2015 Awards Season Discussion

[gator12]

Is Cumberbatch even campaigning that much? Redmayne is everywhere, even calling people like Tom O'Neill 

 

 

BTW, honest to gawd, Eddie Redmayne called me soon after the SAG Awards to thank me for sticking by him. I damned near dropped the phone in shock.

"I was starting to lose confidence that I could do this when I saw the other experts ditching me," he said. "Thanks for your extraordinary support. I look forward to seeing you next week at the Oscar nominations lunch.” That’s where I’ll be interviewing him and other nominees at length for our new video collaboration with “Entertainment Tonight.” Stay tuned for details.

http://www.goldderby.com/forum/topics/view/10426/page:1

[AshleyN]

Is Cumberbatch even campaigning that much?

Cumberbatch was everywhere for a couple of weeks, but since then he's been in England filming The Hollow Crown (and now Sherlock I believe), so he hasn't done much of anything as far as I know. He wasn't even at SAG last night, wasn't he? And he was a double nominee there.

Edited January 26, 2015 by AshleyN

[superdeluxe]

What? This is the first I've heard of this. Obviously we're not privy to all the panels they do for industry professionals but I also don't really pay any mind to the talk show circuit. What kind of desperate campaigning has he been up to that sets him apart from the rest?

  

Yeah, admittedly I want him to win, but I haven't seen him do anything that every single other nominee hasn't done.They are all going to lots of events, doing interviews and schmoozing, but I haven't noticed anyone standing out as being desperate.

I think calling Tom O'Neill and thanking him for the support and actually reading gold derby and following the conversations on there counts as some desparate campaigning. Plus, there is a lot of talk about Redmayne's desperate campaigning. It's not like it's a hidden secret. The boy wants the Oscar bad. Too bad it looks like it's actually going to work out for him.

[Dejana]

Tom O'Neill has been in the Oscar watching game forever...he's seen a lot, and for someone to stand out for their campaigning just might be overdoing it. I turned on the SAG preshow and Eddie was the first person interviewed at six o'clock sharp, and just laughed. When you're a relative unknown in a heated race, you do what you gottta do, but he's been a tad....relentless.

Jupiter Ascending comes out the same day Oscar voting starts...will it be seen as an ordinary turn in a popcorn flick or Redmayne's Norbit?

[ruby24]

Over campaigning never hurts anyone who does it, it just makes people like me (who follow the race way too closely, lol), get to the point where I can't stand him. But I can't help it- I know everyone's required to do it to some degree, but then there are the one like him, whose main goal in life seems to be to win an Oscar, and it just makes me think less of him. He's young, he's a relative newcomer, he's going to have plenty of chances...the fact that that is so important to somebody and they actually schmooze their way into it makes me think they're not really in this for the art at all.

[KatWay]

There's no way Jupiter Ascending is anywhere near as bad as Norbit was, not mention Redmayne's not even the lead character (meanwhile Norbit was All About Eddie Murphy). Even if it fails, that's not gonna be much of a bump for Redmanye.

 

I guess Redmayne sees this as the chance to get his name out there...he's not that conventionally attractive, and his only other high profile flick so far was Les Miserables where he had little to do, so he might see this as an opportunity to get the good projects. I still think Keaton has this in the bag, but he's probably going to be the runner-up.

[vb68]

 

Plus, there is a lot of talk about Redmayne's desperate campaigning. It's not like it's a hidden secret. The boy wants the Oscar bad. Too bad it looks like it's actually going to work out for him.

I don't think he's reached the Melissa Leo level yet, has he?

 

i remember finding her campaigning really distasteful and off-putting.  It was so bad that there were Deadline articles about it, but it still all worked out for her. 

Edited January 26, 2015 by vb68

[slowpoked]

It's interesting that it's playing out exactly the opposite of what the SAG member insinuated re:  Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Keaton, she said she'd vote for Keaton in spite of Inarritu, and that she'd err against Birdman due to his not being well liked. That bums me out, I want Keaton to win and Inarritu to lose cause I hate his movies so so so much. Maybe Keaton can hustle, he's really funny charming guy, but he's not campaigning at all to the degree of Cumberbatch/Redmayne.

 

I think this may easily be a case of Viola Davis/Meryl Streep a couple of years back. Everyone thought Viola was a slam dunk winner after winning the SAG, but Streep came back with a BAFTA and ultimately won the big prize.

 

TBH, I'm surprised Redmayne won. I thought Keaton would have the SAG in the bag, not because they truly believe he had the best performance last year (he may very well have), but because it's Keaton - he's a good comeback story who has tolled in mediocrity for years after his peak, and he's their  peer more than Redmayne is - this British newcomer to Hollywood who'll eventually have more  chances. Actors love a good redemption story more than anything, because it gives credence that what they do is so important. So Keaton losing among his peers is quite a surprise.

[JBC344]

Over campaigning never hurts anyone who does it, it just makes people like me (who follow the race way too closely, lol), get to the point where I can't stand him. But I can't help it- I know everyone's required to do it to some degree, but then there are the one like him, whose main goal in life seems to be to win an Oscar, and it just makes me think less of him. He's young, he's a relative newcomer, he's going to have plenty of chances...the fact that that is so important to somebody and they actually schmooze their way into it makes me think they're not really in this for the art at all.

But is that really true?  A lot of actors don't get the opportunity to get nominated for Oscars multiple times let alone win.  With the way the movie industry works today there is no guarantee that Eddie will be nominated again. Now personally I think he may just because he is a good actor but there is no guarantee.  There are so many factors that go into getting an opportunity to be nominated that I wouldn't take it for granted that it will just happen again.

 

For me as long as the person doesn't do anything outrageous, I'm usually fine with the "campaigning".  I also don't find him calling Tom O'Neill and thanking him for his support to be some sure fire sign of desperation.  I actually find it refreshing when I hear an actor say "Damn right I would love to win an Oscar".  I'm more annoyed with those that try to play everything so cool. 

 

Funny how actors are looked at strange when they express a desire for an award.  Counter that with athletes who a lot of times make it their primary goal to win the Super Bowl, championship, gold medal. Those goals are applauded not looked at as desperation.  Interesting.

[ruby24]

I've always been slightly wary on Keaton's chances because I wasn't exactly sure how beloved he really was. Yes, he's a veteran actor, but I would hardly say that he's some legendary acting giant that was overdue for recognition- I'm not sure how many people saw him as overdue for anything. And also because his role reminded me too much of two other performances with almost his exact narrative the year they both lost- Bill Murray in Lost in Translation and Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler.

 

Of course, those two both lost to Sean Penn, so I think this race is closer, but I also think the Academy just doesn't respond as strongly to those types of "playing themselves" performances in career comebacks, as they do to something more traditionally baity (like a real life person with a disability).

[sum]

Everyone's campaigning as mush as they could/would like to and I haven't seen anyone reaching a desperate level so far. As long as it's a level playing field I don't see a problem in that. As for Eddie calling Tom O'Neill, at first I also thought it was odd. Having read the following posts (the 10th one by Tom) in the linked thread, not any more. He seems like an unassuming, polite but very shy guy from what I've got to see him in like interviews and round tables. Tom's post and what Eddie said on the phone seems to be in line with that to think it was a desperate move. To me Keaton's GG speech was the most blatant campaign. But I'm well aware that lots of people disagree with me and think it was one of the most powerful speeches at that night. It's not a big deal either way. Great to get a tight race though.

Edited January 26, 2015 by sum

[slowpoked]

Funny how actors are looked at strange when they express a desire for an award.  Counter that with athletes who a lot of times make it their primary goal to win the Super Bowl, championship, gold medal. Those goals are applauded not looked at as desperation.  Interesting.

 

Maybe it's because it goes back to that old belief that making movies is an art, and everything else is just background noise. Which I think is baloney. Not every movie an actor makes can be "artistic". Sometimes, even the best of them just plainly need the money. After all, acting is a job too. Actors are looked down if they chase recognition, because that shouldn't be the main goal. The main goal is making "art".

While in sports, the ultimate goal is to win that championship. Nobody sees sports performance as some art, the main goal is always to win the big one. So desire towards that is not looked at as desperation, but rather, the main goal of every athlete worth his salt.

[ruby24]

Funny how actors are looked at strange when they express a desire for an award.  Counter that with athletes who a lot of times make it their primary goal to win the Super Bowl, championship, gold medal. Those goals are applauded not looked at as desperation.  Interesting.

 

I don't mind them saying they'd like to win, I'm sure everyone would. But winning a sports championship is totally different- that's based on actual physical skill, if you win that it's because you really ARE better than the other team (on the day the game was played, anyway).

 

But everyone knows there's really no such thing as "best" in art- it's entirely subjective. That's why these kinds of awards always become about politics. And why I really do understand the many actors/directors who've said in the past (like Michael Fassbender, George Clooney, David Fincher) that they feel gross having to "campaign" for this stuff, and that the one good thing it does is get more people to see the movie itself, and that's why they do it.

 

But someone who wants the statue just because they HAVE to have that statue- ick. Just makes me think they're not in it for the art, but solely for the praise or attention or something. Which I'm sure many people are.

Edited January 26, 2015 by ruby24

[blixie]

 

So Keaton losing among his peers is quite a surprise.

 

I think his peers love him, but I also think they are prone to award the kind of histrionics of performance and role like Stephen Hawking, I think they respect the pure physicality of what Redmayne did, as well as the five hanky triumph over adversity. Birdman and Keaton's role is far more cynical and caustic, same with Cumberbatch and his downer story about a persecuted homosexual genius.

 

I don't begrudge anyone campaigning even obnoxiously and obviously it's a political game and their playing it to the hilt.

[gator12]

Tom O'Neill has been in the Oscar watching game forever...he's seen a lot, and for someone to stand out for their campaigning just might be overdoing it. I turned on the SAG preshow and Eddie was the first person interviewed at six o'clock sharp, and just laughed. When you're a relative unknown in a heated race, you do what you gottta do, but he's been a tad....relentless.

Jupiter Ascending comes out the same day Oscar voting starts...will it be seen as an ordinary turn in a popcorn flick or Redmayne's Norbit?

According to this, his people seem to think it is his norbit

https://twitter.com/johncampea/status/558521022350393345

https://twitter.com/johncampea/status/558521226352922624

 

*we can't embed tweet here?

[methodwriter85]



He's young, he's a relative newcomer, he's going to have plenty of chances..

Please say that to James Dean, River Phoenix, and Heath Ledger. Oh, wait.

 

There's no guarantee that he'll ever get another nomination. I kinda admire that he seems to be taking the tack of doing what he can do while he's still got this one chance.

Edited January 27, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Rick Kitchen]

I don't think he's reached the Melissa Leo level yet, has he?

 

 

And her campaigning appears to have worked.

[gator12]

Whether Redmayne wins this year, he will be back next year with another baity role in The Danish Girl. He might be the first since Tom Hanks to win back to back Oscars

[vb68]

 

Please say that James Dean, River Phoenix, and Heath Ledger. Oh, wait.

 

Or even Kathleen Turner.  People said that was why she lost to Marlee Matlin.  But Kathleen never got any more nominations.

[Athena]

Maybe it's because it goes back to that old belief that making movies is an art, and everything else is just background noise. Which I think is baloney. Not every movie an actor makes can be "artistic". Sometimes, even the best of them just plainly need the money. After all, acting is a job too. Actors are looked down if they chase recognition, because that shouldn't be the main goal. The main goal is making "art".

While in sports, the ultimate goal is to win that championship. Nobody sees sports performance as some art, the main goal is always to win the big one. So desire towards that is not looked at as desperation, but rather, the main goal of every athlete worth his salt.

 

 

And why I really do understand the many actors/directors who've said in the past (like Michael Fassbender, George Clooney, David Fincher) that they feel gross having to "campaign" for this stuff, and that the one good thing it does is get more people to see the movie itself, and that's why they do it.

 

But someone who wants the statue just because they HAVE to have that statue- ick. Just makes me think they're not in it for the art, but solely for the praise or attention or something. Which I'm sure many people are.

 

I largely ignore a lot of the antics and campaigns during awards seasons. I watch movies much later after they are released now. I do understand the annoyance people have with it, and I couldn't even escape the Anne Hathaway campaign.

 

It is political though and part of the "job" to some extent. Marketing for leading actors is written into most of their contracts; they are the faces of their movies. Getting an award is one of the best marketing tools in this trade for an actor. Not only do you get a nice statues for your troubles, some free swag, winning these kind of awards can open a lot of doors if you play it right. This is especially the case if you are newcomer or relatively unknown/below A list like Redmayne. The Oscar is the big prize because your name will always be forever associated as "Oscar Winner X" and it probably helps you get more scripts and movies you like. Not to mention the pay upgrade. If you want to produce or direct, the campaigning and award can even network that. Having said that, a lot of award winners have squandered their wins for whatever reasons: they were dicks to begin with, inadequate management, complacency, or just bad luck.

[ruby24]

I doubt he wins back to back- that's something that seems reserved for only the most popular, most famous names in Hollywood- the only people to pull it off ever were Tom Hanks, who was coming right into the height of his career, Katharine Hepburn, who was already a legend at the time, and Spencer Tracy way back in the 1930's, when he was also at the height of his career.

 

I guess there was Jason Robards and Luise Rainer too, but he was in supporting and she seemed to be some kind of a fluke that also happened way back in the 30's era.

 

It's possible, but for that to happen now I really think it'd have to be a perfect storm combination of movie/role and popular personality, closer to the Tom Hanks situation.

[Dejana]

And her campaigning appears to have worked.

Melissa Leo was such a frontruuner that year that prognosticators found her "Consider" ads, and "jokingly" badmouthing Hailee Steinfeld, completely inexplicable, and it was only then that came rumblings of a possible upset. Maybe Leo was always secure and it was just bored awards watchers looking for a story, or there wasn't one alternate choice to rally around (IIRC, Helena Bonham Carter won the BAFTA that year, and Steinfeld was the best shot for True Grit to win one of big categories).

[AshleyN]

I doubt he wins back to back- that's something that seems reserved for only the most popular, most famous names in Hollywood- the only people to pull it off ever were Tom Hanks, who was coming right into the height of his career, Katharine Hepburn, who was already a legend at the time, and Spencer Tracy way back in the 1930's, when he was also at the height of his career.

 

I guess there was Jason Robards and Luise Rainer too, but he was in supporting and she seemed to be some kind of a fluke that also happened way back in the 30's era.

 

It's possible, but for that to happen now I really think it'd have to be a perfect storm combination of movie/role and popular personality, closer to the Tom Hanks situation.

Jennifer Lawrence fits that description, and nearly pulled it off last year but in the end even she couldn't quite make it all the way.

 

But yeah, I agree with you - if Redmayne wins this year I don't think there's any way he wins again next year. On the other hand, if he loses this year, that could be his "narrative" next year and help him.

 

As for Jupiter Ascending, I honestly think the "Norbit factor" thing that comes up every year is overblown, but I will say that I though his bits in the trailer were hilarious. I mean, it seems like the sort of role where a certain amount of hammyness is called for, but he was making Gary Oldman in The Professional look subtle and restrained by comparison.

[ruby24]

I don't know if the whole Norbit theory was ever a real thing (even though it's funny, lol). I know that Eddie Murphy had won everything leading up to it, but if you go back and look, the fact was that Little Miss Sunshine was an undeniably stronger movie in the race that year than Dreamgirls was- it actually won PGA and SAG and was nominated at DGA too, while Dreamgirls didn't get into Picture or Director. But LMS wasn't going to win Best Picture, so frankly, Alan Arkin being a win for the movie as a whole (and a veteran actor himself) may have been kind of predictable if you were paying really close attention (unless the win was going to go to Abigail Breslin, which it wasn't). It may have happened anyway, without the Norbit factor.

Edited January 26, 2015 by ruby24

[JBC344]

I really like Alan Arkin but hated that he won over Eddie Murphy.  I'm not one to hail the dramatic brilliance of Eddie's roles but his performance in Dreamgirls was just magical.  If he had to lose to anyone from LMS, it should have been Steve Carell who I thought gave a much better performance than Alan, but was not nominated.

 

I also agree that if Eddie Redmayne loses this year it may be his best push to get the Oscar next year for The Danish Girl.  I just hope that The Danish Girl is as great as it is supposed to be.  It is one of my favorite books and I wish Eddie well with the process.

[sweetcookieface]

I really like Alan Arkin but hated that he won over Eddie Murphy.

 

I've enjoyed Alan Arkin's performances, but based on the movies I've seen him in (e.g., LMS, Argo, Slums of Beverly Hills), I can't help but feel that he's always playing a version of himself - or his range as an actor is limited. 

[aradia22]

 

 

According to this, his people seem to think it is his norbit

https://twitter.com/...521022350393345

https://twitter.com/...521226352922624

Is it wrong that that's the first thing that's made me want to see Jupiter Ascending? 

 

I largely ignore a lot of the antics and campaigns during awards seasons. I watch movies much later after they are released now. I do understand the annoyance people have with it, and I couldn't even escape the Anne Hathaway campaign.

I agree with pretty much all of your post. I also keep up with awards and movie news but I tend to watch new releases whenever I happen to get to them. That's why I was surprised at the Eddie Redmayne thing. You have to get to Anne Hathaway levels before I get irritated or really even pay attention.

[superdeluxe]

I don't think he's reached the Melissa Leo level yet, has he?

 

i remember finding her campaigning really distasteful and off-putting.  It was so bad that there were Deadline articles about it, but it still all worked out for her. 

 

I think he is beyond the Melissa Leo level at this point.  He's at Anne Hathaway.

 

But is that really true?  A lot of actors don't get the opportunity to get nominated for Oscars multiple times let alone win.  With the way the movie industry works today there is no guarantee that Eddie will be nominated again. Now personally I think he may just because he is a good actor but there is no guarantee.  There are so many factors that go into getting an opportunity to be nominated that I wouldn't take it for granted that it will just happen again.

 

For me as long as the person doesn't do anything outrageous, I'm usually fine with the "campaigning".  I also don't find him calling Tom O'Neill and thanking him for his support to be some sure fire sign of desperation.  I actually find it refreshing when I hear an actor say "Damn right I would love to win an Oscar".  I'm more annoyed with those that try to play everything so cool. 

 

Funny how actors are looked at strange when they express a desire for an award.  Counter that with athletes who a lot of times make it their primary goal to win the Super Bowl, championship, gold medal. Those goals are applauded not looked at as desperation.  Interesting.

 

Here's my thing about Redmayne -- him calling Tom O'Neill comes across as gross because the reference to how discouraged Redmayne was that the other experts ditched him sounds entitled, like how dare they not support him and he has was so sad about it.  Really?  At least have the awareness to ACT a bit humble. The image Redmayne's comment put in one's mind are of him obsessively checking his Gold Derby rankings, in addition to campaigning 24/7 for months. Would the other nominees like to win? Sure, but they're also working and going about their lives. Being nominated IS an honor in itself.

 

Also, since his comments show that Redmayne is familiar with GoldDerby and Tom O'Neill's blogs and posts, then he MUST know that Tom has been badmouthing other nominees, particularly Keaton. Thanking a blogger who's been trying to smear your competition makes you complicit in it.

 

You don't have to campaign like a nut to get the Oscar.  Like Mo'Nique.  She didn't campaign at all.  She wanted the performance to speak for itself.  I remember a lot of the bloggers and pundits badmouthing her about not campaigning.  In fact, I remember Tom O'Neill being the ringleader in badmouthing her basically saying that she didn't deserve to win because she refused to campaign.  In the end, she won and she didn't end up annoying people in the process.

Edited January 27, 2015 by superdeluxe

[ruby24]

 

You don't have to campaign like a nut to get the Oscar.  Like Mo'Nique.  She didn't campaign at all.  She wanted the performance to speak for itself.  I remember a lot of the bloggers and pundits badmouthing her about not campaigning.  In fact, I remember Tom O'Neill being the ringleader in badmouthing her basically saying that she didn't deserve to win because she refused to campaign.  In the end, she won and she didn't end up annoying people in the process.

 

Okay, that attitude is purely from somebody who wants to hobknob with celebrities and be on the inside of Hollywood as a leech, because they don't have the talent to be one of the stars. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what that is. I mean, how else are they supposed to get celebrities to come up and talk to them, make them feel like they're important? How meaningless would their lives be if that didn't happen? Extremely, I bet.

Edited January 27, 2015 by ruby24

[Slade347]

I think it's a pretty big deal that Birdman won the PGA. It tells me that Boyhood may well be more a critics movie than an industry movie after all- which is funny, because that's what I had thought when I originally saw it, but then it kind of seemed to turn into the default frontrunner. But I was always suspicious about the amount of passion it really had- mostly because I've heard from others who've seen it that it just wasn't THAT impressive, aside from the 12-year achievement part.

 

 

Yeah, I always thought when it first came out that Boyhood would be one of those movies the critics love but that in the end, it would lose to a more mainstream crowd pleasing film that tends to win the industry awards. That movie never really came, though, so it looked as if Boyhood was the default favorite. In a lot of ways, I think Birdman fits that profile as well, but it's more mainstream than Boyhood, so perhaps it's easier for the industry to embrace? I still think either one could win BP, though.

 

Regarding Norbit, if it had an effect on Murphy it wasn't just because it was considered horrible, it was because it was considered offensive (and he wrote it, so it's his baby). Is there really anything to suggest that Jupiter Ascending could actually offend people?

Edited January 27, 2015 by Slade347

[vb68]

 

Regarding Norbit, if it had an effect on Murphy it wasn't just because it was considered horrible, it was because it was considered offensive (and he wrote it, so it's his baby). Is there really anything to suggest that Jupiter Ascending could actually offend people?

 

I don't know.  I always thought they (the Industry in general) were just looking for any reason not to award him.  Eddie Murphy has a rather prickly rep, and I don't think he's exactly beloved  behind the scenes.  I was trying to remember if he campaigned for it that year or was indifferent.  Either way, I always thought Norbit was just a convenient excuse, really.  

Edited January 27, 2015 by vb68

[thuganomics85]

Plus, there has been similar predictions that never came true.  On the top of my head, I remember some wondered if Natalie Portman was going to be hurt by that No Strings Attached movie that came out on January (the romcom with Ashton Kutcher), but it apparently didn't end up mattering since she still won.  I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of any.  But so far, I really don't see Jupiter Ascending being that big of a issue for Eddie (if anything, I think any fallout would be more over the star power of Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis, if it ends up being horrible/bombs at the box office.  Even then, that's doubtful.)

 

Of course, my favorite will always be when Jennifer Lawrence was nominated (and won) for Silver Linings Playbook, and their was speculation over if she hurt her chances the time she hosted Saturday Night Live, and didn't fare so well.  I mean, I know voters can be fickle, but I don't think even they would judge a person based on how they hosted SNL.  Because if they did, they would probably demand that Robert De Niro give his Oscars back, heh.

[superdeluxe]

Okay, that attitude is purely from somebody who wants to hobknob with celebrities and be on the inside of Hollywood as a leech, because they don't have the talent to be one of the stars. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what that is. I mean, how else are they supposed to get celebrities to come up and talk to them, make them feel like they're important? How meaningless would their lives be if that didn't happen? Extremely, I bet.

 

And the fact that Redmayne is all buddy-buddy with someone like that just tells me everything that I need to know about him.

[SallyAlbright]

I guess "campaigning" really doesn't bother me because I think they all want to win. I know it's cooler to pretend like you don't care, but I have no problem with someone who is at least honest about being thrilled to win. As long as they're not murdering their competition to get there, it's all fine by me. 

[hendersonrocks]

Re: Benedict Cumberbatch, I missed the original story about how he used the term "colored actors" on the Tavis Smiley show last week. His apology, however, is one of the few famous-people-apologies that is actually an honest to god apology. Well done, sir. I would think that any initial damage to his chances (slim as they may be) would probably be ameliorated by how he's handled it.

[herbaltease]

Re: Benedict Cumberbatch, I missed the original story about how he used the term "colored actors" on the Tavis Smiley show last week. His apology, however, is one of the few famous-people-apologies that is actually an honest to god apology.

Slip-ups like Cumberbatch's just reaffirm to me the underlying attitudes in the inner-inner circle of the entertainment elite. Which is why a handful of award noms every few years to black and brown talent is supposed to be a grand gesture. Perhaps that's a UO, but not without merit.

[kelnic86]

 

On the top of my head, I remember some wondered if Natalie Portman was going to be hurt by that No Strings Attached movie that came out on January (the romcom with Ashton Kutcher), but it apparently didn't end up mattering since she still won.  I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of any.

What about Sandra Bullock's All About Steve? Did that come out before or after The Blind Side? I'm only mentioning it because I thought it was funny that she won a Razzie and an Oscar the same week.

[fireice13]

I do have to wonder with Benedict Cumberbatch if part of it was being British? I don't know if the term "colored" is seen as bad over there because there's not the horrible history attached to that word like there is in the US. Also, I've seen some people say it's confusing because "people of color" seems to be fine and accepted but "colored" is not and being confused by that.

[Rick Kitchen]

What about Sandra Bullock's All About Steve? Did that come out before or after The Blind Side? I'm only mentioning it because I thought it was funny that she won a Razzie and an Oscar the same week.

 

And actually attended the Razzie Awards to pick up her trophy.

[JBC344]

I do have to wonder with Benedict Cumberbatch if part of it was being British? I don't know if the term "colored" is seen as bad over there because there's not the horrible history attached to that word like there is in the US. Also, I've seen some people say it's confusing because "people of color" seems to be fine and accepted but "colored" is not and being confused by that.

I think what is "saving" him is that fact that "colored" isn't really an offensive term, it is just more of an outdated term.  Colored was the preferable PC term to "negro" back in day.  Hell, my 90 year old black great grandmother still used to say colored back when I was growing up.  It really is an issue of verbiage versus racial undertones.

[ruby24]

There's also the whole "people of color" term that is acceptable- given that he said it in an interview with Tavis Smiley in a conversation about opportunities for black actors of all things, it doesn't seem like he meant anything malicious by it. I wondered if it was maybe a cultural thing as well, since he's British. I bet he's from an area with very few people of color where that term is used, and he just slipped on it. But his apology was good at least.

[Shannon L.]

I just got back from Still Alice and, as someone who loved Rosemund Pike's performance in Gone Girl and thought Felicity Jones did a wonderful job in The Theory of Everything (I haven't seen the other two performances), I will be very happy if (when) Julianne wins.  Her performance was nothing short of amazing.  Plus, as much as I hate to fall into this trap, I do think it's time--she's done some great acting over the years.

[pivot]

I really like Alan Arkin but hated that he won over Eddie Murphy.  I'm not one to hail the dramatic brilliance of Eddie's roles but his performance in Dreamgirls was just magical.  If he had to lose to anyone from LMS, it should have been Steve Carell who I thought gave a much better performance than Alan, but was not nominated.

 

I also agree that if Eddie Redmayne loses this year it may be his best push to get the Oscar next year for The Danish Girl.  I just hope that The Danish Girl is as great as it is supposed to be.  It is one of my favorite books and I wish Eddie well with the process.

I thought Greg Kinnear was the best part of LMS and was surprised that he didn't get any award attention for his role. But, I had no problem with Arkin winning over Murphy. Dreamgirls was pretty horrendous all-around and I wouldn't have given anyone from that movie an award.

[Schweedie]

I just got back from Still Alice and, as someone who loved Rosemund Pike's performance in Gone Girl and thought Felicity Jones did a wonderful job in The Theory of Everything (I haven't seen the other two performances), I will be very happy if (when) Julianne wins.  Her performance was nothing short of amazing.  Plus, as much as I hate to fall into this trap, I do think it's time--she's done some great acting over the years.

 

I feel like there's been some backlash for Julianne Moore (not in the actual awards circles, obviously, but in general) over the idea that she's winning all these awards and will go on to win the big one mostly because it's time, it's the typical role that gets you an Oscar and it'll be a make-up award for the times she didn't win, but I'm with you - I think she's absolutely amazing in Still Alice and would deserve the award whether she'd been nominated several times before or not. It was one of my favourite performances of the year, no question.

[ruby24]

I saw the movie and I really didn't think it was good at all, and that this very much will be a career award for her. But I think the reason there's not much of a backlash is because there's really no consensus on an alternate choice in the field. I think Marion Cotillard will probably steal some votes, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of passion for any other performance in that category, so they're just going with the person who's due. I know a lot of people like Rosamund Pike, but given the way Gone Girl was almost completely shut out at the Oscars (no Picture, Editing or even Screenplay nod), I kind of think she was lucky to get nominated. If there had been someone else from a better loved movie she might not have even made it in.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ruby24

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Must confess, part of me wanted Anne Hathaway to lose.

Then watch the EPIC meltdown, on live tv.

[anyanka323]

I don't mind them saying they'd like to win, I'm sure everyone would. But winning a sports championship is totally different- that's based on actual physical skill, if you win that it's because you really ARE better than the other team (on the day the game was played, anyway).

 

But everyone knows there's really no such thing as "best" in art- it's entirely subjective. That's why these kinds of awards always become about politics. And why I really do understand the many actors/directors who've said in the past (like Michael Fassbender, George Clooney, David Fincher) that they feel gross having to "campaign" for this stuff, and that the one good thing it does is get more people to see the movie itself, and that's why they do it.

 

But someone who wants the statue just because they HAVE to have that statue- ick. Just makes me think they're not in it for the art, but solely for the praise or attention or something. Which I'm sure many people are.

Joaquin Phoenix is another one who has gone on the record expressing similar sentiments while promoting The Master.  It didn't seem to hurt him when he was nominated for that movie, but there was no way he was going to beat Daniel Day-Lewis for playing Abraham Lincoln. 

 

I'll add Jared Leto to the list of actors who went into Melissa Leo and Anne Hathaway territory in campaigning for an Oscar. Leto didn't seem like the type prior to last year to really care what his peers thought of him.  He seemed more interested in his music career than acting.  He seemed more interested in following the beat of his own drum than doing what a team of publicists told him to do.  He doesn't work in film very frequently.  It's telling when your best known role is for a TV show that aired for 13 episodes almost 20 years ago. 

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Pretty sure some remember Leto was in Requiem For A Dream, Panic Room and Alexander.

Think he played John Lennon's killer in an Indie flick as well.

[ChaseMCP]

Having just seen The Imitation Game a few days ago, I wish it had been released in a different year, because I think so much of it was wonderful from the acting to the directing that it's a shame that most of it won't win anything this year. That said, I do hope it at least picks up an award for Best Score, because I've listened to it on repeat since I saw the movie and it's just beautiful. I also noticed that the composer, Alexandre Desplat is nominated for The Grand Budapest Hotel as well. I guess I didn't realize that one person could have two nominations in one category (or is it just for acting?). 

[ruby24]

Acting is the only place where you can't have two nominations in the same category (you could have one for lead and one for supporting though). Any other category, the same person can be nominated for different movies, even directing. When Steven Soderbergh won in 2000 he was nominated for both Traffic and Erin Brockovich.