Discussion in 'TV + Film' started by strangekin, Jan 9, 2021.
Kidman deserved an Oscar for Dogville.
How she was not even nominated is beyond me.
Kirsten chances of winning are slim now but I think she will still get nominated. Ten years ago she would have walked it, (Oscar bait role, under 40, star power etc) However there has been a trend in recent years of more mature actresses getting more love from the Academy in lead performances and I think this is a positive reflection that slightly more films are being made with richer, dynamic & more complex female characters for the over 40’s then have previously been allowed in films.
Kidman, Coleman possibly Gaga could still win the Oscar, crazy as I am not really bowled over by any of those performances. Good, adequate etc, but none of them scream iconic.
She also deserved an Oscar for To Die For.
Nicole has a ton of Oscar worthy performances under her belt, so to see so many of them go unnoticed while she gains momentum for….this is just disappointing.
Could Kristen snub be something related to her not being liked among her peers or something shitty like that?
I don’t think it has anything to do with her peers not liking her per se but I think a lot of people still only think Shiny Vampires when they think of her and can’t get past it despite her having a Cesar and so much critical acclaim in the last 10 years.
I still think Stewart is going to win the Critics Choice Award keeping her name in the conversation but not getting SAG is a big miss.
I’ve also seen pundits wondering if her quote that was taken way out of context about “not giving a shit about Oscars” has affected her. Variety are assholes for printing it the way they did.
Serious question though…If Kristen doesn’t give a shit about the Oscars why should we? These mainstream accolades are meaningless at the end of the day and I’m glad some artists are moving away from it.
The Academy have done far worse things over the years than snub Kristen Stewart (which, I should point out, they haven't actually done yet) and I think everyone knows it's meaningless. Having 'meaningless' stuff to care about isn't particularly a bad thing, in fact you could argue it's necessary given the state of...well, everything.
It's a strange Best Actress race this year because, as others have said, there are plenty of solid performances but no sign of a truly all-time great performance, at least among the ones I've seen (which includes Kristen).
I mean I loved Gaga but winning an Oscar for it would be a stretch. None of the performances in the conversation seem like winners to me. I can't help thinking that even with the SAG snub Kristen is still the frontrunner simply cos she got in front early and there is no consensus around an alternative.
Don't count out Penelope yet.
Love that this year is as batshit as last.
You may be in the wrong thread.
I’m inclined to agree because it feels difficult to call any of the others a “frontrunner”, even with precursor wins/nominations.
Would certainly love Penelope having some last minute acceleration into the race; it’s one of the only other performances I feel passionately about. There’s a wonderful New York Times profile of her this week that really focuses on her relationship with Almodovar and the narrative of her winning her second Oscar for her work with such a long-standing/defining collaborator would be a good one.
Yeah I don’t feel totally enthused by this years crop. I stan a lot of them and their previous work, but there’s nothing really exciting here in these specific roles. A second Nicole win has been on the cards for years now and I’m very here for it in general but it’s a shame it’s for such a boring / kinda bad role. A lot of the peripheral girls have put in great performances but they can’t seem to be breaking into the bunch - a crop of Jennifer Hudson / Alana Haim / Rachel Zegler / Jodie Comer / Tessa Thompson / Renate Reinsve / Emilia Jones would be much more interesting. Almost impossible to have a group of entirely first time nominees though. I’m just so bored of biopic performances and 4/5 of our nominees being of that genre is dull.
I'd say nowadays, it's more than 'almost' impossible. The last all first-timer Best Actress line up was in...1970.
To be fair, the performances in any given year are judged against the other performances that year, not an actor's own filmography (in theory)... so whether Being the Ricardos is a lesser perf than Dogville or Moulin Rouge is irrelevant dd. People should get over this.
Nicole was great in Ricardos, carried the entire movie and does at least deserve the nom.
I think that’s where we disagree nn. Stacking it up against the other contenders, I still wouldn’t put her in the top 5 for this performance regardless of how it looks next to Nicole’s own work.
And I wouldn’t say an actor’s past performance are ever completely irrelevant in any given Oscar race since the academy loves to give awards/nominations to recognize someone’s body of work or to make up for perceived snubs in the past just as often as it rewards exceptional performances. When she gets this nomination, I reckon it’ll be just as much for all the great work she’s done in the last decade or so just as much as it is for Being the Ricardos. It’s just the film with the best narrative to get her there at the moment.
No one was nominating Glenn Close for the quality of her performance in Hillbilly Elegy last year.
All of this.
Narrative is a huge part of it. If you look at Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet's wins for example, I don't think either is widely thought of as winning for their best performance (certainly not Kate) but they had both built up an impressive body of work and multiple nominations, and the point was reached where people were starting to say "why doesn't he/she have an Oscar yet"? In Leo's case, the frankly miserable competition didn't hurt his cause either. Same with Martin Scorsese winning for The Departed - you'll struggle to find anyone who would rate it as a better film than Goodfellas or Raging Bull, but having come close and missed out on so many previous occasions (including those two) it was deemed his time to win.
Yeah, narrative and a good storyline is crucial to a win. It’s never just about ‘the best performance of the year’ because most of the time that performance doesn’t win.
Which is why I’m surprised at the Kirsten SAG snub. She does have a decent narrative underdog / finally proving herself thing going on I think.
I think Glenn is in a very weird situation, in that the "overdue" narrative was only attached to her much later in her career - after those five nominations in the 80s, there was a 22 year gap before her next one.
Albert Nobbs is a tedious slog of a film that didn't even get great reviews, and her performance in it is bad. Hillbilly Elegy got an even worse critical reception (I still haven't been able to bring myself to watch it). As you suggest, clearly there's an element within the actors' branch who are thinking "why hasn't she won yet?" because without that, no way in hell is she nominated for either of those.
The Wife wasn't as badly received, but her performance is by far the film's biggest selling point and the only aspect of it recognised in the nominations. Unfortunately, it landed in one of the most stacked Best Actress years in recent memory, and ultimately up against four terrific performances with strong narratives of their own behind each.
One of my least favourite Oscar wins ever nn. Fuck The Reader!
Separate names with a comma.