My rankings, and analyzing their chances. So very fun. Also, the order of these nominees are very subject to change, because... it's me.
5. Ruby Dee,
American Gangster.I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy little tiny Ruby Dee slapping the human charisma machine Denzel, and she's undoubtedly had an awesome career, but she simply didn't have the screentime to develop a full character. She did way more than just "read the lines" like some have accused her of doing, but she really didn't have much of a character to work with - yes, that's the script's fault, but she's gotta take the fall for it. Not at all embarassing, but a win would be ridiculous overkill.
Why she might win: Overdue. SAG winner is usually a pretty good indication. Oscar loves the geezers in this category. You know
some of them out there loved
American Gangster and might want to reward it.
Why she might not: The peformance is really short and has a lot of backlash. This category is crazy.
4. Amy Ryan,
Gone Baby Gone.
Amy Ryan here reminds me of Laura Linney in
Kinsey; given a stock role, she doesn't sleepwalk through it. She
earns her nomination as opposed to coasting into it with the role. She has an utterly unsympathetic character, yet she adds nuance enough to earn your sympathy. My only problem with her is that this performance gets showy at times. Still, her job is tough - gaining sympathy through an essentially unsympathetic role, showing depth in an unchanging character - and I certainly acknowledge her achievement.
Why she might win: Dominated the critics' awards. The Oscars love the "monster/crazy mom" role. Oscar loves deglam. She had a good year. You know there are those out there that love her theater work.
Why she might not: Lost the Globe and the BAFTA. Ask poor Virginia Madsen if the critics' choice always wins the Oscar. Her character isn't likable (but this is made up for by the fact that monster moms are some of Oscars' favorite roles). This category is crazy.
3. Saoirse Ronan,
Atonement.
This performance is extremely overrated by the
Atonement crazies (actually, I don't know why I said that in such a derogatory manner, as I love the film too), but that's not to say it isn't very good. One thing I truly loved about Ronan was her absolute refusal to make Briony a "likeable" character. She's a pretentious little twat with a sick, insane jealousy that leads her to actually ruin a man's life; why hide it? It's kind of amazing that such a young actress would give such an unsympathetic performance.
Why she might win: When the Oscars like little kiddies, they like them in the supporting categories. Crazy vote-splitting? She's in a Best Picture nominee.
Why she might not: The only one in this category to emerge without major awards. Her character isn't sympathetic (if Oscar likes little kiddies, they like 'em likable). This category is crazy.
2. Cate Blanchett,
I'm Not There.
Sorry ya'll Haynes fans, but I thought
I'm Not There was...pretty awful. What the hell was the point? There were no discernable characters. Dylan is ambiguous AND SO ARE REAL PEOPLE! OMG SO DEEP. Thanks, Todd. Didn't get that. Just like I didn't get the racism and homophobia in
Far from Heaven, but that's another story for another time. Anyway, with such a bizarre narrative, many of the actors and actresses in this piece have no time to create actual characters - Heath Ledger and Ben Whishaw are absolutely victims of this, and Richard Gere is just terrible. I don't know whether I too was affected by the "OMG CATE BLANCHETT IS A DUDE!!!" thing, but she seemed to be the only Dylan that actually created a living, breathing entity, both absolutely recognizable and frustratingly obscure. In addition, she bought some humor to the piece, which it
really needed. At any rate, it's Cate's only deserved nomination this millennium, so good on her I guess...
Why she might win: She's Cate Blanchett - added to that, she's got the bonus of having a gimmick to attract voters. She was the frontrunner forever. Globe winner. Harvey Weinstein (WHY do I always write Harvey Fierstein? They are
very different people!!!!) is promoting the shit out of her.
Why she might not: She wasn't exactly the precursors' darling. She lost the BAFTA and SAG. Nobody saw her movie (that might not matter, since I think Harvey is trying to make sure every Academy member sees at least Cate's performance, if not the movie...). This category is crazy.
1. Tilda Swinton,
Michael Clayton.
Truth be told, before 2007, I absolutely despised Tilda Swinton. I thought she was a not-really-talented oddity that got overrated because of her novelty. She was okay in
Orlando and
The Deep End, but her physical awkwardness and bland on-screen persona was often just way too much to handle.
Then came
Michael Clayton - and well, to be honest, my entire opinion changed. Tilda's role in
Michael Clayton could have been hopelessly generic or even, as I read somewhere, misogynistic; instead, she transforms it into a true cinematic achievement. I was amazed anyone could get so much out of a character that is, basically, a giant, quivering orb of fear. When Michael says "for such a smart person, you really are lost, aren't you?" he really
knows her - and so do we all, thanks to Tilda's simply fantastic performance. For the first time ever, her utter strangeness totally works for her. Now I feel obliged to go back and check out the rest of her filmography.........dammit.
Why she might win: BAFTA winner. In a Best Picture nominee that doesn't appear to be picking up any awards at all, this might be a good way for the Academy to reward it (though I always think this way of thinking is kind of stupid. All the members of AMPAS do not gather in a room and say "we're snubbing X here, so we've got to give X this category here." Dumb.). Career achievement?
Why she might not: She's obscure. Besides the BAFTA she hasn't won any other major awards. You know that weird thing about her having two boyfriends/husbands/lovers/whatever is gonna squick out some members of the Academy. This category is crazy.
Will win: I'm predicting Cate Blanchett, but nobody would be shocking.
Might win: Everyone (Saoirse has a slightly smaller chance than the other four, but it still wouldn't be a shock).
Dark horse: Could the crazy vote-splitting let Saoirse win? Wouldn't that be
insane?
The snubbed: As far as those that might have gotten noticed by Oscar for whatever reason, I liked Vanessa Redgrave in
Atonement, Marisa Tomei in
Before the Devil..., Kelly MacDonald in
No Country for Old Men, and Jennifer Garner in
Juno. I prefer all of these to Saoirse, Amy, and Ruby (not to say that these performances were bad - I am pretty enthusiastic over the Academy's choices). And of course, there are a number of outstanding performances that the Oscars wouldn't have looked twice (or even once, in some cases) at...but you'll have to wait for my personal awards to see some of those ;)
