Best Actress Battles: Felicity vs. Reese?
Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:45AM With the internet strenuously erecting a ring in which Julianne and Jennifer can mud wrestle, let's look at two or three other imaginary Best Actress Battles. First up is the "I'm just happy to be nominated" tussle.
"consider EVERYTHING" ??? Greedy!
Felicity vs. Reese
Reese Witherspoon looked like a major force in the Best Actress race when Wild first premiered in September as the wandering self-redemptive Cheryl Strayed. Sadly the year-end party hasn't thrown much confetti her way. To date, she has won just one (maybe two?) small regional critics prizes. I blame the lack of awards on three things: the movie wasn't released in the fall where its contemplative moods would not have been in direct opposition to the bustling holidays surrounding it; Reese has already had her Oscar coronation which often kills future prospects for actresses; and, finally, the "Reeseurgence" never caught on in quite the way the McConaughissance did in its year, partially because there was no Magic Mike pop culture hit kicking the movement off in the first place a year prior.
Since her Oscar win Reese has been divorced, remarried, had a third child, and made a dozen more movies.So the Southern Belle finds herself in the odd company of Felicity Jones (Theory of Everything). Jones is about as diametrically opposed to Reese in terms of celebrity persona and acting style as you can get. Both the Nashville spark plug and the demure English flower are consistent figures in shortlists (the trifecta: SAG, BFCA, Globes) but neither appear to have generated the excitement that leads to #1 ballot placements. Though it should be noted that Oscar pundits, myself included, make far too much of preferential ballot systems since every year Oscar lineups are peppered with people and movies that are extraordinarly difficult to imagine as #1 favorites.
Do these two beautiful women have hidden reserves of campaign power and industry support to draw upon still? Are either of them in danger of not hearing their names read out on January 15th?
HAVE YOU: Liked us on Facebook? Followed Nathaniel on Twitter? Tis the Season
PREVIOUSLY: BEST ACTRESS BATTLES: JULI vs. JEN
RELATED: ACTRESS Chart & All Current Oscar Predictions
Reader Comments (40)
I feel like people keep trying to project interest and unpredictability onto this year's Oscar race when the tea leaves are all telling us the same thing: Moore, Pike, Witherspoon, Jones, Aniston. Not sure if we've seen a Best Actress lineup this solidified since when, 2006?
I understand the need to challenge that and the natural room for surprises (Who? At whose expense?) but odds are very good those are the five we're looking at on Oscar night. The fact that SWANK is still factoring into conversations is an indicator to me that people are just bored.
Trivia: 2006 was a 5/5 match with SAG but so were 2009, 2002, and 2004. In other years, the odd people out:
Thompson, Mr. Banks
Tilda, Kevin
Mirren, Hitchcock (Yeah, that happened) + Cotillard, Rust and Bone
Swank, Conviction
Winslet, Revolutionary Road
Jolie, A Mighty Heart
Ziyi, Memoirs of a Geisha
Clarkson, The Station Agent
...
Odds are ONE of the SAG women won't make it, but maybe not this year?
I'm still struggling to believe Aniston makes it in at all. I know the precursors lined up, but it just doesn't make add up on paper. People are comparing this to Sandra's win, but it has none of the important ingredients:
1. Blind Side was already a massive box office hit as voting started. Did Cake even have it's qualifying run yet? Does it even have a release date?!
2. Blind Side, while not a critical favorite, was well liked enough to earn a fresh rating on rotten tomatoes and a Best Picture nom. From a cursory look, Cake looks to currently feature the lowest rating of any movie featuring a serious acting contender on both meteoritic and rotten tomatoes. Significantly lower than even Adams' supposedly divisive Big Eyes.
3. Aniston has no real career momentum. Sure, she costars in a box office hit every couple of years, but she's hardly having a "moment." Sandra had The Proposal her year as well, making for a "it's her year" feel. Aniston has…a cameo in Horrible Bosses 2?
Again, I'll probably end up wrong. She's managed all the important nominations so far and is working harder than any actress to get nominated this year. It just doesn't make any sense.
Opps, I clearly had not yet read the other, older thread where this would have been more appropriate to the topic.
Felicity is the one contender I'd be fine with being dropped. I thought she was overrated in the year she was winning everything for Like Crazy over the far more exciting Elizabeth Olsen.
Jones is the SNUB this year,could be Reese but doubtful so Moore,Witherspoon,Aniston,Pike,Swank.
the headline made me think this was going to be a reese vs felicity huffman rehash
This is where I get slightly bored with the race. I do agree with you that "Wild" should have been released earlier, along with "Still Alice" (which isn't yet available for me to see). You have been on your soapbox about this before but it truly is aggravating. Wild would have done so much better in September. As for Felicity Jones she seems capable but I don't get excited by her.
I thought the same thing as par.
Also, what exactly is Reese coming back from? Matthew has never been a "serious" actor. Hence his narrative is from the ground up. Which many people can support because he's a nice guy who made different professional decisions that led to an all encompassing career Oscar win. A second nomination for Reese is confirmation enough that her initial win wasn't a fluke.
3rtful -- incorrect. McConaughey was originally written up as the second coming of Paul Newman around the time of A TIME TO KILL. People expected a big dramatic leading man career but all the romcoms followed and the persona became more of the surfer alrightalrightalrfight cartoonishness
par -- OOPS. haha. i definitely dont want to revisit that one. Reese deserved to come out on top there :)
Huffman all the way ;)
Reese will be 39 in March, Felicity just turned 31. Both appear to be younger. (Age is a factor, as Nat often notes.)
Re: cake... Does anyone know when it's qualifying release will be? Far as I can tell it hasn't fulfilled that requirement yet.
I think Jones is on the way out.
Julianne, Rosamund and Reese are locks.
Jennifer is a near lock, she's got the narrative, Hollywood and therefore the academy love her.
I don't think the academy can or will overlook Marion, the performance is TOO good, she'll be nominated as Javier Bardem was for Biutiful or Demian Bichir in A Better Life.
Therefore Jones is going.
(All of this is wishful thinking for Marion, but if I say it enough and put it out there enough, my wish may come true).
His character from Dazed and Confused never left. All the cleaning up they attempted to do backfired big time. Playing bongos naked. I see his comeback as confirmation of Hollywood's patriarchy. And gay writers like yourself were gleeful that a stud was getting his due while the reality is a frat boy getting over because he's older and filled out his paper work correctly.
....can someone tell me why Jones is even in the equation? She was fine in the role but definitely not Oscar worthy.
I feel Jones is as much of a lock as Redmayne. His may be the winning/showier performance, but much of its value is because he has her to play off. Right now, I see Moore, Jones, Pike, Anniston and probably Witherspoon although Swank is a force to be reckoned with. I'm not hearing much from Marion's court and she may be holding out for a run for Macbeth next year.
I have said it before Swank has lots of fans and Bafta may go for her.
Billy -- it already had its qualifying week in LA from my understanding.
"...And gay writers like yourself were gleeful that a stud was getting his due..."
3rtful, your comment stinks of homophobia and self hatred. Take your bigotry elsewhere. Next time you decide that all gay writers get "gleeful," when someone **you** presume to be a stud by our standards receives acclaim, take a hike. You just lost all credibility with your ignorance.
I'm sure I saw Reese won at least 3 critics awards in the last week. That's about as much heat as Julianne's had with them lately. Still, I don't think she'll sniff the win unless something drastically changes between now and the Globes. Haven't seen Jones' performance to compare it to, but I can't imagine I'd prefer it over what Reese did in a film that's being criminally underrated.
I have long thought that Jones is on shaky ground. I think if she were supporting she would have had a better shot, but I think Moore, WItherspoon, Pike are locks, with Aniston getting close to a lock, and the 5th spot I think will be the "surprise" but not really surprising. Either Marion, Amy, or a real shock like Gugu
The next battle should be Pike vs Cotillard, the two indelible, unforgettable female performances of the year! Hopefully they are both Oscar nominated too but I'm not sure about either. So much fear of a Gone Girl underperformance with Pike and Fincher snubbed.
I wouldn't mind Reese getting another nom to solidify that her Oscar win wasn't a fluke, the same as Marion getting a nom for the same reason.
I really wish Gugu could sneak into the race, if not for "Beyond the Lights" then for "Belle."
Man, if only "Beyond the Lights" had been a big hit, then we could've seen shakeups in the Supporting Actress (Minnie Driver) and Original Song ("Masterpiece" "Private Property") as well.
Thanks for the info Nathaniel... do you know when? I've been checking on films pretty religiously and never saw it pop up...
I know Still Alice did its run at the Sundance on Sunset starting Dec 5. Maps to the Stars did the same. Two Days, One Night had its at the Laemmle in Encino. The only thing I ever found for Cake that regular theater goers were allowed to purchase tickets to was a one night screening at the Egyptian in Hollywood...
Billy -- i thought it was the same week as Still Alice but maybe i'm wrong if you're in LA and were watching for it.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but... I think you're wrong haha. I was checking pretty thoroughly, also tried to contact/tweet at Cinelou and no response.
I really don't know where they would have had it hidden away. I mean, 2 Days 1 Night was only doing one showing at day (10 PM) in Encino of all places and I was able to track it down.
I guess I shouldn't care that much, but I feel like it's all BS.
The entire qualifying run thing is bogus. The requirement should be that the film is released to the general public within the year it is running in, i.e. no one should be allowed to run the film in a couple of theaters for a week, close it and then reopen it a month or so later. Would clear up a lot of this end of year madness.
According to Variety, October 27: "The new label will open Cake for a one-week qualifying run in December, followed by a wide release in January."
According to Newsday, December 17: "The film has not yet played its one-week, Oscar-qualifying run in Los Angeles and will not play in New York until late next month."
According to The Hollywood Reporter, November 29: "Cake, ... will have an awards-qualifying run in Los Angeles beginning Dec. 31."
Thanks Paul!
Billy - it IS all BS. If i had my way or even if i could get the ear of the Academy's Governing Board i would NEVER shut up about this. It's bad for the Academy. It's anti-moviegoer. It's confusing. And, frankly, sometimes it's just embarrassing (like Frankie & Alice being on the "qualified for prizes list" one year and showing up in theaters four years later.
I would gladly sacrifice Julianne Moore ever having an Oscar and any nominations for qualifiers for the next five years... jus tto have this end.
Crazy Cat Lady*: Has there ever been a case where a film was disqualified from AMPAS because it failed to qualify within the time period?
*(Had to do it. Promise not to do it again. <g>)
Henry -- not that i'm aware of, nomination wise. But there have supposedly been casees of movies being on that "qualified list" and then not actually doing that week long release.
I have no idea what 3rtful is talking about. I always assume all Oscar bloggers are gay.
Jase -- shockingly few of them are!
@Nathaniel -- yourself, Tom O'Neil, Mark Harris, Dave Karger, and those 2 gay guys on Awards Daily. That's not shockingly few, my dear.
And those are just the OPENLY gay ones! :P
"Cake" is going to start a 7-day qualifying run beginning December 31, 2014? Academy rules stipulate a film must complete a 7-day qualifying run before the last eligible day of the Awards year. Wouldn't "Cake" have had to start its 7-day qualifying release run no later than December 25th in order to become eligible?
The thing with these qualifying runs is that they rarely report box office figures.
Sometimes you do get cinemas like the Angelika in New York selling up its STILL ALICE qualifying run with tweets and marketing telling audiences they have a week to see it before it disappears again. These "qualifying runs" should do more of those specially things. Try and get a big opening weekend and press rather than quietly quietly just letting it sit in a cinema for a week. Sigh.
Jase -- two at awards daily? i thought that site was just Sasha and Ryan -- and i don't even know what Ryan looks like. i'm talking about oscar bloggers that people know like name/face. I didn't know tom o'neill as "out".
and I'm not sure i'd call Mark Harris an Oscar blogger since he doesn't have a regular beat. He's more of a genius writer who occasionally drops in ;)
Yvette -- i don't think you have to complete them by dec 31st so much as start them by dec 31st (another stuipd role) else A MOST VIOLENT YEAR would also be ineligilbe.
I know they'll probably never change the qualifying rule (it'd be hard to police a must open for a regular engagement and not immediately withdraw onself since some movies will not get an audience in a week and the theater wouldnt necessarily keep showing it) but i do with they'd add a little bit to the requirement like "one week in five markets" BEFORE end of year. or something. Anything to make it feel less like cheating and more like "this film actually does belong to the year it's being honored for"