|
Post by Atreides on Jan 28, 2008 10:14:21 GMT -4
The Best Supporting Actress Oscar does seem wide open now.
Cate - won the GG but lost the SAG. Also has the Meryl Streep disadvantage in that she's nominated so often, including this very same category last year.
Amy - won most of the early critics' awards but has faded away recently. Name recognition factor also a problem.
Ruby - won the SAG and got a surprise Oscar nom. For a five minute performance!
Tilda - lots of love for Michael Clayton. With George, Tom, and the film most likely to lose in their respective categories, Tilda's got the best shot to win for this film.
Saoirse - okay, it's a four horse race. Sorry, Briony.
|
|
aibohphobia
Blueblood
Posts: 1,341
Jan 29, 2006 20:23:45 GMT -4
|
Post by aibohphobia on Jan 28, 2008 10:32:43 GMT -4
The Best Supporting Actress Oscar does seem wide open now. Cate - won the GG but lost the SAG. Also has the Meryl Streep disadvantage in that she's nominated so often, including this very same category last year. Amy - won most of the early critics' awards but has faded away recently. Name recognition factor also a problem. Ruby - won the SAG and got a surprise Oscar nom. For a five minute performance! Tilda - lots of love for Michael Clayton. With George, Tom, and the film most likely to lose in their respective categories, Tilda's got the best shot to win for this film. Saoirse - okay, it's a four horse race. Sorry, Briony. Yes, I agree with your analysis. I thought it might just be between Cate Blanchett and Amy Ryan before the nominations came out because Ryan had most of the critic awards, but Blanchett had more name recognition and the rest of the awards that Ryan didn't pick up. However, I knew it would hurt Blanchett that she was already nominated in this category last year, and just won in the same category a few years ago. I didn't know if Ryan would pick up enough steam to win however since she would be her film's only nomination, and she's not very well-known and doesn't have the advantage, imo, of being the hot, young talent, Hollywood royalty, or respected veteran that could give her an edge over the other nominees. Frankly I don't think she has enough steam, so I'm predicting Swinton right now as well even though she hasn't picked up any major precursors. I don't think it matters because this year feels so open where I could really see any of them winning, and she's a respected veteran but had more a lot more screentime than Ruby Dee did, and her role is supposed to be the kind of showy part that actors will love. Plus, since I don't think Michael Clayton will actually win Best Original Screenplay, she's likely to be her film's only win, and I think they'll want to give it something since it did have the most acting nominations of any film this year. I think it will be close though, and I could see where Ruby Dee could win too since they sometimes do the Career Achievement Award Oscar usually in the Supporting Actor category, but I think it could happen for Dee since there's not really a hot, new talent, imo, and she's got both the Hollywood royalty and respected veteran edge.
|
|
Karen
Blueblood
Posts: 1,122
Mar 10, 2005 10:32:09 GMT -4
|
Post by Karen on Jan 28, 2008 16:16:29 GMT -4
I think it will be close though, and I could see where Ruby Dee could win too since they sometimes do the Career Achievement Award Oscar usually in the Supporting Actor category, but I think it could happen for Dee since there's not really a hot, new talent, imo, and she's got both the Hollywood royalty and respected veteran edge. I think it would be ridiculous if Dee, or anyone, won an Oscar for four and a half minutes of screentime. Her role: Beatrice Straight is also listed on that site and she won BSA for six minutes, but at least the one scene where she's acting and not in the background is twice as long as Dee's. I hope Swinton wins because a "career award" for a 4:29 (or 2 minute) performance is sad. Give her the actual Honorary Oscar, but don't rob a supporting actress (any of the other four) who actually contributed to her film's quality and development.
|
|
|
Post by lpatrice on Jan 28, 2008 17:49:01 GMT -4
I think it will be close though, and I could see where Ruby Dee could win too since they sometimes do the Career Achievement Award Oscar usually in the Supporting Actor category, but I think it could happen for Dee since there's not really a hot, new talent, imo, and she's got both the Hollywood royalty and respected veteran edge. I think it would be ridiculous if Dee, or anyone, won an Oscar for four and a half minutes of screentime. Her role: Beatrice Straight is also listed on that site and she won BSA for six minutes, but at least the one scene where she's acting and not in the background is twice as long as Dee's. I hope Swinton wins because a "career award" for a 4:29 (or 2 minute) performance is sad. Give her the actual Honorary Oscar, but don't rob a supporting actress (any of the other four) who actually contributed to her film's quality and development. Big.Fat.Word. The Academy needs to say, oh yeah we fucked up in the past by giving people Oscars when they didn't deserve them because they didn't get an Oscar years early when they did deserve it. This stops now. It would be ridiculous if Ruby Dee won the Best Supporting Oscar over any of the other four who were actually integral parts of their films. Honestly, I forgot Ruby Dee was even in American Gangster until I saw she had been nominated for some awards. Her role was not memorable in my opinion nor it was integral to the storyline.
|
|
abbynormal
Guest
Sept 22, 2024 22:19:16 GMT -4
|
Post by abbynormal on Jan 28, 2008 18:28:05 GMT -4
Was American Gangster nominated for anything else or was it pretty much shut out?
|
|
|
Post by lpatrice on Jan 28, 2008 18:36:14 GMT -4
Was American Gangster nominated for anything else or was it pretty much shut out? Yes it was. Aside from Dee's nomination it got a nod for art direction, that was it.
|
|
|
Post by WitchyPoo on Jan 28, 2008 19:00:35 GMT -4
Please don't let it be one of those awards for her entire career. So insulting to everyone. Nothing against Ruby but I doubt it was the pinnacle of her acting career.
|
|
BarbR
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 430
Mar 8, 2005 7:55:50 GMT -4
|
Post by BarbR on Jan 28, 2008 19:24:23 GMT -4
Didn't Dame Judi Dench win for BSA for Shakespeare In Love? She was only on screen for about 10 minutes, right?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 22, 2024 22:19:16 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2008 19:37:35 GMT -4
I guess it's really all about how one (or rather, the Academy and studio bosses) would define "supporting" and that is just tricky. I'd say that something like Amy Ryan's part in Gone Baby Gone was a perfect supporting character to the main story of the film. You could argue forever about what goes into that category and what should not: were Rachel Weisz and Jennifer Connelly really supporting when they played the only female lead roles in the films they won for (Constant Gardener and A Beautiful Mind)? And how come that someone like Reese who, as some say, clearly played a supporting character to Joaquin Phoenix' lead role, gets thrown into the Lead category? Can characters that are only on screen for a few minutes really be classified as "supporting"? I think it's difficult to say and also depends on the film/role. It often seems as if the Academy uses these supporting categories to honour veteran actors who only had practically cameos in the film they were nominated for. Gives them a chance to quickly hand out an award before it's too late. I'll say that Ruby Dee and Hal Holbrook's chances aren't too slim....
|
|
|
Post by Atreides on Jan 28, 2008 20:21:59 GMT -4
Judi Dench had 8 minutes of screentime. I will say though that she owned those 8 minutes, although it was pretty easy against La Paltrow. I figured that was also a consolation award to Judi for losing to Helen Hunt (of all people!) a few years earlier.
|
|