and screen partner Ryan Gosling got tremendous reviews at Sundance and Cannes, but I worry since The Weinstein Company is choosing to open the film at the very end of December if it will have enough time to build awards momentum (far more important that actual quality), especially for a small actors film.  Meek's Cutoff got nice notices too, and it is Williams' second collaboration with director Kelly Reichardt, following the lovely and deceptively simple Wendy & Lucy, early word however is that film may not arrive until 2011.

• Reese Witherspoon, How Do You Know?-- speculation here as no one has seen the film yet, but it's from director James L. Brooks, who has a nice track record of getting smart, character based dramedies into the Oscar race (As Good as it Gets, Broadcast News, Terms of Endearment), expect when he doesn't (Spanglish), but this sounds on paper at least a good option for Witherspoon, seemingly playing to her strengths. 

That's 16 very real possibilities, and a nice mixture of young blood, on the rise gals, and proven acting aces\movie stars.  I'm kind of stoked...

The Best Actress Quandary

Just a quickly as Sandra Bullock won the best actress Oscar for The Blind Side, I began to struggle to hold it together. How could I find logic with a major award going to a performance that I didn't quite admire in a film I out and out didn't like. And then it dawned on me-- the Academy has been doing this sort of thing with this sort of category since it's history. It's hard, really really hard to find the last time that the Academy and myself have agreed on best actress. The oddity, of course, it that it's probably my favorite category. There always seems to be more drama involved, so more investment for me. The last time Oscar and me agreed was likely in 1996 when Frances McDormand won for Fargo, a win that still shocks me to this day. She was the best that year, and think it's hard to disagree with that. That past decade in best actress land was:

2000: Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich
2001: Halle Berry, Monster's Ball
2002: Nicole Kidman, The Hours
2003: Charlize Theron, Monster
2004: Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby
2005: Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
2006: Helen Mirren, The Queen
2007: Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose
2008: Kate Winslet, The Reader
2009: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side

The most satisfying win on my part was likely Roberts in Erin Brockovich. Not that I would've voted for her necessarily-- my vote would have been for Ellen Burstyn for Requiem for a Dream, or on another given day perhaps Laura Linney for You Can Count on Me, but Roberts was sublime in the Soderbergh docudrama, in a nicely crafted pure movie star performance, which done right (like Nicole Kidman did in Moulin Rouge! and the un-nominated The Others) is a thing of gold, and Oscars. And while I don't intend to be distasteful because none of those ten women were detestable, or even embarrassing choices on the Academy standpoint, they just weren't the pantheon of riches it could and should be. For example, on the flipside, the Oscar choices for best actor and my personal taste often overlap; I'm never really disappointed or nearly as passionate up in arms about it-- Sean Penn winning for Milk or Daniel Day-Lewis winning for There Will Be Blood-- how can I argue with that kind of unparralled greatness.

Another thing that kind of does sicken me about some of these choices (especially the winners of 2001-2004) was that pretty ladies Berry, Kidman, Theron and Swank were deemed Oscar-able for "de-glamming" a part of which I never liked. One could judge these four performances till the end of time (I don't think any of them are bad, nor great), but it was distasteful from my perspective that an actress had to "ugly" themselves up to be taken seriously for their craft. Fortunately, the winners after that, to varying degress, were allowed to pretty on screen, even sexualized in the case of Kate Winslet in The Reader.

But I do find it dismaying that in practically ever other award the Academy provides there's a greater meeting of their eyes and mine, except this one. I do realize that my taste differ slightly (and sometimes largely) from the Academy. I tend to champion smaller, little seen fare a bit more. I tend to like films that may be a bit too challenging for the Academy's taste. I heartily agree. But I also think that the girls are given more a chance to showcase themselves in smaller films, and foreign films for that, than in big Hollywood. This is hardly a new arguement, there's always been rampart sexism in the industry, and pretty much everything on the subject has already been said. But I want to know why the best actress divide is so dominant when I fully admire, or at least appreciate the other acting winners: Jeff Bridges, Christoph Waltz, and Mo'Nique were all exquiste choices, if predicatable, no complaints. That's my point!

My choices for best actress this decade:

2000: Ellen Burstyn, Requiem for a Dream (nominated\lost)
2001: Naomi Watts, Mulholland Drive (not nominated)
2002: Julianne Moore, Far From Heaven (nominated\lost)
2003: Evan Rachel Wood, Thirteen (not nominated)
2004: Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (nominated\lost)
2005: Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger (not nominated)
2006: Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal (nominated\lost)
2007: Laura Linney, The Savages (nominated\lst)
2008: Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky (not nominated)
2009: Tilda Swinton, Julia (not nominated)


I get that the Oscars are really a popularity contest, and perhaps I'll close with that. The aggraviting thing about Sandra Bullock's win is really that I want to be outraged and disillusioned by it, but her speech was so clever and wonderful. The damn warmth of that woman making me come across evil while she wittily begrudges George Clooney for throwing her in a pool, and calling Meryl Streep her lover. The speech was more Oscarable in my book than the corny performance, but I can't hate on her too much more now can I. I am, like a trained seal, required to watch in horror whoever wins my favorite award next year.

The Awesome-ness of Tilda Swinton

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

I'm late in this conversation I'm well aware, just to preface. I saw an extraordinary piece of acting from this last year in a teeny-tiny film entitled Julia. In it, the incomparable Tilda Swinton, she the saucer angel of acting, or demon, or both, plays Julia Harris, and blowzy, alcoholic mess of a woman who, out of desperation and I don't know, perhaps even boredom, kidnaps a child in an attempt to get rich. As her plan (all made up on of the spur of moment) backfires and becomes increasingly ridiculous, she eventually ends up in Mexico in another kidnapping attempt on the same child. The story itself is sort of rip off of Cassavettes, but all that doesn't matter, because Julia is held together, some times on the skin of it's teeth, by Swinton who throws just about everything into this performance. When she utters the line:

"And it's time my luck changed. And it's time something went right for me!"

On the page it might sound like a customary line of self-entitlement and seeking redemption, with Julia it's a cry for mercy, and a battle cry all at once. It's predatory and pathetic. Swinton has the bravery to make her character unattractive and unlikable, without making her disposable. Her dailty routines of waking up hung over in strange men's apartments and clubbing it up at night the next day. Swinton makes it all real. My favorite line of dialogue is one such bar adventure, when a suitor asks what she does for a living. Her response, "I make dreams come true." And the dream world is probably where Julia lives.

I write of this after tonight's SAG ceremony where Ms. Sandra Bullock was the winner, and well to point out that perhaps the best actress race looks a tad drab, boring, unspectacular. The unfortunate thing that wouldn't be the case if Tilda Swinton were up there getting awards. Sadly, only the brave souls of the Online Film Critics Society even had the courage to nominate such a bold and provocative performance. I'm not blaming the individuals bodies and guilds for not acknowledging the best female leading performance of the year, especially since it's admittably a hard sell. But you can't complain about a weak year for leading ladies when the best one keeps getting ignored. Sorry Sandra, Julia could eat you for breakfast.