And the Oscar Goes to the Prettiest Actress that Made a Sex Joke and Starred in 'Volver'
So this is what it comes down to...
Jeff Wells at Hollywood-Elsewhere has never been one to shy from delivering his blunt opinion and today he has delivered a death blow to the illusion that the Oscars are about the actual best performances and films from each year and more about … well, more about anything but that.
In a post highlighting Penelope Cruz's cute appearance on the "Tonight Show" (right) he delivers this bit of encouragement:
With this blow-dryer joke, it's safe to say that Penelope Cruz has the Best Supporting Actress Oscar in the bag. Maybe she already had it and this is icing on the cake. Whatever. I do know that 65-and-over male Academy members (i.e., the Lorenzo Semple, Jr. crowd) have a rep for responding to alluring female contenders. From this point those who haven't yet voted will be thinking the following about Cruz: (a) great firecracker performance in the Woody Allen film, (b) beautiful, (c) superb in Volver and (b) blowjob joke on Leno. That cinches it.
Someone explain to me why his reasons b-d should have anything to do with Cruz winning an Oscar. Obviously they shouldn't, but the problem is that they do, and it's the reason looking at the Oscars as an award show dedicated to a specific year is silly. Yet, we pull the wool over our eyes and argue about what performance was better and why someone should win when it really doesn't seem to matter.
People could argue Heath Ledger is going to win because he died, Mickey Rourke could win because he has made a great comeback and both sides seem to be arguing when it comes to Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep. Some say Winslet should win because she has never won before and others say Streep should win because she hasn't won for 26 years despite 10 nominations over the course of that time — 11 if you count her nom for Doubt. Some people have even said it should just be given to Kate as something of a "lifetime achievement" award. Lifetime achievement? Winslet is only 33-years-old for crying-out-loud. What are we going to give her after she retires from acting? One of those giant Oscar statues from the stage?
I'm not saying anything you haven't heard of or thought of before, but it begins to wear on you as you are consistently reminded that it isn't the performance that wins the award as much as it may be everything else.
The most recent comment on my first post-nom Oscar predictions from a commenter named Danny goes like this:
I was really surprised at your Best Supp. Actress choice…Taraji P. Henson? Really? Not only do I not think she is the front-runner, personally I think she was a total waste of a nominee. The role had very little depth, and paled in comparison to the other nominated performances and not nominated (Rosemaire DeWitt for Rachel Getting Married, Hiam Abbass for The Visitor, Debra Winger for Rachel Getting Married). I sincerely hope you’re wrong about this one, because she was nothing more than adequate in the role (as was everyone else in that movie).
Unfortunately, based on everything I just wrote nothing Danny says even matters. Danny says the role had little depth and begins arguing for the other nominees and those that didn't get nominated. Thing is, he's right. I would love to get into that conversation and begin arguing for Elsa Zylberstein (I've Loved You So Long), but I can only assume she didn't get nominated because she isn't a) pretty enough, b) wasn't in Volver and c) didn't make a blow-job joke on Jay Leno. Sorry Elsa, perhaps a little plastic surgery (joking here considering she is beautiful), a film with Pedro Almodovar and a sex joke will get you a nomination in a year or so. Keep at it kid.
However, Danny doesn't have to worry too much about my Taraji prediction coming true since everything Wells said is true. I would disagree with Danny saying Henson's performance had little depth, but I agree she shouldn't have been nominated considering those that have been left out.
I have to admit, as I watched that clip of Cruz yesterday afternoon I too suddenly thought, "Well, there's the race for Supporting Actress all sewn up." For a slightly deeper explanation check out my latest Oscar predictions which I just posted right here.
Thanks to Danny for his comment, I hope he realizes I'm not saying he's wrong, but saying his well thought out argument appears to have nothing to do with Oscar selection. Too bad.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 6 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
If she wins, will her fiance (last year's Best Supporting Actor Javier Bardem) be the one presenting it to her and is that a first?
@trudie: William Hurt presented Marlee Matlin's Best Actress Oscar for Children of a Lesser God while they were together.
I also have to say I agree with Danny that Hensen never should have been nominated. She didn't even give the best supporting performance in the movie in my opinion. I found her to be boring and one-note.
As for the rest, I realize things other than performance goes into who wins, but when you consider that many less-than-attractive women have won Oscars this is more than a bit far-fetched. If hotness played any real role Kathy Bates never would have won and Kate Winslet would not still be Oscarless. Sometimes people who predict the Oscars overthink outside influences and I think this is clearly one of those cases.
Just to correct the article…
Meryl Streep hasn't won in 26 years. (Not 16)
If that's not "overdue" then I don't know what is!
Meryl Streep, Best Actress, 2008
It seems to be a rule that, once you win an Oscar, it becomes immediately harder to win that same Oscar again. Meryl Streep has won two Oscars: one for Supporting Actress, one for Actress. She hasn't won since.
It's also a "rule" that, if you've been nominated for some amazing work, but it didn't win the Oscar, then you are more likely to win your next nomination, even if the movie is crap compared to your others. Kate Winslet is in this position.
And Micky Rourke will probably win out because he hasn't won yet and Sean Penn has, and also the Academy loves the comeback aspect of Rourke's performance.
I desperately hope Penelope Cruz doesn't win. Not because she's a bad actress, and not because she doesn't deserve an Oscar, but because it's a Woody Allen film. I hate his films. They shouldn't be nominated for Oscars at all. :( I'd rather Viola Davis win.
i think most movie critic's are deviating about their thinking from what's real acting to a interesting scene
that most older generation think. like penelope cruz in vicki barcelona her acting
has no depth . she was seen kissing another girl .for younger generation critic's
i should say for them this is bravo! one more thing i'd like to point out that streep
should win not kate winslet. why becuase for me meryl streep gave a commanding
performance in doubt. you could see a consistent and variety of emotion emerged
from her great acting. not like kate she had just shown only sad emotions. and that's acting?. for me acting is just like a natural emotion that's emenates within.
@eric: The problem with your argument regarding Meryl vs. Kate is that you seem to be asking Winslet to do more than the role demands. On top of that Kate did show a variety of emotions particularly in her experiences with David Kross before she left and in some cases she showed instant emotional changes such as when asked to read the menu.
An actor can only do as much as the role calls for. Winslet couldn't toss in a smile just to satisfy some kind of predetermined emotional quotient.