Only three days until Oscar nominations are announced! It’s so weird to have them this early … I feel like I barely predicted at all this year. Nonetheless, it’s time to lock in my final picks! Today, it’s one last glimpse at the leading acting categories.
- Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln“
- Hugh Jackman, “Les Misérables“
- Bradley Cooper, “Silver Linings Playbook“
- John Hawkes, “The Sessions“
- Denzel Washington, “Flight“
I was wrong, this is Daniel Day-Lewis’ race to lose. My gosh, he is winning everything! Look at this chart of dominance. It turns Anne Hathaway’s dream to shame.
He’s going to come charging into the Kodak Theatre to get that record-setting third Oscar for Best Actor. This is like Phillip Seymour Hoffman for “Capote,” Forest Whitaker for “The Last King of Scotland,” and … well, Daniel Day-Lewis for “There Will Be Blood” levels of momentum.
If anyone takes him down, though, it’s going to be Hugh Jackman. He had many doubters until the film was unveiled, and he’s taken the big three nods from BFCA, SAG, and HFPA. He will almost certainly win the Golden Globe. Maybe, just maybe, he can stage an Adrian Brody-esque upset.
The nomination will likely be the win for Bradley Cooper, who has triumphantly exceeded expectations in “Silver Linings Playbook” and likely redefined how the industry sees him. Well done, sir. I’m pleased that a clear path to a nomination emerged with Critics’ Choice, SAG, and Golden Globe recognition. I thought it might be a more uphill climb, but I have been very pleasantly surprised.
Beyond DDL, Jackman, and Cooper, my certainty stops. I am almost positive the final two nominees will be John Hawkes for “The Sessions” and Denzel Washington in “Flight.” They were feted by BFCA, SAG, and HFPA. Joaquin Phoenix, on the other hand, missed with SAG and will likely be left out in the cold (much to my chagrin).
I’m on the record as being nonplussed by Hawkes and Washington, though I greatly admire many other performances by the two actors. For my money, Phoenix was the best performance of the year. Several others have seen what I have seen, and he’s picked up a few critics’ groups notices. He was also nominated by the Golden Globes, albeit in the segregated drama category, and the Critics’ Choice Awards, which had six nominees.
Sadly, it looks like Phoenix will follow the trajectory of Michael Fassbender’s work in “Shame,” my favorite performance of 2011. Fassbender and Phoenix were both winners of the Volpi Cup for Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival. Their work was widely acclaimed, and their movies were polarizing. They won Best Actor from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association among several other prizes. They picked up key nominations from BFCA and HFPA, but their SAG snub raised some red flags.
Phoenix’s journey will likely end the same way Fassbender’s did. Repelling the Academy, Fassbender was left on the outside looking in at the Best Actor category. Phoenix shouldn’t mind being put in the same position, however, because he hates awards season and thinks the Oscars are BS.
So it looks like I’ll be predicting the SAG nominees to repeat five-for-five. Boring, disappointing, I know. But there’s nothing screaming to go against conventional wisdom here.
I don’t think Richard Gere for “Arbitrage,” Jack Black for “Bernie,” Denis Lavant for “Holy Motors,” Jean-Louis Trintignant for “Amour,” or Anthony Hopkins for “Hitchcock” really have much of a chance. Each has a few respective laurels, but the frontrunning five are just too strong for there to be a major surprise.
Then again, last year gave us not only Demian Bichir but an out-of-nowhere nod for Gary Oldman. So we’ll just have to see. Maybe the Academy has a few tricks up its sleeve in 2012 that we just have no way to forecast.
- Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty“
- Jennifer Lawrence, “Silver Linings Playbook“
- Naomi Watts, “The Impossible”
- Marion Cotillard, “Rust and Bone“
- Quvenzhané Wallis, “Beasts of the Southern Wild“
The dynamics at the top of the race have changed little over the past month. It’s still a Chastain vs. Lawrence cage match, and I think we won’t really know until the envelope is opened. They will go head-to-head at the Critics’ Choice Awards and the SAG Awards, but Viola Davis won both of those last year and lost the Oscar. The Golden Globe will do nothing to clear up the picture as they will compete in separate categories. I give Chastain the edge now.
But below Chastain and Lawrence, so much is fluctuating. This is the most fluid acting category of the four in 2012, capable of many unsurprising surprises. And if any race is suggesting that conventional wisdom and historical precedent simply won’t do, this would be it.
It would seem that Naomi Watts and Marion Cotillard would be assured nominations for “The Impossible” and “Rust and Bone,” respectively. They’ve scored the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA hat trick of nominations, just about the best safety net you can have. Both also look to be the only nominations for their respective movies as “The Impossible” missed the cut for visual effects and France chose “The Intouchables” over “Rust and Bone” to compete in the Best Foreign Language Film category.
I’m much more bullish on Watts, a prior nominee for “21 Grams” back in 2003, perhaps because I haven’t seen the movie yet and can visualize her more as a statistic (sorry for the bluntness, but that’s the name of the game). I’ve read that “The Impossible” has really played the guild circuit, ginning up admiration for Watts and the cast along the way. She got a high-profile shout-out from a mere acquaintance, Reese Witherspoon, in Entertainment Weekly that a lot of people saw.
For whatever reason, she just seems very strong to me. The movie seems like the emotional tour de force they look for in leading performances for women.
Having said that, Marion Cotillard shows the same level of emotional devastation, just on a more subtle level. If she hadn’t won for a French language performance, I’d be hesitant to think she could be nominated for one. But she has, and I feel a hunch that the Oscars won’t snub her brilliant performance. Apparently, the Academy voters really responded to “Rust and Bone,” and if that’s the case, why wouldn’t they nominate its star?
So I’ll go ahead and predict that Watts and Cotillard make it, although I could see a foreseeable outcome where one gets knocked out. I doubt they slap these precursors in the face so hard that both get turned away.
SAG’s fifth nominee was Helen Mirren for “Hitchcock,” who also landed a Golden Globe nod. Mirren has become a recent darling of the Academy. I got fooled once by not predicting her in 2009 for “The Last Station,” and a part of me thinks I might be making the same mistake again. Check out how eerily similar these two cases of Helen Mirren in Best Actress contention are:
“Common sense would say it is going to Helen Mirren for ‘The Last Station.’ She has the respect; we know because she won this award three short years ago. She has been nominated by the SAG and the Golden Globes, two very crucial precursors. But she has no victories and, more importantly, no passionate supporters.”
Going back and reading this is actually kind of scary because this year, she has SAG and HFPA in her corner … and basically no one else, unless you put a lot of stock in the prognosticating abilities of the Washington DC Area Film Critics Association. The movies even received the same lukewarm reception: “Hitchcock” got a 66% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while “The Last Station” scored a 70% fresh.
I fear that the British contingent, which was a major part in making a Best Actor nomination for Gary Oldman in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” a reality, might be muddling our ability to make a prediction here. Will this sizable portion of the Academy come through and give Mirren a fourth nomination in seven years? I’m not picking Mirren because a 5-for-5 match with SAG just doesn’t feel right for this field rife with contenders. (And especially with the men looking likely to perfectly align with SAG.)
Perhaps that same European bloc of voters will be split among several other contenders from across the sea. The French Cotillard could steal some European love, as could the British-Australian Watts. Emmanuelle Riva could also make a play for that contingent for her work in “Amour.”
The Critics’ Choice nominee has quite a case to make for her nomination. At 85, she’s a respected figure from the French New Wave that many recognize and respect. Sony Pictures Classics has even gotten her to do some press for the film, including an in-depth session with The New York Times that’s well worth a read. Many critics’ groups have aligned behind her, including such notable groups from Boston, Los Angeles, New York Online, and the National Society of Film Critics. Perhaps worth noting, she won the European Film Award for Best Actress.
But why did SAG and the Golden Globes overlook Riva? Neither are particularly xenophobic; the Globes’ dramatic actress category has seen a number of foreign-language nominees, including a rather strange nod for Kristin Scott Thomas in 2008 for “I’ve Loved You So Long.” And at her age, it would seem that the SAG would want to bow down at her feet, and at the very least nominate her!
I can’t predict Riva with these two high-profile misses. Perhaps she will be the exception, but I think her nomination is a pipe dream of critics. She’s the Sally Hawkins for “Happy-Go-Lucky” of the year, a nominee that they try to make happen but just doesn’t click with the Academy.
Even less likely is British actress Rachel Weisz, in play for “The Deep Blue Sea” thanks to the New York Film Critics Circle reminding voters that her movie exists. A March release automatically faces an uphill climb for a nomination since it has to fight to be remembered, and the Golden Globes did reward her performance. Perhaps she’s the big surprise, but a SAG nomination would have been the more helpful precursor notice to pick up.
Also feted by the Golden Globes was Judi Dench for “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.” This wouldn’t really be worth mentioning if it wasn’t … well, Judi Dench. However, the movie is more likely to see recognition in the Best Supporting Actress category for Maggie Smith. For that matter, Dench is more likely to see recognition in that category as well for her work in “Skyfall.”
And now, we arrive at our final contender, Quvenzhané Wallis for her extraordinary performance in “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” Now 9, the pint-sized but spunky Wallis would be the youngest Best Actress nominee ever. Even more impressive is that she was 6 when the movie was shot.
However, at the moment, she’s going virtually unnoticed. Could Scott MacDonald have been right in his article on The Atlantic?
“Though she’s nine now, she was a mere six when the film was shot. To put it another way, she was not quite seven, which is the year developmental psychologists like to refer to as the age of reason: when kids start making decisions based on logic and causality. I’m no psych expert, but it seems to me this might be the sensible cut-off point for acting plaudits.
Acting requires some intentionality on the part of the actor, some conscious effort to adopt a persona other than his or her own. Even adult actors who get criticized for “playing themselves” are engaged in a series of more or less conscious decisions about how best to be themselves onscreen. A young child, meanwhile, likely isn’t thinking at all about how to be herself, let alone a character. She’s a kid, and she just ‘is.’”
So is that it? Have most considered her too young and written off her candidacy? MacDonald did note that 8-year-old Justin Henry was nominated for “Kramer vs. Kramer,” so a nomination wouldn’t be entirely unprecedented. But all she’s netted is a Critics Choice nod for Best Actress and a handful of breakout performer awards.
We will never know if she had a shot with SAG because the non-union production “Beasts of the Southern Wild” was ruled ineligible to compete. However, the novelty of her contention should have been enough to attract the Golden Globes, but they totally snubbed the entire film. I already floated the “too American” rationale for its exclusion, citing “True Grit” as an example, but the snub is really troubling.
The Oscars do love young nominees, though. There have been plenty of pre-pubescent nominees in Academy history, most recently Abigail Breslin for “Little Miss Sunshine.” Saiorse Ronan and Hailee Steinfeld, though quite a bit older than Willis, nonetheless were nominees. And in 2003, lest we forget, 13-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes’ performance in “Whale Rider” knocked out Nicole Kidman for “Cold Mountain” and Scarlett Johansson for “Lost in Translation.” The young are often a force to be reckoned with at the Oscars.
I’ll lay out that Wallis would be a shocking Best Actress nominee. If I was thinking by rules and precedents, the obvious pick would be Mirren. If I was attempting to focus on just this season, I might have to go with Riva. Yet I’m going with Wallis on little more than a gut feeling that maybe the Academy’s hearts were taken by a precocious tyke.
Check back tomorrow, January 8, to see my final predictions for Best Director!