59 responses so far

• 1 1-28-2009 at 8:25 am
  
  James D. said...

  I guess I am the only one who thinks her role in The Reader is better than in Revolutionary Road.

  I am starting to think Streep and Penn are unstoppable. The Academy does not have the courage to reward Hathaway and Rourke.

• 2 1-28-2009 at 8:26 am
  
  Guy Lodge said...

  Well, I truly believe that “Shakespeare in Love” is a better film than “Saving Private Ryan,” which has a formally stunning opening, but was sunk (for me) by both the narrow focus of its narrative and the bathetic sentimentality of its resolution.

  Of course, I think “The Thin Red Line” towers over both films, but that’s another matter.

  Anyway, I don’t think Kate Winslet’s chances are remotely in danger. Academy members were sufficiently unbothered to Weinstein’s tactics to nominate “The Reader” in the first place, so why would they start minding now?

• 3 1-28-2009 at 8:30 am
  
  Guy Lodge said...

  And c’mon, Billy Bob Thornton deserved his screenplay Oscar. The fact that he beat Weinstein’s beloved “The English Patient” in that category (let’s not pretend “The Crucible” was even in the running) was pretty extraordinary.

• 4 1-28-2009 at 8:32 am
  
  Bing147 said...

  Ya, if anything, she’s more likely to win now. With duel nominations, she was facing the possibility of splitting her vote and getting in for neither. Won’t be a problem now. If they want to vote for her, they’ll know where to do it. And with none of the competition being particularly strong (including Meryl) or consistently winning, her overdue status should give her the edge. Also, she’s more likely to win for the Reader than for Revolutionary Road. They prefer the film and like the performance more (as its lead votes alone, not counting all the people who surely voted for her in supporting, were larger than Revolutionary Road’s total votes).

  So what are we mad about? They voted for her in the right role (Her Revolutionary Road performance in my books is a solid retread of a role she did better 2 years ago, not even among her 10 best performances, good certainly, but that’s it), in the right category (she IS lead). They took away the category splitting danger. She also won the SAG for this role. She’s pretty much got it.

• 5 1-28-2009 at 8:32 am
  
  Bart Smith said...

  Is there anyone left out there who truly believes that “Shakespeare in Love,” a lovely film, was actually better than “Saving Private Ryan?”

  Me.

  Of course, I don’t even think SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was the best World War II movie of 1998. That distinction belongs to THE THIN RED LINE.

• 6 1-28-2009 at 8:35 am
  
  Roger said...

  Makes two of us. In my umble opinion “shakespeare in love” in much more beautiful and well developed than “private ryan”.

  I believ this year we’ll see the toughest race for best actress ever. And the once favourite HAthaway might just be losing her strengh… either the honour the wonderfull work that Winslet done this year, or they go for the stunning performance by streep… it is really hard to call…

• 7 1-28-2009 at 8:39 am
  
  Casey Fiore said...

  I agree Billy Bob did deserve the win.

  Together with Holly Hunter, Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet make up the threesome of my all time favorite actresses. That being said I don’t particularly think much of either of their BA nomd performances this year. Revolutionary Road was exponentially better than The Reader across the board and I feel more or less board by Kate’s perf in it. first time thats happened since Titanic.

  Truthfully, I really don’t want Kate to win this award because there is no reason to give a career award to an actress who still has years of excellent performances left in her. If she had gotten the nomination for April Wheeler, n doubt I would have wanted her to win, but I really just dont want to look back and say “she won for something completely undeserving when they could’ve waited 2 years for superior work”

• 8 1-28-2009 at 8:45 am
  
  John Foote said...

  Hey Guy — I loved what Thornton did with “Slingblade” but believe “The Crucible” is an extraordinary film that Fox did not know how to market — remember the fall issue Entertainment Weekly, when the cast of “The Crucible” graced the cover? — I knew a friend at Fox who stated he believed the film could earn nominations in every major category and in late 96 the film was the talk of the industry and the Oscar race…and then nothiong, as though it had never existed — somehow along the line they dropped the ball, and though Day-Lewis was runner up to Ruish for the NYFCC Awards, the film never caught on with audiences — I loved it and love it now and hope, someday it is discovered by a new generation–

• 9 1-28-2009 at 8:49 am
  
  Adam Smith said...

  James: count me in the Reader camp. As I typed that, I just realized how that might be seen as a tasteless pun.

  And yeah, it seems that people want to award Kate, and to do it for The Reader. With no potential for her to split her own votes, Kate seems set to take the Oscar with no trouble.

• 10 1-28-2009 at 9:00 am
  
  Patrick said...

  Kate will win an Oscar, but it shouldn’t be this year. “The Reader” was bloated and choppy, and the Academy will resist voting for it in any category. I think Meryl will win, and that is fine with me. Kate will temporarily share the title of most-nominated actress without a win. Hello Thelma Ritter and Deborah Kerr.

• 11 1-28-2009 at 9:13 am
  
  JC said...

  Winslet has a better shot at Oscar than Streep. She gave two great performances this year, period.

  Also, at least from my perspective, attacking The Reader like it’s terrible is getting a little passe.

  Sure, many may not like it and/or understand it (if it’s the latter, I think Ebert’s review is perfect), but I for one found it to be indeed one of the five best films of the year. So, no, I don’t think The Reader will be forgotten, over say Frost/Nixon.

• 12 1-28-2009 at 9:57 am
  
  A.J said...

  Shakespeare in Love > Saving Private Ryan. I hate Harvey Weinstein. Buying and shelving movies for years. What is his deal? I hope both of his actresses go unawarded this year (Cruz and Winslet). Neither performance is the best in their category so therefore they should not win. Neither performance is even second best in their category. Yes Winslet lost 5 times, but Streep lost 13 (and 11 in a row).

• 13 1-28-2009 at 10:09 am
  
  limeymcfrog said...

  I agree that Weinstein has jeopardized a sure thing with the shift of category for Winslet, but I have to disagree with Sling Blade v. Crucible. I teach The Crucible every year and show the film. It’s a faithful adaptation of great source material, but Sling Blade was a far superior film and the strength of it lies in Thornton’s writing as well as his performance. Miller’s work was a good expansion of the themes of his play, but the central story was watered down as a result, and the pacing suffered as well.

  The logic you use to support your Thornton v. Arthur Miller argument is shoddy. Playwrighting and Screenwriting are two completely different arts. F. Scott Fitzgerald attempted to be a screenwriter and failed miserably, Ben Affleck won an Oscar for best screenplay. Does that mean Affleck is a better writer than Fitzgerald? No, they work in different mediums.

• 14 1-28-2009 at 10:15 am
  
  alynch said...

  The academy was correct to consider her role in The Reader to be a lead performance, so I can’t really bash Harvey on that basis.

• 15 1-28-2009 at 10:27 am
  
  lazarus said...

  Billy Bob did NOT deserve his Oscar. Anyone who’s read the novel of The English Patient will tell you what an achievement Minghella’s adaptation was, and not an easy one, either, considering Ondaatje’s book has very little dialogue and is very stream-of-consciousness. It’s probably the award the film deserved more than any other.

  Billy Bob should never have been in the adapted category, anyway, as his script is just an expansion of something he had just filmed very recently.

  And count me in as someone who like Shakespeare in Love better than the bloated and cloying Saving Private Ryan, which should have lost won (at least) for direction and cinematography.

• 16 1-28-2009 at 10:29 am
  
  lazarus said...

  Sorry, I meant to say The Thin Red Line should have won those two that SPR took…

• 17 1-28-2009 at 10:39 am
  
  Jonathan Spuij said...

  I was wondering earlier wether The Reader can’t be the big dark horse for a win now because it’s gathering steam this late in the race? Anyhow, it’s by far the poorest of the pack (ain’t seen Slumdog yet but I can’t imagine that being a less thrilling cinematic experience). But Weinstein did brilliantly to shove this film onto the Academy’s platter and took all their respectability with it.

• 18 1-28-2009 at 10:42 am
  
  Chris said...

  As a literature student, I have to say: I love, love, love “Shakespeare in Love” – it’s so well written and full of references. And even though I slightly prefer “Saving Private Ryan”, I think it’s amazing it won the totally deserved Oscar for Best Film.

  Anyway, do I think Weinstein robbed Winslet of her Oscar? No. She’s going to win it.

• 19 1-28-2009 at 11:13 am
  
  Chad said...

  Add me to the list who believe Shakespeare in Love is better than Saving Private Ryan.

• 20 1-28-2009 at 11:31 am
  
  N8 said...

  No way Kate loses now. I agree that her performance in “Revolutionary Road” is the best female performance of the year, but all it won was the Globe. Her work in “The Reader” has won BFCA, Globe, and SAG, and now that there’s no danger of a vote split, she’s unstoppable.

  Given the choice between giving Meryl a third Oscar and giving Kate a first, the Academy is OBVIOUSLY going to go with the latter.

• 21 1-28-2009 at 11:33 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Actually, I forget “Saving Private Ryan” frequently. Everything after the first 20 minutes anyway. It’s pat. Sorry. “The Thin Red Line” deserved the Oscar walking away that year, if we really want to talk snubs.

• 22 1-28-2009 at 11:40 am
  
  Nigel said...

  I will always think Shakespeare in Love was better than Saving Private Ryan. SiL winning Best Picture remains perhaps my favourite Oscar moment.

• 23 1-28-2009 at 11:49 am
  
  Manos said...

  Shakespeare In Love was better than Saving Private Ryan, and will stand the test of time. Also Winslet will win this year, even though i’d rather see her get 2 nominations instead of 1.

• 24 1-28-2009 at 12:07 pm
  
  Ryan said...

  I also think Shakespeare in Love was better than Saving Private Ryan even though I also really liked the latter. So no, I don’t agree with you in that regard.

  As for Kate. It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If she had gotten two nominations then votes would’ve been split but/or she would still win in Supporting where people will cry category fraud!

  She gets her lead nom for The Reader and fans of RR are pissed, but the bigger population of “Kate Winslet fans” will now have one role to focus all their love (and votes).

  For me it’s hard to compare the two and while I agree that she has done better in roles past, these two performance are NOT exactly chopped liver! They are most definitely Oscar worthy performances through and through. So I’m hoping she wins.

• 25 1-28-2009 at 12:28 pm
  
  BurmaShave said...

  THE TRUMAN SHOW should have won Best Picture of 1998. Amazingly prescient movie.

• 26 1-28-2009 at 1:53 pm
  
  Mark Kratina said...

  Agreed, Burma.

  Honestly, who cares what Weinstein did to Winslet- he orchestrated TDK’s removal from BP & BD nods. That is a far greater crime.

• 27 1-28-2009 at 2:04 pm
  
  /3rtfu11 said...

  They locked-out Beloved in ’98.

• 28 1-28-2009 at 2:13 pm
  
  Guy Lodge said...

  Uh, I think “Beloved” locked itself out in 1998, by virtue of being terrible.

• 29 1-28-2009 at 2:21 pm
  
  JC said...

  It looks like there’s another JC posting on these boards, and I don’t know which came first…but regardless, based on what I’ve read from usually reliable sources, The Reader is middling at best. A perfect example of “Important Themes” taking (awards) precedence over actual artistic quality. But I’ve nothing against Winslet, so if they want to give her an award this year, fine…do it. I’d say it’s a toss-up amongst most of the Lead Actresses anyways.

  Add me to the list who thinks the charming Shakespeare in Love was better than Saving Private Ryan (though I like both), and I also think The Truman Show deserved a nod that year. I don’t generally go for Jim Carrey films, but that and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are amongst my favourites in the past 15 years of American film, for different reasons.

• 30 1-28-2009 at 2:28 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Truman Show is my #2 that year.

• 31 1-28-2009 at 2:38 pm
  
  JC said...

  Some folks criticize Carrey’s performance in The Truman Show, but I think it was a perfect example of a director (to use a Hitchcock-coined approach) “cattling” an actor to suit his vision, which actually reflects back on the premise of the film itself. Carrey was, I think, more emotionally present in Eternal Sunshine. But, as I said, I really like both films for completely different reasons.

• 32 1-28-2009 at 2:57 pm
  
  Chad said...

  Meet Joe Black is the best film of 1998

• 33 1-28-2009 at 2:58 pm
  
  Aaron said...

  “Somehow Weinstein convinced the Academy it was, so the best directed, best edited, best shot and best sounding film, lost to a beautifully written work that will be forgotten in time, if it has not been forgotten already.”

  I don’t really like the notion that somehow the Academy was somehow mislead, or almost “hypnotized” into voting Shakespeare in Love for best picture. Yes, Weinstein campaigned the hell out of that movie (I was around 10 or so when it was released and I still remember all those FYC campaigns), but that doesn’t mean that the Academy blindly voted for it. Could it possibly be they actually loved it??? Shakespeare in Love is a great, great film and (IMO) it has aged just as well as Saving Private Ryan.

  Mark my words, if Saving Private Ryan had won, people today would have been talking about how the Academy voted for it simply for the A-List credentials associated with it (Dreamworks, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, etc…).

  And another quote that’s a little unfounded, too:
  “…and he managed to sway the Academy to vote for Kate Winslet as a lead actress rather than supporting.”

  Ummmm…wasn’t she being campaigned in supporting this whole awards season and as a result picked up 3 major awards so far (Critics Choice, Golden Globe, SAG). And isn’t the Academy Ballot simply a list of actors and performances listed alphabetically, rather in designated Lead or Supporting slots? The Academy voted for her here because she IS a lead role in the film. When I saw The Reader, I just couldn’t see how she was being campaigned in supporting. I applaud the Academy for recognizing the category fraud. And she also got that nod because there simply didn’t seem to be that much support for Revolutionary Road in general.

  And this placement in no way forbids Kate Winslet to win the Oscar this year. It’s between her and Streep (like it always was). I give Winslet the edge. She’s in a best picture nominee in a movie The Academy obviously liked (or I guess you would say coerced into liking). This will be the chance to finally award her and the film, cause most likely it doesn’t stand a chance in any of the other races. That’s my two cents, anyways.

• 34 1-28-2009 at 3:06 pm
  
  par3182 said...

  +1 for ‘Shakespeare In Love’

  and no, Harvey didn’t convince me, the film did.

• 35 1-28-2009 at 3:48 pm
  
  The Postman said...

  Count mine as another vote for Shakespeare in Love as the best film of 1998.

  And I think Kate Winslet’s work in The Reader is every bit as good as her performance in Revolutionary Road. It’s an embarrassment of riches for her this year.

  One reason why I don’t think the Oscars are going to go to Sean Penn and Meryl Streep? The Academy tends to avoid giving both Lead Oscars to repeat winners. In fact, it’s only happened twice: in 1994 (Tom Hanks and Jessica Lange, and she’d won before for Supporting) and 1938 (Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis). Especially in a year where one likely winner (Heath Ledger) will be unable to receive or appreciate his Oscar, it just feels like the time to spread the wealth a little.

• 36 1-28-2009 at 3:54 pm
  
  Jackie said...

  Beloved is not a terrible movie.

• 37 1-28-2009 at 3:56 pm
  
  Neel Mehta said...

  Another vote for Shakespeare. There are people who remember both movies as a whole and still prefer SPR, and that’s fine. It’s a good movie with a few excellent elements.

  But the majority of people who work off vague memories, and haven’t seem the films recently, will always consider SIL unworthy and slight because no part of it can match the opening visuals of SPR.

  Between those two films, and leaving out the acting categories, the Academy got it right that year: SPR won Oscars for Director, Editing, Cinematography, and both Sound categories. SIL won Oscars for Picture, Costumes, Art Direction, Writing, and Music. That’s a damn impressive split.

• 38 1-28-2009 at 4:02 pm
  
  John Foote said...

  Wow Guy, I am shocked you dislike “Beloved” so much — thouigh the major flaw in casting Oprah Winfrey as Sethe brought the film down, I think Jonathan Demme did a remrakable job creating the world of Morrison’s book — to fully appreciate ‘Beloved” the viewer must accept two things without question, the first being that ghosts exist and the second that the dead can come back — I have to disagree with you STRONGLY here my friend, that while Winfrey was a massive obstacle, the film was extraordinary in many ways — cast Angela Bassett in that part and you might have had a masterpiece — and did Deme not do a masterful job creating the period and life of African Americans at that time??? Incredible — superb Thandie Newton performance — one that a few critics praised, Richard Corliss for Time I believe loved the film, as did a nadful of others who saw perhaps what I did in the film. Trrible? No, not at all, Demme is much better than that, but certainly flawed, yet forever haunting.

  I stand by my “The Crucible” argument, but must confess that the comment about the adaptation of “The English Patient” was likely the better work that year, a damned near unfilmable book –

• 39 1-28-2009 at 4:12 pm
  
  daveylow said...

  I don’t think Harvey did all that much this year. He scheduled a lot of screenings but his promotion of The Reader was not really overkill. And he tried to help Kate get two nominations by pushing her in supporting.

• 40 1-28-2009 at 4:27 pm
  
  Herb said...

  I think the closest comparison to Kate being nominated for the Reader and not Revolutionary Road is 2 years ago when Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for a rather uninspired turn (complete with an excruciating accent) in The Blood Diamond, and not in The Departed.

• 41 1-28-2009 at 4:49 pm
  
  David said...

  Kate Winslet will most likely win the Oscar. Her situation reminds me of Sean Penn in 2004 when he had two great performances for “21 Grams” & “Mystic River” but ultimately got in in for the latter in a Best Picture nominee.

  This is Kate’s year.

• 42 1-28-2009 at 5:18 pm
  
  billybil said...

  My apologies to those of you who read blogs on Awards Daily and The Film Experience but I am repeating what I wrote there because it seems pertinent.

  What do you think is more likely? That the beautiful, 33-year old woman who is certainly one of the most gifted and celebrated actresses of her generation has more time to win at least 2 Oscars OR that the beautiful, 59-year old woman who is certainly one of the most gifted and celebrated actresses of her generation has more time to earn a more appropriate place in Oscar history?

  Living now, during the reign of Streep, are you really OK with the following as her legacy:

  Katherine Hepburn 12 nominations, 4 best actress wins
  Ingrid Bergman 7 nominations, 2 best actress wins, 1 sup act
  Bette Davis 10 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Jane Fonda 7 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Olivia DeHavilland 5 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Elizabeth Taylor 5 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Jodie Foster 4 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Glenda Jackson 3 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Luise Rainer 2 nominationis, 2 best actress wins
  Vivien Leigh 2 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Sally Field 2 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Hilary Swank 2 nominations, 2 best actress wins
  Meryl Streep 15 nominations, 1 best actress, 1 best sup act
  Maggie Smith 6 nominations, 1 best actress, 1 best sup act
  Jessica Lange 6 nominations, 1 best actress, 1 best sup act
  Helen Hayes 2 nominations, 1 best actress, 1 best sup act
  Shelly Winters 3 nominations, 2 best supporting actress wins
  Dianne Weist 2 nominations, 2 best supporting actress wins

  I remember quite clearly when Sally Field won her 2nd oscar (1984 – I know, some of you weren’t even born yet, but I was, and I was already a devoted Meryl Streep fan) and there was a quote – whether Field made it herself or someone incorrectly attributed it to her, I don’t know (I was too young then to know such a thing could occur) but supposedly Sally Field said:

  I am the most honored actress of my generation!

  Katherine Hepburn was 77 in 1984. Bette Davis was 76. Luise Rainer was 74. Vivien Leigh and Ingrid Bergman were gone already. Olivia de Havilland was 68. Elizabeth Taylor was 52. Glenda Jackson was 48. Jane Fonda was 47. Sally Field was 38. Meryl Streep was 35. (Foster and Swank were yet to win.)

  Streep already had her 2 but one was for supporting actress so that didn’t “count” as much as Sally’s 2 best actress awards. No matter how much you might disagree with this, it is not an uncommon perception. Are you really OK with this being Meryl Streep’s legacy?

  Katherine Hepburn was a delight in many, many of her films. Some of her performances are justifiably legendary. But for the history of the Oscars to reflect Hepburn as a more honored actress than Streep seems very wrong to me!

  I know, I know, people will look back at all of Meryl’s nominations and be impressed but, as many people have pointed out, Meryl is also the actress with the record of the most losses. As time goes by, it is the winning that people remember.

  So how many more times is Meryl really going to be able to get a role that is capable of putting her up for a best actress oscar? I’m not declaring her retired or dead, I’m hoping she’ll keep working as long as she wants and continue to do great things and entertain the hell out of me, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be Oscar worthy roles.

  (Right now my gut tells me that, at best, playing Julia Child next year may bring a supporting actress nomination, but even that seems iffy to me.)

  And, yes, of course, of all the 60-year old actresses Streep has the best chance for getting whatever 60-year-old Oscar worthy role is written, but how many are there really going to be? And some simply aren’t going to suit her talents.

  Again, I think Kate Winslet is the bees knees – she’s gorgeous, she’s very, very smart as an actress, she’s talented as hell, the camera loves her, she’s got range and depth and poise and courage and a whole lot of sexual allure. I believe she truly is one of the greats – more than worthy to be up with those ladies listed above – very much more than several of them, I’m sure many would agree. But is the role in THE READER this year her Scarlett O’Hara? Or her KLUTE or her BOY’S DON’T CRY or her THE ACCUSED? Really?

  I haven’t seen all the performances this year and frankly I don’t need to. This year I want to see a once-in-a-century talent get another formal acknowledgment of her brilliance and another appropriate addition to her history even if it is at the expense of others.

  And you can scream all you want how the Oscars should only be about the very best performance winning the award each year but that dream has already been compromised so many times, and for far worse reasons than this.

• 43 1-28-2009 at 5:38 pm
  
  Guy Lodge said...

  “I haven’t seen all the performances this year and frankly I don’t need to.”

  If only you’d put this at the beginning, Billybil, we wouldn’t have “needed to” read your lengthy, hysterical comment either. I assume most of us here aren’t voters, so spare us the campaigning.

• 44 1-28-2009 at 6:34 pm
  
  Kokushi said...

  Saving Private Ryan and American History X were the best movies of 98.

• 45 1-28-2009 at 6:47 pm
  
  Patrick F. said...

  I can’t believe we’ve had such a long discussion about Harvey botching oscar campaigns without talking about Wisegate. He killed Marty’s chances, but we can all be happy about the Polanski win.

  We were at this place with The Hours, about this time with Nicole going lead, and everybody was saying “She can’t win in this deep of a field in lead” and she did, even though she had less time on screen than her co-leads.

  I hope it isn’t that way this year. When Kate wins, it should be special, and not because she’s “Due.”

• 46 1-28-2009 at 7:05 pm
  
  John Travolta said...

  The man plays dirty but he has genius tactics that get films nominated.

  Also the Thin Red Line was brilliant!
  -not sure if i can say its better than Saving Private Ryan, but i definitley like it more.

• 47 1-28-2009 at 11:18 pm
  
  Scott Ward said...

  billybil, you represent nearly everything we loath and hold contempt for about the Oscars. Do you think they should implement a rule saying no one under 45 should be nominated?

• 48 1-29-2009 at 7:55 am
  
  John Foote said...

  Bill, seriously dude, see the films before ranting like that — I liked what yoiu were saying, liked where the article was going until you state you have not scene the performances…at that point, I stopped reading and kicked myself in the ass for reading so far into your answer…you make some excellent popints about Streep, but your admission of what you have and have not seen is rather shameful.

• 49 1-29-2009 at 8:10 am
  
  billybil said...

  But Mr. Foote:

  My entire point was NOT to discuss who the BEST performance given by an actress was this year. To suggest submitting my article without having seen all the performances was “shameful” is so incredibly arrogant and presumptive.

  Obviously I thought (think) it was important to suggest people consider another aspect of the Oscars.

  You may certainly enjoy a blog where people like to discuss who they think is best in each catagory – I’m all for people sharing their opinions and defending them with heartfelt words – but to totally discount what I have to say because I haven’t seen every performance is so profoundly unreasonable that I think I find it flattering.

  Yes, I was making some great points about Meryl Streep – the biggest being that she deserves the award this year NOT because she gave the best performance (although some many people might well think she did even after seeing all the performances) but because of who she is and what’s she done for the last 25 years.

  Again, the Oscars are NOT and never WILL BE about who gave the best performance in a single given year (Geez, I thought all us movie-lovers hit that realization in our late teens, early 20′s and cried and bemoaned and swore a blue streak and then got over it – evidently I was wrong!)

  I’m sorry that you assumed I was writing about the best of the year and that once you realized I wasn’t you kicked yourself in the ass. I really am sorry if I wasted some of your time.

• 50 1-29-2009 at 10:34 am
  
  Scott Ward said...

  Billybil, have you ever heard of anything called a Lifetime Achievement award. Presuming she doesn’t die soon, she will get one, what more do you want? There are plenty of actors who only have one win who are considered one of the best at their craft. I realize you would like to see Streep win, but you almost seem to think that she will be forgotten if she doesn’t win again. And you clearly downplay the Oscars, saying that it has never been about who gives the best performance of the year, yet you want to cry foul if Streep doesn’t win. I guess the award is only important for you if Meryl Streep gets it.

  And don’t think for a minute that you know more about how the Oscars work than most of us on here. No shit we know that the best performance doesn’t always win. But we will always hope that the Academy will have some kind of epiphany and change. Instead, you promote their twisted behavior and encourage it. You could have made your entire point by simply saying, “I really hope Streep wins, she is a great actress,” That’s it. End of story.

• 51 1-29-2009 at 12:38 pm
  
  Chris said...

  Now seriously billybil, what you’re suggesting is: giving Meryl Streep, the arguably greatest actress of all times a consolation Oscar for a minor performance of hers. I don’t even think she’d want it herself if she knew somebody else deserved it more. And if winning an Oscar really isn’t about the best performance, then why should she even bother to win another one?

  At the same time I’d like to ask you: so Kate Winslet is 33 and got so much more time to win an Oscar than Meryl Streep? How old was Meryl Streep again when she won her last Oscar? 32? Gosh, if your logic was correct Kate Winslet would be pretty f****d when it comes to the Golden Boy, if she doesn’t win soon.

  Now here’s a shocker: just imagine Angelina Jolie won her second Oscar. Streep 2, Jolie 2, Winslet 0. Thank God, this won’t happen.

• 52 1-29-2009 at 5:12 pm
  
  Mike V. said...

  I hope Meryl will win BA. I think Kate should have been nominated in the Supporting category and win in that spot. But this is Meryl’s year. Sorry. Her performance in Doubt is fantastic. It’s not subtle because the character was supossed to be exaggerated and over-the-top. But it’s great how she put the habit on and scare more than one. Her performance is even funny, making it more versatile than any other performance of 2008.

• 53 1-29-2009 at 7:37 pm
  
  TWC said...

  “As time goes by, it is the winning that people remember.”

  Oh ok! It must just be some strange coincidence then that everyone mentions her being “the most nominated actress” in all of these ‘awards blogs’ and in all her interviews and even the announcer at the oscars when she’s presenting an award. I’m mean because after all it’s just the wins that everyone remembers. LOL

• 54 1-30-2009 at 1:10 am
  
  roberto said...

  I actually think Kate has a much better chance at winning now, with one lead actress nomination for a film which is also a BP nominee. She was fantastic in RevRoad, but it’s the Academy’s own rules that don’t allow her to be a double nominee, not Weinstein’s. I think Weinstein really pushed for her in the supporting category and that win would’ve been ridiculous. It’s ironic that finally two Weinstein-film actresses might end up winning the actress categories, but I don’t mind at all, love them both (even though I didn’t think much of VCB apart from Penelope’s performance).

  I think Doubt is not very strong and Meryl’s performance is dividing. This is not a lifetime achievement award, so it doesn’t matter that in a way she’s even more due than Winslet. It seems like the Academy really liked The Reader, so I don’t think they care much about the fact that it’s a Weinstein picture (and let’s not forget that it’s also a Daldry, Minghella and Pollack picture!)

  One last thing: I also think Shakespeare in Love is far superior to Saving Private Ryan and all the Weinstein pictures that won in the nineties-early 00s (SIL, The English Patient, Chicago) were much-loved films that do age well.
  However, his films that couldn’t win, but managed to score BP nominations (Chocolat, Gangs of New York, Finding Neverland) – now, that’s where his awful campaign tactics show. Some might argue that The Reader belongs in this category, but there are many who consider it this year’s high profile literary adaptation BP nominee in the line of Atonement, The Hours etc.

• 55 1-30-2009 at 11:48 am
  
  Edgar said...

  If Kate was nominated for Rev Road, she can definitely take home the OSCARS, but for some magic event, she was nominated for The Reader which is a tamer performance compared to Rev Road. I think, Harvey wants to campaign for The Reader so much that it cost Kate her Best Actress win in Rev Road. It’s Harvey who wants to get the Oscar, not Kate. Oh well, Kate is gifted, she’s only 33, she can make 5 more Oscar worthy performance. How sad how actors are sometimes victims of big time producers.

  I would place my bet to Meryl Streep for Doubt, not only bec. she’s the greatest actress on earth but she gave a solid and memorable performance in Doubt.

• 56 1-31-2009 at 2:10 pm
  
  BerkeleyGirl said...

  Okay, stoke the fire, because I’m going to get flamed but: Meryl Streep a once-in-a-century talent? I do not dispute her ridiculously prodigious gifts but I, for one, am left unmoved. Streep can hold the camera with her technique but she rarely moves my heart. Nothing I’ve seen her do – which is a LOT, including “Sophie’s Choice” – comes close to reaching Helen Mirren’s Jane Tennyson.

• 57 2-02-2009 at 10:11 am
  
  Roxanne said...

  Who is going to buy this garbage about Meryl Streep????!!!!

  What a load of crap! Go try sliming someone else, Meryl Streep is the unslimable, and since when does Kate Winslet r Helen Mirren even begin to compare????!!!

Name

Email

Web site

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail