Best Actress Battles: Juli vs. Jen?
Monday, December 22, 2014 at 6:58PM A recent headline, suggesting 'ways in which Jennifer Aniston could win the Oscar' (I shan't quote it directly but it's here if you must look upon it) didn't raise my eyebrow. Didn't even cause a twitch! If you've followed the Oscar game your whole life and especially if you've followed it in the past ten years when the internet has amplified all of the minutea you'll know that journalists are always looking for fresh angles or, with or without those, highly fantastical angles sold as plausible to use for click bait. So though the articles (I'm sure they are plural though I haven't actually read them) didn't worry me at first -- I believe that Julianne Moore will win gold -- but the immediate enthusiastic social media response to the idea that Jennifer Aniston might have an Oscar coming in February is what finally shoved my unwilling eyebrow up.
"Consider..." that here are two movies (Still Alice and Cake) that virtually no one outside of the press & industry has seen since both opted for one week qualifying releases. Yet they're the two that the fans are getting emotionally invested in in terms of "should/will win" arguments. It serves as a useful reminder that around Christmas-time each year the narratives truly begin to take over, media "battles" are created, and the actual films and performances are left far far behind...
For some awards runs this 'hide your movie and thus prevent any discussion about it that does not revolve around its Oscar viability' is extremely useful. That's particularly true if the film is forgettable or disappointing (see August: Osage County's bizarre release last year).
But if a film is actually good, hiding it or waiting until the last possible second to really get it out there can cause problems. I think this is what A Most Violent Year is going through right now but we'll see. (It could rally since it has strong elements but not really an awards narrative and thus hardly needs to or can benefit from hiding). In some cases hiding your film will utterly destroy its Oscar viability. Grand Budapest Hotel, an indisputable example as its so atypical, and even arguably Boyhood, would likely reap zero nominations if they were to have only been released last week and then promptly pulled while asking for nominations. They just wouldn't have the personal attachments, Oscar hooks, or prestige momentum without the fact of their actual quality staring everyone down for months on end.
Which brings us to the highly visible Julianne Moore and Jennifer Aniston and their highly invisible films Still Alice and Cake.
Julianne Moore needs only to conquer Hollywood's ageism to win. Her inarguably still dazzling looks will sure help, but ageism is a pernicious evil in the world and amplified further by Hollywood, an image-making business. Yes, the voting body skews elderly but they're statistically very resistant to aging women, preferring to give actresses their gold statues during years of great promise rather than their years of "have already proven themselves" (the opposite is the case for those with penises). The Oscar race is particularly tough on women in their late 40s and all through their 50s, those perilous years between Mythical Movie Star Beauty and Grand Dame Genuflection. In the latter period an actress can win... usually provided she has already won, like an endurance victory lap (see Hepburn & Streep). But winning after your mid 40s is tricky in the Best Actress category. In fact, only one 50something has ever won the top female prize and that was Shirley Booth in her film debut Come Back Little Sheba (1952).
Despite those terrible odds Julianne Moore has the pedigree, the goodwill, and the actual performance to win (she's brilliant in Still Alice) with echoes of some of her great screen work in this woman who is slowly dissipating from early on-set Alzheimers. The only thing she might not have is the movie. I personally like Still Alice but it is inarguably a modest star vehicle, streamlined to the point of minimalism to key in on Julianne's performance.
So where does the Jennifer Aniston talk come from? From narrative and narrative only (since, remember, very few people have seen the film) but time tested narratives they are. Lest I sound like I'm dissing Jennifer Aniston, who I think is very good in Cake, I should make it clear that I retweeted and agree with this notion from TFE's friend and fabulous actress Melanie Lynskey:
Dear people surprised that J Aniston is so good in Cake-She has always been great! Impeccable technique/timing,+ expressive,funny,vulnerable
— Melanie Lynskey (@melanielynskey) December 19, 2014
But despite that deserved applause, I don't actually think quality of performance is why Jennifer Aniston has won her Oscar nominee traction. Call me a jaded pundit, but I think she's won traction on this quadruple whammy alone:
- Smart campaigning - her team saw an opening and hit the promotional trail hard
- Perceptions of a "weak actress year" (which it wasn't but we've discussed that to death) and the only strong competition left standing being an actress that everyone agrees is brilliant but who the Academy hasn't proven very interested in after their fling with her in 2007.
- That famous, disappointingly reductive "whoda thunk it" narrative (remember this Sandra Bullock story?) that is almost always trotted out for fine comic actors when people notice they also have dramatic skill. (The fact that comic skill alone isn't respectable is a more troubling problem but not the topic of this piece)
- And, finally, the dread "De-Glam" factor.
It's this fourth Oscar hook that worries me most, as a longtime very committed Julianne Moore fan. Oscar voters have historically had a very hard time resisting beautiful women who were "brave" enough to appear uglier than they are on screen... often with the aid of prosthetics or, before prosthetics became the norm, dumping costuming. Deglam is such a potent allure that the great beauty Grace Kelly even nabbed the Best Actress trophy not just from her competitive set but from one of the greatest performances of all time (Judy Garland in A Star is Born).
So can Jennifer Aniston take the Oscar? My guess is no and that this is your typical 'everyone needs something to talk about' Oscar situation. But the immediate bandwagon enthusiasm about this possible upset serves to remind us of just how popular deglam performances are and just how resistant the whole system is to giving great screen actresses their due IF they aren't lucky enough to win during their years of "shows great promise!"
Though the combination of Jen's deglam advantage (she wears prosthetic facial scars as a suicidal woman with chronic pain from a before-movie accident) and Hollywood's ageism (which might be a non issue since Aniston is 45 herself) do worry me a smidge my guess is that this still won't be enough once people start actually watching the films. Cake isn't big or showy enough to be an "Oscar winning" film and Aniston doesn't have the advantage that some actresses had with minor triumphs in that she wasn't having a great year that it punctuated (Grace Kelly's impossible-to-imagine Garland beat down in 1954 was due in large part to the fact that she had multiple smash hits that year and that her star vehicle was also a Best Picture contender).
So there's little to worry about, unless of course people (i.e. the media and industry) are just really bored and just don't want Julianne to have one.
I hope this "can she win?!?" fervor dies down because media-created battles where there shouldn't be one breed ill feelings. I'd rather celebrate both women to be honest. Though I think an Oscar nomination will be generous to say the least (given Johansson Cotillard etcetera) Aniston's grieving bitch in Cake deserves applause. In some ways her new character is akin to the depressed women she played in The Good Girl and Friends with Money but those were duller cousins. It's as if Aniston finally understood that you don't have to smother your star charisma to successfully play a depressed person. Better to let your light blaze to illuminate the specificity of the depression. I am personally enjoying imagining that she learned this from Julianne Moore herself who has always excelled, nay, absolutely dazzled while playing extremely depressed women. Depressed people in real life are rarely intoxicating to look upon but there's no reason they can't be that onscreen while still reading as authentically sad. That's the alchemy and the magic of great screen acting.
HAVE YOU: Liked us on Facebook? Followed Nathaniel on Twitter? Tis the Season
NEXT: BEST ACTRESS BATTLES: FELICITY VS REESE
RELATED: BEST ACTRESS CHART & All Current Oscar Predictions
Reader Comments (93)
"I can see Moore easily winning the Critics Choice, Globe, SAG, BAFTA. But let's be honest: Can you really se Aniston winning all these prizes and mainy the BAFTA?"
I actually can see Aniston winning those... except BAFTA, which I don't think she's eligible for. I remember how flabbergasted people were when Sandra was winning. Now -- going by these comments -- it seems her win has been accepted and rationalized. But, it definitely had people in an uproar.
Wouldn't it be funny though if after all these Aniston theories we'll end up with the annual Amy Adams nomination instead?
Great piece. I do have a minor quibble though: couldn't one argue that Still Alice is a deglam role for J-Mo too?
this idea that "once people see CAKE " she won't get votes makes little sense when most people who have seen it are voters for SAG/GG/BFCA/AMPAS! I mean it's not like the film has been hidden from voters to try to sneak her into the race - if enough voters hadn't seen it she wouldn't have gotten in and they are the main ones who have seen it and voted her to nominations at SAG/GG/BFCA.
You loved Jen's performance but once she is a threat to Moore you are dissing her. stop being immature loser Nathaniel because Jen's performance is loved by so many critics including Davis from Award Circuit who admitted on his site and Award Watch podcast that her performance is the winner for her this year.
From Clayton Davis at Awards Circuit
2015 Oscar Predictions – Best Actress
2015 OSCAR PREDICTIONS: BEST ACTRESS
(UPDATED: DECEMBER 22, 2014)
Jennifer Aniston looks like she’ll be the first “Friend” to get an Oscar nomination. I can’t believe it. And I believe she is FANTASTIC in her film, likely my personal winner of the year. With a film so small, from a new production company, you wouldn’t think she stood a chance but here we are. I wonder if her assurance could edge out someone like Rosamund Pike for “Gone Girl” to make room for either Marion Cotillard, Hilary Swank, or Emily Blunt? We’ll see.
1. Julianne Moore
Still Alice
arrow
2. Felicity Jones
The Theory of Everything
arrow
3. Reese Witherspoon
Wild
arrow
4. Rosamund Pike
Gone Girl
arrow
5. Jennifer Aniston
Cake
@flatbeat - I've been wondering/hoping the same thing. Jones is fine in the movie but there are so many other, more worthy contenders (weak year for Best Actress my ass) that I don't see why she's considered a default nominee. The thoughtlessness behind people's votes astounds me.
As @TheInSneider from the wrap said It's Jennifer Aniston, she'll always be attacked for NOTHING. Jen is attacked for no reason of course - not like that's a secret to anyone with even half a brain though! I want Jen to win now -I mean I've always obviously wanted her to win as a fan of hers, but since I've seen some of the critics/pundits crap on her and certainly
since I've read how Moore's performance isn't that amazing - well why can't Jen be the winner? She might still lose to Moore in the end, but I'm all for her going for it and becoming Moore's biggest competition and hopefully winning something at one of these early awards shows that at least the award season becomes interesting and not just the "Moore show" with her winning all the televised awards! I would LOVE if Jen won at SAG or GG for example (or both!) and then Moore and her would at least be in a real race to the end. Jen worked so hard on the character, but also on the producing side of things with Cake - and her taking on that role was much more of a risk then Moore's role in Still Alice. I mean Jen knew the critics would be waiting to tear her apart - she even acknowledged this in one of her interviews where she said she just had to go for it since she knew people were expecting her to fail anyways. And then she didn't. The critics still didn't want to give her all the credit, but she fought harder and pushed this film out there and this campaign and the industry is proving to everyone that they do respect her performance. So I have no issue with Jen being Moore's main competition or winning over Moore if nominated - I hope it happens at this point. I mean yes I think Moore's worthy of an Oscar for some of her previous work for sure but that's life and how things work out sometimes that she hasn't yet won it. Meanwhile Jen's more than paid her dues and earned her way too - so why should she just have to roll over and give it up to Moore? This "overdue" stuff is more overblown anyways - AMPAS has proven in the past it doesn't necessarily go for the person who is supposedly "overdue" for the win. And if they like Jen's performance better, then I hope she takes it!
hell even one of the experts (Keith Simanton from IMDB) has now moved Jennifer up from second into first place in his rankings
From Gold derby
December 22, 2014
Blog: News & Views
Oscars experts: Jennifer Aniston ('Cake') looking like lock for Best Actress nomination
Oscars nominations Jennifer Aniston Julianne Moore Reese Witherspoon entertainment 13579086 story
Julianne Moore ("Still Alice") still enjoys a commanding lead in the Best Actress race for her portrayal of an academic suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's. However, Jennifer Aniston is coming on strong for her dramatic turn in "Cake" as a grieving mother coming to terms with the death of her son in a car crash that has left her both emotionally and physically scarred. Both women reaped bids for three key precursor prizes -- the Golden Globes, Critics' Choice and SAG Awards -- and both have been working the circuit touting their indie films.
They have faced off once before, back in 2002 at the Independent Spirit Awards. Moore won for her leading role in the period picture "Far From Heaven" over, among others, Aniston for her low-key work in the comedy-drama "The Good Girl." Moore then contended at the Oscars but lost to Nicole Kidman, her co-star from "The Hours." She was also up for the supporting award that night for "The Hours" but was bested by Catherine Zeta-Jones ("Chicago"). She also lost her two other Oscar bids: for her 1997 supporting turn in "Boogie Nights" to Kim Basinger ("L.A. Confidential") and her 1999 starring role in "The End of the Affair" to Hilary Swank ("Boys Don't Cry").
Moore, with the the support of 22 of our 25 Oscarologists, has odds of 13 to 8 to finally win an Oscar. Her closest rival remains Reese Witherspoon ("Wild") who has the votes of three of our Experts for her change-of-pace role as a woman in a downward spiral who embarks on a 1000-mile hike in hopes of a fresh start. This one-time Oscar champ ("Walk the Line," 2005) now has odds of 7/2 to pick up a bookend.
Witherspoon also contends for those three early awards as do the other two actresses in the top five -- Rosamund Pike ("Gone Girl") and Felicity Jones ("The Theory of Everything") -- who are now at 13/2 and 15/2 respectively.
Yes this category could've been great with Essie Davis, Rosamund Pike and Scarlett in Under the Skin. There were some outstanding female performances this year. Instead we'll end up with the usual bait of Alzheimer and long-suffering wives.
Because I saw Still Alice last night and Julianne's great (as she should and is expected to be), but I feel like I have seen that performance a hundred times over the years. There's really nothing that sets it apart from performances tackling the same subject matter, and taking a recent example I believe Julie Christie's work in Away from Her was far more interesting than what Julianne does in Still Alice (the movie was also miles better than Still Alice, which is pretty mediocre beyond the lead performance, so that helps too). I mean it's an efficient performance, there just doesn't seem to be anything challenging about it, technically and script wise.
So this performance will be forgotten in a couple of years and that's a shame. It's hardly her best work either (I don't think it's even within her 10 best performances imho).
I just hope something exciting happens in this category because I don't think Julianne should run away with it. And given the general response even from critics groups she doesn't seem to be, but I don't wanna jinx it.
Evan -- no. Julianne looks amazing in it. Luscious hair and a beautiful successsful professor. it never downplays her beauty.
Guest -- i dont understand how i am being immature and attacking her when I admit write in the piece that I thought she was super good in cake and that it was her best dramatic performance ever? Or maybe you didn't read the article and you're just sensitive about Aniston?
Julianne's movie sounds dreary, very 1980s Movie-of-the-week. I'll pass on it until it's out on DVD.
While I certainly think Nathaniel you are allowed your opinion (and would never suggest all pundits/critics must love Jennifer's performance), it's comments like this one from the weekend that make it easy to separate your writing from just being opinion/pundit-ing to being something more biased/negative:
@nathanielr
thats why i don’t want media to make me diss Aniston in Cake. Let’s celebrate her range, not demean Julianne Moore by creating a huge thang
You said you likeJennifer's performance, sure - and says it again in that article just posted (and is predicting her in his top 5). BUT, as soon as you saw positive pieces being written about Jennifer and her chances you had to say that "the media" was going to make you "diss" her - why? That's the part that's not just your opinion and why some people are finding fault with you I suspect - because there's no need for you to have to "diss" Jennifer (or any other nominee) here just because your favorite is Moore and you are pissed that she's not getting all the attention for a minute. I mean let's be real here - Moore has had her fare share of coverage being declared all but the winner for months now. So why should a couple of positive pieces about Jennifer drive anyone mature and professional to need to "diss" her? Especially since I've not seen anyone "demean" Moore - if anything she's perhaps been granted more positive coverage then her film/performance might otherwise merit. It doesn't read as professional discussion, it reads as reactionary and fearful that Moore might have a challenger.
btw if Moore or Jennifer or the rest of the contenders are meant to win nobody can do anything about it, predictions are about fun not to attack contenders that sad and pathetic. as someone said Jennifer is always attack for no reason, very cruel world we live in
Lawd, the Aniston stans are coming out of the woodwork! Run for cover!
this isn't about being a fan of Jennifer. this is to all the nominees and no critics has the right to attack them just because you have a favorite you want them to win. in the end critics are not members of the AMPAS and cant decide the winner anyways
OMG..this is like Hilary situation back in 2004 all over again..lol
Guest, I don't think Nathaniel dismissed Jennifer Aniston's performance? He analyzed the race and praised Jennifer even though he preferred Julianne's performance. I am not trying to attack you but you dismissed Julianne's movie as movie of the week when you haven't watched it. At least Nathaniel has watched both so he has valid opinion on both performances no matter how subjective those opinions are.
Anyway, Oscar voters are the ones who will vote and decide Jennifer's chance in this race so no need to go on and on posting all these articles proving that Jennifer's nomination worthy. I think when the movie opens wide and people can see it, everybody can decide if it is a good performance or not.
Well, this post made me bite the bullet and watch Cake last night before bed. Unless the fates are with Cotillard and/or Swank, Aniston is definitely in and a threat to win*. The movie is like a classy Lifetime movie (although it may have felt that way because I watched it on a small screen) with unexpected (by me) appearances from Anna Kendrick, Felicity Huffman, William H. Macy, Lucy Punch and two dreamboats (Sam Worthington and Chris Messina), plus it's a great showcase for Adriana Barraza.
The de-glammed star of the movie is skillful, funny and never uninteresting to watch. (I've always been a bit of a fan of Jennifer Aniston Dark anyway.) Strangely, I was often reminded of Lisa Kudrow's work in the Don Roos movies. I'm even considering going to a screening of the film in a theater tonight to see how it plays with an audience, and that would be the first Aniston vehicle I've seen more than once...
*purely because of the Narrative, mind you, not because the performance is "better" than any of the other contenders
Nathaniel- but isn't the person-in-decline a version of deglam? I've seen the movie and (spoiler, but only if you know absolutely nothing about Alzheimer's) the ending gets pretty rough.
Just to be clear- and I did mean "rough" in a physical sense. That final scene!
But maybe it's just me.
It seems it's getting easier for people to devalue Moore's performance in Still Alice because the film is underwhelming and doesn't mine in New territory. Regardless, Moore's performance here is actually at level with her beloved early work. A comparison to the brilliant nuances of her performance in Safe is especially justified. This isn't Winslet part 2, this is a performance wholly worthy of frontrunner status and right up there with all of Moore's career bests.
I haven't seen Cake yet, but I'm sure Aniston will be wonderful based on the trailer and the accolades.
I haven't seen either of these performances yet, but I really think it's a real shame that Moore won't be able to compete witih her performance in Maps to the Stars, which was quite amazing. I still haven't figured out why the film didn't get at least a qualifying release in the States in 2014.
I'm sorry, but I'm not all too keen on Julianne Moore winning for her own "Blue Sky." History won't look kindly to yet another Oscar makeup mistake just b/c she's an overdue veteran wronged for past Academy slights. If she's really good in the film, awesome (I'll probably get to see it a week before the Oscars if I'm lucky ugh), but let's not act like Jennifer Aniston winning would be the most horrible tragedy in the world. She took the ball and ran with it, so cheers if she upsets for a win. My personal favorite is Rosamund Pike, but this would be a ballsy move for voters to make picking her that I don't think they're ready to do. The rest of the field is window dressing. Hopefully the category will be rounded out by Reese Witherspoon and the legendary Marion Cotillard, leaving Felicity Jones snubbed like she should have been alll along.
If they wanna make room for Moore, Pike, Jones, Aniston AND Cotillard (or Swank), then about Reese's campaign in the Supporting Actress category in "The Good Lie"?
I'm sorry, but I'm not all too keen on Julianne Moore winning for her own "Blue Sky." History won't look kindly to yet another Oscar makeup mistake just b/c she's an overdue veteran wronged for past Academy slights. If she's really good in the film, awesome (I'll probably get to see it a week before the Oscars if I'm lucky ugh), but let's not act like Jennifer Aniston winning would be the most horrible tragedy in the world. She took the ball and ran with it, so cheers if she upsets for a win. My personal favorite is Rosamund Pike, but this would be a ballsy move for voters to make picking her that I don't think they're ready to do. The rest of the field is window dressing. Hopefully the category will be rounded out by Reese Witherspoon and the legendary Marion Cotillard, leaving Felicity Jones snubbed like she should have been alll along.
@Paul Outlaw -- interesting to hear some perspective from someone who has seen it. Does sound like it's worth viewing... the cast is pretty great. Had no idea most of those people were in it.
Julien -- where did this notion that this is Julianne's Blue Sky come from? A) that was not a makeup win because Jessica Lange was already an Oscar winner (it wsa an example of a not-weak year in which they nominated weakly... adn then were like...oh, someone has to win it.. Julianne is great in STILL ALICE and it will not be an embarrassing win at all.
this is why they shouldn't be hiding the movie. She's awesome in it. You should only hide things if they're bad (but have the narrative)_ or seeem great for a split second even though they're super mediocre (countless December Best Picture nominees).
Sony Pictures Classics has done a real disservice to Julianne by not letting people see this.
Perhaps I should have been clear on this: I think Julianne Moore's performance is way better than Jennifer Aniston's in Cake. (for that matter I think Reese and Rosamund's performances are better than jennifer's) and this not JULIANNE FINALLY NEEDS TO WIN is the driving factor in being like "oh my god do we have to talk about this? it's silly!"
Jennifer is really good in Cake but she is not one of the five best of the year.
Julianne Moore gives brillant turns both in "Still Alice" and "Maps to the Stars". The Oscar takes into consideration the overdue factor and goodwill. But it is also about THE OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE CLEAR THAT JULIANNE HAS THE OVERDUE STATUS, HAS GOODWILL BEHIND HER, BUT MOST IMPORTANT: SHE IS OUTSTANDING IN LEADING ROLES IN THIS YEAR. If we consider the OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCES OF THE YEAR, J ANISTON would be dropped by the brillant turns of Cottilard, Pike, Winterspoon, Swank and Jones. So let's not diminish JULIANNE MOORE'S OUTSTANDING LEADING ROLE PERFORMANCE folks, as well Cotillard, which I think can still be nominated in a situation simillar to Emmanuele Riva two years ago.
What Nathaniel said.
@Bia: I never liked Sam Worthington (besides his looks) in any of the few things I'd seen before Cake, but he's good in this. I actually didn't recognize him at first.
The NYTimes review of Two Days, One Night is out. It's a rave, especially for MC saying her performance "is as fine a piece of screen acting as you will ever see." (AO Scott).
The big coastal papers (east and west) reviews carry far more weight than any other reviews so I wonder if this will change anything.
Henry I trully believe that Cottilard can get the fifth spot over Aniston . I can see Cottilard getting many preferential and pationate votes from the Actors Branch. The opossite for J Aniston. I can't see her getting enough preferential votes from the Actresses Branch. Even Amy Adams has a better chance. In the end, It would bee nice to see Cottilard recognized by the Academy and nominated again and congratulating Moore for her well deserved win.
Miss Moore's Oscar is long over due....
I do feel like the actors branch might not be filled with the kind of people who want to see Aniston getting a nomination. I just hope they're snobby enough to let Cotillard in ahead of her. Sort of like Oprah last year.
I have watched all the screeners of these five BA contenders and must say Pike and Aniston gave the best performances of the year so they have my vote for sure.
If Moore wins... Sounds like a Iron Lady win? A great performance, overdue actress, in an OK movie.
"Blue Sky" wasn't the best example since Lange already won. Okay then, "Still Alice" is Moore's "The Color of Money"/"Scent of a Woman"/"The Reader," etc. Meaning, no one should be happy that Moore is going to finally win on Oscar for something that isn't undeniably great and otherwise a been there, done that mediocre performance that will be forgotten in the Oscar annals in a few years. I'm all for Moore being an Oscar winner, but not just for any old shit, and a true Julianne Moore fan would agree with me.
Julien, Moore gives brillant performances in both films. "Still Alice" can not be a masterpiece, but it is a touching film, honest and for all audiences. The author of the book told that the adaptation was realistic and so well conducted. And yes, Moore gives a brillant turn in this film and in "Maps to the Stars". As a Julianne Moore's passionate fan, I would be deligthed with her win at the Oscar. Mainly considering the occasions the Academy had ignored her; because she should have been nominated at least more 3 times. It's is not a forgattable performance. It's is a tour de force, even if the film is not so good. Julianne Moore is the outstanding actress of the year, with an outstanding performance, and in a reallistic world, it's a million times better to see Moore winning an Oscar for a modest but good film, than to see Paltrows, Berrys and Zellweger's winning for nothing.
I'll see when I'm allowed to view "Still Alice," but it sounds like Lifetime movie of the week drivel.
And Halle Berry's performance wasn't "nothing," thank you. I'll give you Renee and GOOP.
I'll see when I'm allowed to view "Still Alice," but it sounds like Lifetime movie of the week drivel.
And Halle Berry's performance wasn't "nothing," thank you. I'll give you Renee and GOOP.
I don't know where this idea that "Still Alice" is a modest and not so good film came from. The film is rated 86% in Rotten Tomatoes, with many raves, and it's rated 75% in Metacritics, with a 100% rate from "Time Out New York", "The Telegraph", and a 90% rate from "The Hollywood Reporter. I can see many Moore detractors trying to diminsh the film and Moore's performance.
Julien, I respect your opinion and I think it's nice we discuss and talk about this. I respect the fact that you consider Halle Berry gave an amazing performance in "Monster's Ball". In my opinion (and it is my opinion, you can desagree with it, of course), Sissy Spacek and Nicole Kidman were better than Berry. What I'm trying to point here is: Amazing Actors can win Oscar for films that are not a masterpiece, and it's not wrong, unfair, or even must be considered a consolation prize because the performance is really good. One exemple I remember is "Monster", where Charlize Theron gives a tour de force performance in a film that seems made for tv. But the performance was amazing, understand? And even in very good films we have brillant performances that won Oscar but almost nobody remembers the films. For me it's the case for exemple of "Pollock", "Mighty Aphrodite" So, Julianne Moore winning for "Still Alice" will be fair, because of the performance, and because she is overdue. Merry Christimas for you! Blessed new year!
But from all accounts, there's nothing tour de force about what Moore does in Lifetime-level "Still Alice." And in my book, being in a shitty film does influence how I perceive the awards worth of performances in them. Your mileage may vary. "Monster's Ball" was in my top ten for its year of release, so by no means do I consider Berry's performance in it minor or "nothing." I get I'm way off on the consensus there, but whatever.
Anyways, this exchange is going nowhere. Happy Holidays to you as well.
Halle Berry's performance definitely wasn't nothing, that's for sure. It was a huge shakey mess. Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest was subtle by comparison. I kind of love that a performance that terrible and crazy won an Oscar though.
It's disheartening that Still Alice is being dismissed as a mediocre, "Lifetime" movie by people who haven't even seen it. I've seen it, and though not a masterpiece (which none of the films the other Best Actress contenders are in, are either) the film is far from "shitty." But more relevant to the discussion, Moore is excellent in it, and her performance would be deserving of an Oscar. This is not Pacino/Scent of a Woman, or Streep/The Iron Lady, or Winslet/The Reader (though in hindsight, The Reader isn't as bad as its reputation). Moore is actually great in Still Alice. It won't be an embarrassing win.
I do not think anyone has anything to worry about regarding Anniston winning. However, this could be a precursor to her winning in 2-3-4 years. Remember - Jane Fonda was considered a real lightweight through much of the 60's....Cat Ballou, Barefoot in the Park, etc. Then she surprises all with "They Shoot Horses".....the rest is history. Anniston is very well liked by the industry and by her devoted fans. She has a genuine presence & likeability. I think Anniston could win with some sort of HUGE hit romantic comedy ala "The Goodbye Girl." who knows.