Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
Some of you have already mentioned this in another thread, but The Weinstein Company, in their apparent wisdom, have decided to campaign “Inglourious Basterds” star Mélanie Laurent for Best Actress.
Far be it from me to question the judgment of one of the greatest strategists in Oscar history, but … what?
Laurent was, admittedly, a very dark horse in the supporting category, but as far as I can see, promoting her to lead reduces her nomination chances to nil — unless voters take the category decision into their own hands, as they did with Kate Winslet this year.
Perhaps Weinstein is simply buying into the popular myth that Best Actress is a weakly contested category this year. But with only one slot seemingly up for grabs, and her compatriot (and fellow Weinstein Company property) Marion Cotillard muscling in on the race, the odds are firmly stacked against Laurent getting it.
Of course, many ardent admirers of Laurent’s performance claim that that she is the film’s true lead, so they’ll be happy with the principle of the move, at least. (I’d agree, if only her character arc wasn’t resolved in such a desultory fashion.)
In her place, TWC’s site promotes Diane Kruger for Best Supporting Actress. Meanwhile, in a move unlikely to give Colin Firth any sleepless nights, Brad Pitt is listed as a Best Actor candidate. (How is he more of a lead than Christoph Waltz, you ask? Why, his name’s Brad Pitt, of course.)
No mention whatsoever of Michael Fassbender: presumably they don’t want internal competition for Waltz, not that he’d have a snowball’s chance of a nom anyway. But neither do Pitt and Kruger, and Fassbender outacts them both, so it’s hardly fair. Still, let’s at least be grateful there’s no campaign afoot for Eli Roth.
Ah, the ceaseless tangles of campaign politics…
39 responses so far
1 11-18-2009 at 5:36 am
James D. said...
I guess if anyone was the lead in the film, it would be either her or Waltz. Waltz is in every chapter while Pitt is missing from the first and third, while Laurent carries everything she is in.
2 11-18-2009 at 5:53 am
Harmonica said...
I know his chances are almost non existent, but…they’re not promoting Fassbender??
3 11-18-2009 at 6:03 am
Emily said...
Waltz isn’t in the second chapter if I remember correctly. The one that’s just called “Inglourious Basterds.”
Not that I’m arguing. He’s the lead.
4 11-18-2009 at 6:06 am
Guy Lodge said...
Harmonica: Strange, isn’t it? Especially since, for “Nine,” they list six Supporting Actress candidates.
5 11-18-2009 at 6:15 am
"Julianstark" said...
Question: does anybody other than me think that this could be better for Laurent?
I mean, she wasn’t getting nominated either way, but Supporting Actress was pretty much set, with one or two of them being interchangeable – Laurent not being one of the aforementioned alternates
I mean, we ARE talking about Sandra Bullock possibly getting in for a Hallmark Hall of Fame-ish film that isn’t even in contention for any other award, whereas Inglourious Basterds is a Picture contender and has been argued to pull a Picture upset (don’t think it can, but here’s the link for that: http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2009/11/precious-oscars-inglourious-basterds-movies-entertainment-news-story-article.html#more)
Considering that Actress has those two spots (arguably) open… I’m not predicting her to make the cut… I’m just saying…
6 11-18-2009 at 6:22 am
M.Harris said...
I don’t get the Weinsteins logic,on this one.Hell,they might as well push Christoph Waltz for Lead Male.
That would be far less shocking,and even have some logic to it.
7 11-18-2009 at 6:25 am
JAB said...
This just made my morning. I’m really glad this year Weinstein’s movies are at least ones that I liked (Inglourious Basterds) or presumably will like (A Single Man, Nine) as opposed to The Reader which I only barely appreciated.
8 11-18-2009 at 6:33 am
James D. said...
Oh, you are right Emily, but it does feel like he is there, doesn’t it?
9 11-18-2009 at 6:39 am
j said...
Speaking of Weinsteins…interesting; Tapley’s moved Day-Lewis & Cruz into front-runners but not Cotillard. + Pic, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costumes, Directing, Editing, the 2 songs they’re pushing for Song, Sound Mixing, Adapted, but not Makeup.
His expectations based on the screening I’m presuming he attended are clear.
10 11-18-2009 at 6:48 am
"Julianstark" said...
Is Nine being pushed for Sound Editing?
11 11-18-2009 at 6:49 am
"Julianstark" said...
I guess my earlier comment was allowed cause there was a link, so here is the same thing I posted minus the link
Question: does anybody other than me think that this could be better for Laurent?
I mean, she wasn’t getting nominated either way, but Supporting Actress was pretty much set, with one or two of them being interchangeable – Laurent not being one of the aforementioned alternates
I mean, we ARE talking about Sandra Bullock possibly getting in for a Hallmark Hall of Fame-ish film that isn’t even in contention for any other award, whereas Inglourious Basterds is a Picture contender and has been argued to pull a Picture upset (don’t think it can, but you never know)
Considering that Actress has those two spots (arguably) open… I’m not predicting her to make the cut… I’m just saying…
12 11-18-2009 at 6:52 am
Blake said...
This is not a wise decision on part of the Weinsteins.
I was really bored one day and wanted to answer this question myself: who has the most screentime in Inglourious Basterds?
Well, first up would be Christoph Waltz. He carries the first act himself and has good chunks of screentime in the third and fifth acts, with a scene at the end of the fourth. He is on screen for approximately 42 minutes.
Brad Pitt is next, surprisingly enough. He’s on screen for, if I recall, somewhere between 37-40 minutes. I wish I kept the numbers.
Next was Melanie Laurent, but Diane Kruger wasn’t very far behind. They are both on screen a little over half an hour. They should both be considered supporting. Michael Fassbender is right behind them, with 27 minutes of screentime. Daniel Bruhl has the smallest role of the six with only 17 minutes.
13 11-18-2009 at 6:53 am
red_wine said...
This I take exception too. The character is the lead, the hero of the piece, Laurent is not. She’s just in 2 chapters. I almost thought she had an outside chance in supp, this absolutely kills it.
And jeez Brad Pitt? He and Roth(cringe-worthy) were the only annoying bits in a uniformly good European cast. Want to see superstar screen presence? Watch Pitt’s scenes with Waltz and see who owns the screen.
14 11-18-2009 at 6:55 am
Kidmaniac said...
Whatever.
15 11-18-2009 at 7:00 am
JJ said...
I’m guessing the strategy is: there’s already 4-5 women vying for NINE in Supporting, and the Weinstein’s also have Charlize & Julianne Moore to contend with, too.
16 11-18-2009 at 7:07 am
Guy Lodge said...
@Julianstark: Given that pretty much everyone who’s seen “The Last Station” has declared Helen Mirren a safe bet, we are very likely only looking at one open slot in the Best Actress race. Even if that’s not the case, I don’t see how the supporting category is in any way more locked-up — still some room for maneouvre there, I think.
We aren’t talking about Sandra Bullock getting nominated for Best Actress … Pete Hammond is. Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish and Saoirse Ronan are clearly more obvious threats.
Similarly, only Tom O’Neil has suggested “Basterds” can win Best Picture, and he’s probably just spinning his wheels. I’ll gladly eat my hat if that happens.
To answer your other question, yes, they’re campaigning for Best Sound Editing for “Nine.” You can see a list of all the categories they’re going for on the site.
@JJ: That’s quite possible, though even in Best Actress, I’m guessing Laurent isn’t their top priority. As for Theron in “The Road,” that is the longest of long shots.
17 11-18-2009 at 7:18 am
"Julianstark" said...
Okay. I guess it is safe to assume that Mirren is in.
And all the talk for “The Blind Side,” when I said “we,” I mean Oscar predictors in general. I wasn’t referencing the site. I know that’s how I came across; sorry about that
And I definitely don’t think that Bullock will get in haha. Nor do I think that “Basterds” can take Best Picture.
I was just trying to say that Laurent is much more possible than Bullock, who some people (no joke) are actually predicting to get nominated. In other words, I think it’s crazy that some people are predicting Bullock to make the cut while everyone says that Laurent has no chance at getting in. I just don’t see it
And I wasn’t talking about this site; I was speaking in general, because I know that the editors of In Contention know enough about this Oscar stuff to not seriously consider Bullock as a strong contender
18 11-18-2009 at 7:19 am
Bill Melidoneas said...
I don’t see her sneaking in for Lead there might be have been a good potential for supporting but obviously the Weinstein’s are pushing Nine more on their table.
Has anyone thought that the six submitted Nine actresses might result in some of them losing votes? Either way I see Penelope Cruz as the nominated one.
19 11-18-2009 at 8:02 am
Caleb Roth said...
They just want to open room for that Nine crowd!
20 11-18-2009 at 8:40 am
rosengje said...
I am a staunch defender of all things TWC, but this displeases me. I really think that Melanie Laurent was the most likely to ride the coattails of the film’s surprising popularity into a nomination (since Christoph Waltz is already a lock). It is also annoying because I think she genuinely would have deserved a supporting actress nomination whereas now if she somehow gets into the best actress field she will be plagued by charges of category fraud and messing with another worthy actress’ nomination.
21 11-18-2009 at 9:56 am
Ben said...
I think this decision hurts Melanie Laurent’s chances for multiple reasons, particularly because it could divide her support like Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed a few years ago.
Plus, it seems with the exception of big name actresses like Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet that an actress typically has to be the film’s dominant central figure like Carey Mulligan or Gabourey Sidibe to be nominated in lead. As vital as Laurent’s character is to the film, it’s more part of an ensemble cast, where as Abbie Cornish is in just about every moment of Bright Star.
22 11-18-2009 at 9:58 am
Adam Smith said...
At the end of the day, AMPAS voters will decide what category she goes into. In previous years, Keisha Castle-Hughes and Kate Winslet were both pushed as Supporting Actress contenders, but they both ultimately scored nominations for Best Actress. So, if AMPAS voters think she’s supporting and like her enough, they’ll nominate her as Supporting Actress. I just hope that she’ll receive some notices, as hers was my favorite performance in “Basterds”, aside from Waltz.
23 11-18-2009 at 10:48 am
Erik said...
This makes perfect sense to me: the film had arguably 4 central roles: Wlatz, Pitt, Laurent, and Kruger, who carried the brunt of the film, and were central to the first 4 acts (the fifth was basically everyone thrown together).
So they’re hedging their bets: all 4 get a campaign without any internal competition. On every FYC you throw 4 names for the price of 1, everyone’s happy, nobody gets hurt.
As for the internal logic: Waltz is a lock for supporting, so why put him in lead? Pitt gets the vanity campaign for being a star (and screentime isn’t everything. See nominations vs. screentime for Training Day, the Hours, etc). Between Laurent and Kruger the former has the bigger part, and the latter cannot be confused for lead, so the division is made.
Personally, I’d love to see both Laurent and Kruger nominated, I thought Kruger had a very commanding screen presence and was genuinely shocked at how good she was, having seen her only in Troy before this. It’s probably the longest of longshots, but I don’t think this decision will hurt the film’s awards prospects that much: Laurent was always a longshot to begin with.
24 11-18-2009 at 10:59 am
Encore Entertainment said...
Leaving Waltz aside I thought Kruger was best in show.
25 11-18-2009 at 11:24 am
Ed said...
So now the two best female performances (Cotillard, Laurent) in their most promoted films are going lead when the supporting actress race is begging for competition…..idiots.
26 11-18-2009 at 11:37 am
AmericanRequiem said...
supporting actress and lead are both filling up fast, ill support laurent for either cateogry
27 11-18-2009 at 11:38 am
Nick Davis said...
I don’t care if it boxes her out of being nominated, for me it’s the right place to put her. Virtually the entire arc of the piece is Shosanna’s. (Admittedly, I don’t like the perf, so I have nothing invested in her “chances,” but I was stunned that she was being classified as Supporting in the first place.)
28 11-18-2009 at 11:49 am
nork said...
All tactical thinking on the part of the producers aside, both Laurent and Waltz clearly had lead roles in IB (Kruger, Pitt; Brühl and Fassbender had supporting roles) and should be nominated accordingly.
29 11-18-2009 at 4:55 pm
Simone said...
I’m all for Melanie getting a nomination period. I do believe she is more of a Lead though, but I’m afraid she will be shut out of the race if that is the case. She was outstanding.
Also Guy, I’m glad you thought so highly of Michael Fassbender’s performance. Though he will not get a nomination, he was brilliant and deserves more ‘nomination’ chit chat fodder than Kruger or Pitt.
30 11-18-2009 at 6:11 pm
Shannon said...
Why the hate for Eli Roth? His performance wasn’t Oscar worthy but it was still pretty good. I was quite surprised at his acting ability. His character was supposed to be a bit cheesy and over the top, from my understanding.
I might be biased, though. I have been a fan of his horror films for years and find him to be an incredibly likable person.
31 11-18-2009 at 7:03 pm
aspect ratio said...
I could surely buy her as a lead character in the film, but at the same time I wouldn’t have any trouble placing her in supporting either since there really isn’t any one true lead in the film.. Too bad, not that I think she would’ve gotten in anyway in either category, but at least her chances in supporting were greater.
32 11-18-2009 at 7:10 pm
Glenn said...
Although, if we hear her name called out on nomination morning… watch out.
33 11-18-2009 at 7:11 pm
Glenn said...
Although, if we hear her name called out on nomination morning… watch out.
And by that I mean watch out for the FILM. Laurant can’t win, but if she’s there that means BIG support.
34 11-19-2009 at 8:13 am
Jeremy said...
I think that Pitt campaign could plausibly result in a Globe nom, even if an Oscar nom is out of reach. DDL will be out of the way, opening up a slot, and the scenario becomes doubly likely if Up in the Air gets classified as a Comedy instead of a Drama.
35 11-19-2009 at 8:16 am
Guy Lodge said...
“Up in the Air” is competing as a drama.
Pitt doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance, however star-hungry the Globes can be.
36 11-19-2009 at 9:10 am
Adam Smith said...
@Guy: You might be right about Pitt, but the Globes will show their true colors when Clooney is a double nominee (Actor – Drama for Up in the Air, Supporting Actor for The Men Who Stare At Goats).
Part of this is just Tom O’Neill’s rumors, some of it is just my gut feeling about how the HFPA will respond, but I think that IB has a damn good chance at hitting big nomination-wise at the Globes.
37 11-19-2009 at 9:21 am
Guy Lodge said...
Given that I currently have Clooney as a wild-card in my supporting Oscar predictions, a Globe double-dip wouldn’t surprise me at all. (I wouldn’t have a problem with it, either — he’s heaps of fun in “Goats.”)
They might even promote him to comedy Actor, as they often do in thin years, with performances that have otherwise been campaigned as supporting: see Brendan Gleeson, Frances McDormand, Cate Blanchett, Catherine Zeta-Jones, etc.
38 11-19-2009 at 10:01 pm
slayton said...
Bruhl was best in show. Too bad he has no chance of getting nominated.