Remember When... We Didn't Know Who Would Star in "Gravity"?
Sunday, October 20, 2013 at 1:49PM I've been spending a great deal of time thinking about Sandra Bullock in Gravity lately. It's only natural when an actress is headlining an unqualified blockbuster that I'd do that but some of the time spent making like a contemplative Rodin-statue is my disconnect with the performance. I didn't love it or dislike it. I fall right in the middle. She's up to the task but no more or less.... to me. It doesn't remotely feel like an actor's movie to me -- though in all honesty I actually expected it to be given its one character focus. As a result I've been rather at a loss for explaining all the performance raves that have flown 'round ever since. And I've been stubbornly reluctant to concede that she was an Oscar lock. [Updated Best Actress chart]
My disconnect was aggravated by the fact that on the day it premiered and the explosion of "give her a second Oscar!" tweeting began... I had such a hard time imagining Cate Blanchett's hurricane force work in Blue Jasmine as a runner-up in this "versus!" contest in terms of quality. What's more Sandra's star turn wasn't even among the five best performances I had seen that month... let alone the whole of the year. While everyone was enjoying Sandra's survivalism on opening weekend I was still: reeling from Luminita Gheorghiu's savage mom in Child's Pose which would be a film-carrying nomination threat if it were in English along the lines of a Anjelica Huston in The Grifters (...and if it were being released in time); marvelling at Marion Cotillard's technique in The Immigrant which would be a threat if Oscar had shown any interest in Marion post-Oscar win (...and if it were being released in time); and falling head over heels in love with Paulina Garcia in Chile's Oscar entry Gloria, a performance so good that it'd be a threat to win the statue if it were in English, and if Oscar loved leading ladies over 50 (they don't)... and, say it with me now... if it were being released in time. That's too many "if"s, I know.
So I asked on Twitter, Guy Lodge thought too aggressively!, what people saw in Sandy's performance that I was missing. Why were they so enthused? (And I probably should have asked the lot of you as well!)
The most common answers I received were for 'selling the illusion' and for her 'game physicality'... both of which are valid points, I concede. But I find that the performance is lacking in vocal nuance and in the eyes (beyond terror). I just didn't feel like it transcended the simplistic characterization in the screenplay in any way and when you're talking FIVE BEST OF THE YEAR you'd better transcend! Otherwise just enjoy solid respectable "we love you, you superstar" reviews and leave it at that. Joe Reid was teasing me earlier today with the internet's binary thinking that this makes me a Sandra hater and no one should ever believe that i've ever enjoyed her in anything. But I have! I've just never though she was a "great" actor, only -- and this is not an insult -- a super likeable and talented one. She's the kind of star for whom global popularity and bottomless coffers of gold coin feel like just rewards.
This is all a long way of saying that I'm happy for Sandra's success since she seems like such a good person and she's so likeable, but that I still don't get why she's now an "Oscar Actress" as opposed to a Beloved Movie Star. Sometimes those things should go totally hand in hand of course, don't misunderstand. But in this case...?
Why am I bringing this up now, three weeks after Gravity has conquered the world and has the loudest Oscar fanbase this year?
Well, while looking for something else entirely in the Vaults of The Film Experience I came across this old post about the casting of Gravity after Angelina Jolie passed in 2010 and this strange "what if" visual detail...
actual reported studio interest when they were trying to find Gravity's female lead in 2010
IT'S SUCH A TIME CAPSULE.
These women were all actually mentioned in the trades as viable Angelina Jolie replacements! It's hard to imagine Gravity with most of these girls (if not quite all of them) in the role. Funny, right, that the studio were so invested in the futures of Blake Lively, Abbie Cornish, and Sienna Miller... or that they thought Scarlett or Natalie were old enough to play a scientist with expertise that the space program needed, or that they allowed for the possibility that Naomi Watts or Marion Cotillard might be bankable enough?
Now that Gravity has settled in as our possible nomination leader, how are you feeling about it? And Sandra's place in the Best Actress race? Whether you think I'm crazy or only half-agree, do chime in.
Reader Comments (74)
Yay for Adams making it into your Top 5! I actually think Thompson will get in that fifth slot over Dench, but it's a tough race.
I would've loved to see someone with much more emotional energy, say Jessica Chastain, be in Gravity. But I have no problems with Bullock's performance. I do see what you're saying, though. Not sure she would make my top five, but I have no problem with her getting nominated.
"Now that Gravity has settled in as our possible nomination leader, how are you feeling about it?" is this a Best Picture question? I don't think it will win Best Pic, honestly speaking;
What excites me the most is that despite the humongous success of Gravity all the experts on the Internet seem to agree that Blanchett is still the leader in the actress category.
Just the fact that this article exists makes her such an Oscar frontrunner :(
Anyway, SaBu was ok, but it would be so weird if she were to become a two-time academy award winner. But i guess stranger things have happened.
I keep thinking about Angelina Jolie in the same role. I can only imagine her grabbing hold of George Clooney herself and propelling them both to earth.
The time you are spending on contemplating the merits of Gravity and it's performances is more than enough validation of it's worth as a film. I suggest moving on from discussing Gravity if it did truly did not resonate with you...
I'm in the "Bullock was revelation" camp. But I'm trying to figure out why Julia Louis-Dreyfus isn't getting any play on your chart.
I enjoyed her performance and thought she was believable and fine and yes, the physicality on display is impressive. She had a few great line readings, one standout scene - transmission in the Soyez - and one slight clunker - the speech to the daughter.
I'm not in the least resistant to her getting the nomination but I think that's because I really truly believe she won't win the thing. As you say, the performance isn't really an undeniable one so she'll need to cruise on a "narrative" in order to come out victorious and the narrative she has this year is just too similar to the year she won. Will AMPAS really award her for doing the same sort of thing twice in such a short time span? I think that Gravity's phenomenal box-office has just skewed the conversation around Best Actress a bit and it'll soon right itself and focus on the baity, demonstrative "HERE I AM!" acting it usually goes for.
I'm willing to admit Sandra's work, however rigorous I found it, is not transcendent to the degree it's been praised. I like it a great deal, but I like possibly 15 other lead actress performances this year even more. I'm fine with her being a lock for a nod, and she deserves it for all the unfair ire she's somehow earned his her Oscar win.
A win, however, I don't see in the cards for her, or Blanchett for that matter. I feel oddly confident a fresh third party will enter the race and start escalating. Call me insane, but I even think it could be Adele Exarchopoulos. I'll probably have those beliefs scaled vastly down when 'Blue is the Warmest Color' arrives and is greeted by viewers, but I somehow still think the film as a whole has a shot, as well as its principal players.
I also always thought of her as likable and talented enough for the kind of movies she was in - mostly romantic comedies. she was good in them, she did her job well. she actually never had a chance to prove that she's a great actress. and I agree with you (again) that Gravity did not provide her the opportunity to prove her greatness. she was very good in a movie and honestly the best choice of all considered (with Naomi Watts as close second). nomination is well deserved. but I actually wanted to say here is that actors are judged by their movies - so, if you play in bad movies you're a bad actor, and if you play in great movies you're great. which is not fair, because some actors never get the chance to prove their range, and some less talented actors are much more lucky (or have better connections). I stopped carrying for actors in terms of their range a long time ago, because what matters is that they're good in a roles they play. actors are not important, the movies are. actors serve the movie, not the other way around. also, I don't think anyone can play everything and be good - that's just not natural. Meryl Streep can be funny, serious, she can cry, she can yell, she can be easily transformed but she can't play Batman (as Cam said in Modern Family,LOL)
The only award Gravity deserves is special effects because that's all it is. Sandra did her best with a limited role but it's not enough. It will be another joke of a nomination and ugh I hope she doesn't win. I don't have anything against her, though, but she does not deserve any statue.
jake -- so that all there will be is praise? this seems like a weird thing to do if i feel differently... and there's no way to move on from a film that will be discussed from at least now until Oscar night is over 4 MONTHS from now. No can do. the Oscar race won't allow it and i live to serve the Oscar race ;)
brace -- that's a good point. range can be an overrated thing. better to be A+ at one thing than B at a lot of them I suppose.
Morgan -- ACK. I keep forgetting her. I shall add her. I meant to!
I guess the voters will think that by nominating her again, they are somehow validating the absurdity of her Oscar win.
I'm Team Paulina. I want her on your podium.
I agree with the post 100%. Sandra Bullock is a celebrity, a movie star. She is nor really an artist. I'm always very curious to know what goes through the head of a movie star of her calibre when they are offered a role for which they would need to prepare a lot in order to be convincing, first technically, then, emotionally. Well, technically speaking, I did not believe she was the scientist who would be chosen for a space mission. She failed to convince she had the knowledge and expertise someone of that stature would have. She just seemed clumsy, uncertain, unprepared. Sandra Bullock has all the resources in the world ($ and power) to be able to do work and research in that respect, and if she did any, it didn't really show. Secondly, emotionally, she was just reciting lines. Sometimes they would come from her chest, but never ever from her guts. Even when human beings have blocked emotion in order to cope, when they are faced with the reasons to why they have done that, there is something underneath that can be seen, the buried pain, grief, which so many great actors have been able to access beautifully in many similar roles. The point is, as an "actress", Sandra is not capable of nuance. She does not have the tools, which takes me back to my question. Why wouldn't she humbly have some coaching and try to improve those weaknesses? Did she? I can't tell. Her voice range is simply range-less and even though the script seemed to be written by a 15 year-old, there was a little room for some color in there. Dr. Stone is not a great role as is and the performance falls below its limitations. I was at first appalled by the praise she was getting (same with Redford in All is Lost), but then I was glad my mind hasn't been conditioned to respond to things filtered by the general perception the media imposes on us. Gena Rowlands is an artist. Sandra Bullock is not. As far as the Oscar, she should win again, since the Oscars are not really about art.
Bullock is (just) fine in Gravity, but if she's nominated (I can't even consider a win) it'll be due to a) the film's success and b) her own position in Hollywood. That said, c) of all the performances listed as contenders here and at InContention, hers is the only one I've seen so far, which is a little scary (and embarrassing). In the months to come, I'm only certain to see Streep, Dench, Blanchett, Thompson and Adams (not unlike many Academy members, I'd bet), which makes me think Bullock will make it to the final five.
I'm not in favor of her winning but definitely for a nom. I also think that Nathaniel was looking for fundamentally different elements in Gravity than what it was offering or even wanted to offer—I don't think it's that difficult to understand the raves behind her performance. And this may be presumptuous of me, but i can see why it's not up Nathaniel's alley—but I would argue that the film never gave the opportunities for Bullock to give the kind of "transcendent" performance Nat was looking for in the first place. No, it may not be as nuanced or complex as other performances this year, but it terms of the sheer connection Bullock established with her audience, it was up there. And you make "selling the illusion" seem like such a trite quality, but I truly believe that there are very few actresses who could have taken on the job without being tempted to ham it up with "actressy" moments. I think of Watts or Johannssen or even Marion taking it on and I'm just glad that they gave it to Bullock, because the former women are all actresses whom I personally feel tend to give (or try and give) artful performances, and artfulness was not what was needed in Gravity, if that makes sense. Like the movie itself, Bullock didn't try and sell us some deeper, transcendent meaning. Her performance felt totally intuitive, stripped of all artifice or artfulness in its need to convey the primal and transient terror of a crisis.
I admittedly haven't seen "The Blind Side," but I do think that Bullock's strength and appeal generally boil down to her accessibility and unpretentiousness as an actress, and that what's I saw and empathized with in Gravity—this in some ways very ordinary, everyday-woman who despite her training found herself overwhelmed in the most unimaginable of circumstances. We were never looking at her, but through her. And that, in my opinion, remains an incredibly magnificent experience, rarely accomplished so well, for movie goers.
caroline -- very well said critique i think! it helps me understand why people would respond to it which is all i was originally asking on twitter that day. But anyway... one gripe: i said that i conceded that "selling the illusion" is a PRO in her column. so I'm not sure why that's me trivializing it. Hmmmm
I went again to see Gravity... mostly to watch Bullock now ... she did her job, did it well.... but Oscar quality ?.... NO NO NO had one emotional scene that any actress could have pulled.. she should not even take a place in the 5 slots leaaving out a mors deserving woman.
Gulp. I still haven't seen Gravity. Will rectify soon.
I'm fond of Sandy (Blind Side aside), and I'm happy that her career is still going strong. She's somehow managed to avoid the midcareer backlash that tanked Julia and Meg, and more power to her for that. Really, I love all of the women on this chart, but the fact of the matter is everyone who is not Adèle Exarchopoulos is my enemy this awards season. I didn't think it was possible that it could ever come to this between me and Emma Thompson, but it has happened. I'd say Adèle, against all odds, is sitting around seventh right now, since I doubt Labor Day is going anywhere, so I'm hoping she can sneak in on number one votes.
I guess you can call me a hater because I've never enjoyed her performances, not even the ones she's supposed to be good. I can always imagine someone else doing a better job. And that's not a good sign. I find her serviceable most of the times, and the only time I found her the best in show, she was outshadowing Keanu Reeves which isn't saying much.
Part of the problem with her being an Oscar actress now, is that when her absurd win happened, everyone was too incredulous at first and then quite open to her win because "she had paid her dues" (which is a concept I've never quite understood, yes you make the industry wins lots of money with your questionable movies, but don't they pay you shitloads of money for it?) and she's so lovely, common it's going to happen to her only once in her life, Streep and the others will have other opportunities. That was the narrative back then, including here, I must say.
But it proves one thing, Oscar is as relevant as always. Her Oscar win has suddenly erased a career of rom-coms and other stuff, and she's seen under a different light, the academy award winner light. Good for her and for her Gravity success, she's finally in a good movie.
@caroline -- love your post and agree wholeheartedly. You helped crystallized everything I wanted to say about Bullock's performance and its merits in Gravity. The role needed accessibility for a character that was largely inaccessible, it needed vulnerability and strength in equal measure without either drowning the other or seeming unbelievable, it needed someone straightforward and unfussy because desperation and terror are both primal and don't really have artful beats to play, which required an actress who could make that choice and sell it, and it needed to be a vessel in many ways, not for the auteur-director, but for the audience. And while Cate Blanchett still reigns supreme for this year, I can't think of any other name actress who could have provided and sold the hard and soft sell required in Gravity other than Sandra Bullock. And I'm not a fan of her previous dramatic efforts, so I'm astounded that I'm part of the team defending her work in this movie. Statue worthy? No, not with Blanchett in the competition. Nomination worthy? Hell yes, and I'll defend it from the inevitable backlash that she will get from all corners once the honeymoon has ended, declaring that her nomination is all due to her likability, success and connections. True of The Blind Side perhaps, but not this one.
The scene that sells an Oscar nomination--not a win, but a nomination--is that long monologue in the pod. You know, right before the howling. That's some fine acting.
As for arguing for physicality, screw that. Your average horror film protagonist goes through more (you want a physical performance to rave about? Watch The Collection, watch The Last Exorcism, watch Aliens) onscreen than Sandy did. So much of the film is special effects and perspective shots, not close-ups on physicality. Flailing for pipes is not physicality; physicality is the relief that sets in when she reaches for the dials in that big monologue scene. The rest is adequate work.
I am not opposed to a Bullock nomination; I'm just disappointed that this is finally when physicality matters. Not in any other horror/action film. This one. Where the star is Alfonso Cuaron playing dolls with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock.
Sandra Bullock can do no wrong...in comedies i.e. But i actually think Naomi Watts would have been amazing here and brought additional dimensions, one doesn't have to look far back to see what she did in the impossible and king kong and imagine what a layered performance she'd bring here...
Actually, there is one other name actress who I think could have done what Sandra Bullock did with similar unfussiness, accessibility and humility and has the chops to eclipse what Sandra provided on the screen: Viola Davis. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't run that way, and it's telling of Hollywood's many issues that Viola (or any other actress of colour) wasn't even considered.
haven't seen the film, but 'physicality' sounds like BS. "the movie is fantastic, it deserves all the oscars, sandra too!" / "really, what did you like about her?" / "err... her physicality and commitment". not saying people thought she was bad and are lying, but just, maybe, are overly excited.
I don't think Bullock sells the emotional arc of her character as much as I would have liked her to - the pivotal moment for her character is either underplayed or gone all too quickly - but there was enough good there (especially in the physicality and the stripped-down emotion of the first two thirds) for me to be okay with a nomination, should one arise.
However, now that I'm looking at that graphic of other actresses who were considered, I can't think of another movie star of that caliber who would have been as effective in this role. Jolie would have been interesting, but of those shown I really think only Cotillard could have been as effective an entry point into Gravity as Bullock was. Overall, I would have been far more interested to see, say, Viola Davis, Rosemarie Dewitt, or (especially) Vera Farmiga in the role, but the fact that I can't see ANY other major movie star (major being the key word) in the part is testament enough to just how good Bullock was.
And if Gravity does end up steamrolling its way through the awards season (the chances of which are pretty slim, I'd wager), I would be okay with that.
I felt it was the best performance she's ever given. I was with her from beginning to end... I wanted to cheer during that final scene. No other actress could've pulled this off, because so few display the empathy she does so naturally. Not even Julia Roberts or Reese Wotherspoon are believable as being that nice anymore.
@tb. Julia is a legend. She may not be bankable anymore, but she is not Meg Ryan either... She is still in movies, after all, and Eat Pray Love did well. Basically this whole Sandra resurgence only happened because Julia turned all those roles down ( not Gravity, pf course)
off-topic (not totally as she's in the post), but I find hilarious that blake lively has the exact same trivia note on "the town" imdb page that amy ryan has in the "gone baby gone" one.
"When Blake Lively read for the part of Krista, she sounded so authentic that he [affleck] asked her what part of Boston she grew up in."
"Amy Ryan was so convincing with her Boston accent in her audition, that director Ben Affleck asked her what part of Boston she was from."
Let's all breathe a sigh of relief that Blake Lively wasn't cast! But I doubt Cuaron would have gone with that...
As for Bullock, I was surprised by how very good she is. Based on the promotion and some reviews, I went in expecting that she overemoted, but she didn't; I found her reactions to everything she endured to be very realistic. I also agree that her on-screen persona (warm and accessible) helped sell the part.
"I'm in the "Bullock was revelation" camp. But I'm trying to figure out why Julia Louis-Dreyfus isn't getting any play on your chart."
Definitely have had a feeling these past couple weeks--with how well Enough Said has been doing at the BO--that Julia is a real possibility for a surprise nom. She has a great story if she does end up making it far.
She is not winning, at all. Just wait for the critics. Blanchett is gonna win every single prize and everybody else is gonna be forgotten. Bullock gets a nomination based on lazy thinking only, because people will talk about Blanchett and nobody else.
That performance is just unbeatable. Bullock can't win. Forget it.
@Nathaniel Perhaps that was worded too harshly, ha. I know that you listed as a pro, but you also didn't seem to think much of it, calling it a mere "valid point" when I personally felt like it was an incredibly tricky and difficult accomplishment to pull off.
I really enjoyed Bullock in the role although I do agree when you look at all the female performances this year in film, there has been much more impressive performances to me. Just to name a few, I felt the performances of Delpy, Exarchopoulos, Garcia, Larson, Gerwig, Woodley all gave much more well rounded and naturalistic performances than Bullock that unfortunately will be overlooked simply based on how the Oscars works. That is not to say that I do not think Bullock turned in a fine performance which I think she did but to name it the Top 5 of the year is kind of overreaching for me.
Also it seems that even people who do not like Blue Jasmine all agree Blanchett is fantastic in the role and it just doesn't feel that way with gravity and Bullock. Even some who like Gravity didn't think she was all that. Is interesting is all I will say.
Kai -- exactly. it's not that i don't like Bullock but GERWIG, LARSON, DELPY i mean these are major acting achievements and they'll be ignored. [sniffle]
Sandra Bullock has always been a charming comedienne who is very smart about the roles she chooses. Gravity is one of the few times in her career when she has pushed the envelope, but Cuaron uses her charm to sell scenes like the barking scene and the final speech to Matt. He uses her charm much like Aronofsky played on Natalie Portman's youthful looks and child actress background in Black Swan. Sandra will always be instantly recognizable in films, but I completely bought her character and she not only sold the illusion, but hit on the heart strings in the middle of this wild ride of a movie.
The way you feel on this Nat is exactly how I felt when the whole Blind Side windfall started - I didn't take it seriously, I assumed it was all just talk, and then... there you go. (I don't think Sandra is winning this time though, and if she did, it would be more about rewarding the movie somewhere.) Seeing that list of actresses convinces me even more that she is one of the few women in Hollywood who could pull this off. She walks the line between underplaying big moments and hitting the right emotions perfectly.
Is Lilly Dillon your only reference for dangerous-mother characters?
The script was the only thing I am complaining about w/r/t Gravity. Too bare-bones. Sandra was good and she holds your attention. I don't want to call her Ripley, even if the film really made that an obvious point of comparison, because Ripley is almost entirely stone-faced but I definitely think the asexuality of the character and look is pretty much going for a universality in connection which I think it succeeds at much like Ripley in Alien. Actually she is actually closer to Laurie Strode in Halloween. Space is the boogeyman/Michael Myers character for me and Sandra is the final girl you follow the whole duration.
If I were making a ballot it would be:
1. Gerwig
2. Blanchett
3. JLD
4. Bullock
5. Delpy
Delpy/Gerwig/JLD cannot happen. I'd throw my FYC money on Gerwig if for just that one scene when she is leaving her family at the airport and that switch of expression of happiness-sadness is just so real.
Also after seeing The Spectacular Now, I'd put Shailene Woodley in supporting. She's good but personally, I had more problems with that film's script than I did with Gravity which is to say A LOT.
Unless the trailer is missing something, Adams won't be in the top five. I can even see her missing out on a Globe nom. I can see Bullock (whom I like immensely as a person and enjoy on film) getting a nom, but I don't see a win when the potential field includes so many stellar performances. Bullock is solid, but I've never seen a perf from her that comes close to what the other potential noms have given.
Isn't is nice to be discussing how many potential nominations for best actress there are instead of wondering who is going to fill out the 5? Nice, strong year.
As a big Cuaron fan, I was a little disappointed by the film. I loved the special effects but it didn't resonate with me like his other, better movies. But I'm happy for its success because I want to see more films directed by him.
I did like Bullock in the film but I wouldn't nominate her. But she will be nominated by the Academy because of the popularity of the film. (BAFTA is another story.) I don't think she'll win. I think Judi Dench is going to get a lot of votes besides Blanchett and Thompson as well. I really like Gerwig but I doubt she'll be nominated. In another year, the lead actress from Gloria would be nominated -- maybe she'll sneak in. I also think Berenice Bejo is wonderful in The Past.
Oh, I forgot Brie Larson in Short Term 12. I loved her work in the film. I hope she picks up a critics' award somewhere. As for Blanchett she's amazing in Blue Jasmine but I did not like the film as much as critics did. I felt like I was watching a Woody Allen retread.
All I can say is that I just saw Gloria tonight at the London Film Festival and I loved Paulina Garcia. I'm going to be mad that she won't get any awards traction outside of a well deserved Silver Bear (although can I hope for a looongshot at an LAFCA award?). It's such a crowd pleaser that I hope it at least gets the sizable art house audience it deserves. I wish I wasn't in Paris next week so I could see it again with Paulina Garcia present for the Q&A next week.
On an off note I immediately began thinking how they could ever pull it off if they decided to go the English-language remake route (I felt shameful doing so) and for the life of me I hope if they do that Jennifer Coolidge lands the lead.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Meryl Streep wasn't nominated? I don't think she'd be upset.
I saw "Gravity" last weekend and still don't understand all the buzz -- a capable popcorn movie worthy of some technical noms. That's all.
Sandra surprised me. I found myself wishing the script would get out of her way and let her silently sell the emotions. The hokey dialogue weighs her down. This should have been a close to silent film. The fact that I, who had an adverse visceral reaction when she won the Oscar a few years ago, was routing for her to be given the chance to show what she could really do, says a lot.
But she still shouldn't actually win.
I give Sandra points for the physically demanding nature of the role, but also felt like the movie is more about the action than her character specifically. I loved the movie but mainly because I was imagining myself in her position. Even the cinematography bears this out-- we rarely see her face until she's out of the spacesuit.
All this is to say that I'm down for a nomination but would prefer someone else to get the win.
Nathaniel,
You did mention you have enjoyed Sandra Bullock in other performances, but you failed
to mention which ones. I remember back in 2010, you were completely against Sandra being
nominated for an Oscar let alone winning one for "The Blind Side." She did win, and I am happy she did. It kind of irks me that you continue to open conversation and question Sandra's
award worthiness. Obviously, Academy voters have disagreed with you in the past, and I expect they will again this year. I doubt you will be questioning this years other potential nominees as you always do with Sandra Bullock, whether they deserve to be questioned or not.
Nat: It's ridiculous, even on a strictly symbolic level. If she had actually LOST for The Blind Side (though, considering that would have (probably) meant the stiff physicality of Mulligan's An Education work taking the prize, I'm thankful for that result) I could see it. BUT...Sandra Bullock is NOT and should NEVER be a two win performer and that ALL critics should be careful as who they anoint as worthy of more than one. As for who's most at risk: Sorry, but Winslet is OUT. Fairly modern piece with a 68% RT score on only 25 reviews? That is not 7th place. I'd say the field actually looks like this:
1. Blanchett, Blue Jasmine. Lock.
2. Bullock, Gravity. Lock.
3. Streep, August: Osage County. Um...lock. Unless it's pure pop fluff, it's all but guaranteed she pulls the nom.
4. Amy Adams, American Hustle. Probable. It's THE Best Picture frontrunner, after all.
5. Emma Thompson, Saving Mr Banks (Chasing, aside from the top 4, none of these next ones jump out as anything more than a 1 in 4 shot)
6. Greta Gerwig, Frances Ha (She's a "PYT", the film's short enough to not be daunting and I'd bet the younger members of the Academy would get it more than the older ones. Still, chasing, but don't be completely surprised if she pulls through.)
7. Judi Dench, Philomena (It's been 7 years since Notes and I don't fully see the Academy chomping at the bit for this. I could be wrong, but I'd withhold full confidence. Still, this IS a chasing slot, so don't discount all possibility.)
8. Adele Exarchopolous, Blue is the Warmest Color (If the younger actors of the Academy decide to support a long lesbian drama, I could also see this bursting through, but I think this might be a movie writers support more and it's the least likely of the "chasers.")
9. Brie Larson, Short Term 12. (This is a far long shot behind the next four, even though it probably shouldn't be. Far too small in terms of concept and actors for the Academy.)
10. Julie Delpy, Before Midnight (pushed forward by Labor Day's encroaching near toxic reviews, but still probably far from the nom)
11. Julia Louis Dreyfus, Enough Said (This, as opposed to Winslet's film, has overwhelmingly impeccable reviews which make it have a very outside chance.)
12. Kate Winslet, Labor Day (The probability of toxic "30-40% RT Score" reviews when mixed in with other facets makes me place this as the extreme outside possibility.)
Hey, Nathaniel
I'm not so sure about Bullock's virtual lock status. Can she muster enough first-place votes?
@Volvagia--I'd say you're about right on the top contenders, although I would put Greta way down, probably under Brie Larson. She might get a Golden Globe nom, but I'd say Oscar is (tragically!) impossible. I think the Oscar-style PYT bubbling under is, somewhat amazingly, Adèle Exarchopoulos. It's also worth saying that acting is the only chance the movie's got. There effectively was no shooting script: the entire film is improvised and edited together, and it is really a very simple story. It's not going to be something the writing branch rallies around.
I still haven't seen it :| I'm studying abroad in London this semester so I have to wait until Nov. But this was my most anticipated film of the year and now I'm feeling super disappointed already :(.
Anyway I definitely don't think she'll win but she'll be nominated.
Other actresses that I think would've been great at this role: Jessica Chastain, Marion Cotillard, Viola Davis, maybe Naomi Watts