I've discussed previously the lack of grandstanding promotional shots that we saw a bunch of early last year. We knew what Meryl Streep was going to look like as Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe, Glenn Close as Albert Nobbs, and Rooney Mara as Lizbeth Salandar WAY before their films even wrapped. And all four got that special phone-call the morning of Oscar nominations. There was some canned excitement this year: Keira Knightley as Anna Karenina and Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan. But, neither of those films have accents (Knightley and her cast won't be playing Russians), physical transformations, or real people, which lower the Oscar bait quotient. There have been other onset photos connected to the Best Actress race, but hardly the aplomb and confidence backing up last year's aforementioned contestants. Lovelace almost went there, but pretty much shied away (ironic, considering the title role portrayed didn't lack any modesty in her early adult life). And Hyde Park on the Hudson has practically hidden Laura Linney and the rest of the cast for that matter. Why is it we haven't seen one staged still of Sandra Bullock yet, again? Gravity his Earth this November?
The only actress to really get any special treatment in the manner I speak of is Helena Bonham Carter, who, out of ignorance, I convinced myself might be a participant in the lead race as Miss Havisham. However, I've been schooled on how there is NO way that part could be anything BUT supporting. Yet, everyone seems to have even cooled on her chances in that race. Am I missing something here? Well, for all intents and purposes, the Supporting Actress category seems to be much hotter than Lead Actress at this point, or the more coveted. Perhaps that means, some unknown will sweep in and blindside us all for Best Actress. But, again, have we seen this kind of fervor like this so early? I wasn't paying attention at the time, but when did Cate Blanchett's campaign start for The Aviator? We all knew there was buzz about Mo'Nique after the festivals, but people didn't actually start talking win until the movie came out to theaters.
Could by some fluke Hathaway go lead? Probably not. But, let's consider Best Supporting Actress winners of the recent past and strange circumstances. We've had supporting actress wins go to actresses who got nominated for lead awards from other major awards bodies for the same role: Jennifer Connelly (SAG), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Golden Globes) and Rachel Weisz (BAFTA). We had the self-fulfilling prophesy win of Jennifer Hudson (a nomination was eminent, while Nat over at TFE predicted, years in advance, whomever played her role, would win). Best Supporting Actress seems like such a consolation prize to me. Very few go on to win Best Actress, which seems to me the track that Hathaway has been on. But, then, isn't Cate Blanchett? Yet, Blanchett is known more for her range of acting and her willingness to play supporting roles just as often as lead. And she just seems to care less about awards these days, with all the time she spends on stage. While Hathaway is more limited in her ability to transform, it took me a revisit to her IMDb page to realize that her lead roles are pretty few and far between. And, is there an actress at the level of Hathaway's stardom who has the singing chops to handle a Hollywood version of Fantine? Hathaway has worked hard and played the game very well. If she does win, good for her. Lainey reminded me of how much effort she put into her cohosting gig for the Oscars last year.
0 comments:
Post a Comment