11 Days til Oscar: Julianne Moore's Mood Right Now?
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 4:26PM Julianne Moore has been nominated for an Oscar five times and was thisclose to two additional nominations (Magnolia & A Single Man). She arguably ought to have two naked gold men already, if you look back over the years. Having been close so many times do you imagine this is her mood right now... hanging over an abyss... is disaster or glorious rescue coming?
But, as stated many times on this actress-loving site, the Oscars are notoriously stand-offish about fifty-something actresses. Will Julianne Moore finally break the curse? Literally no fifty-something has won Best Actress since Shirley Booth in Come Back Little Sheba (1952) more than sixty years ago. Like Julianne Moore now, she was 54 years old.
It's as if once you're no longer young the voters need you to be a grande dame before you're awardable again. And then usually only if you're a living legend (Streep, Hepburn, Page).
Do you think Julianne Moore is aware of any of this or just basking in the career honors glow of precursor season? Are you nervous for her or counting down to a moment of fan joy? And if she does win do you think a standing ovation will be waiting for her?
Reader Comments (52)
To quote my (non-Oscar-obsessive) partner as we watched the BAFTA awards -
"No wonder Julianne is winning, she's the only real Hollywood star who made a movie this year. Where are Brad, Angelina, Clooney, Winslet and Cate Blanchett? I've never even heard of half of these people"
While 'Best Actress' is absolutely not weak this year, in terms of her competition on the night, she's very lucky - literally no one else has a winner's narrative (Witherspoon and Cotillard already have theirs, Pike had divisive "good but not great" reviews, Jones is too young and too unexciting).
The stars have aligned, and it couldn't be for a more deserving candidate. Does ANYONE begrudge her the win, even if they don't care for this performance?
I think standing ovations are the norm for the acting awards. I expect
Juli to glow on stage with a standing O...
Moore is due and it is considered a worthy performance but I would think she is smart enough to know it might not happen and has resigned herself to accept the outcome regardless. I cannot imagine her not winning, but until the name is called.........
This particular performance wouldn't top my end of the year list, BUT I am thrilled that she's probably going to win. Even though I'd rather see Reese, Marion, or Rosamund take it based on performance alone, I am in no way upset she's getting the Oscar.
I also think she should already have two statuettes--Boogie Nights and Far From Heaven--and would've nominated her for the under seen / undervalued The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio which I think is just a JOY of a performance.
She'll undoubtedly get a standing ovation and it will be wholly deserved. Even if she somehow loses, which I just don't see happening, she seems like such a class act that it probably won't phase her too much and will be happily cheering for whoever does.
Most acting winners of late receive some kind of standing ovation from the audience. I do think Moore is very beloved. Her five nominations speak to that. Even though she's never won, I think that actors who have multiple nominations but no wins are sometimes more beloved than actors who actually have a statue. There are so many factors that can lead to one-offs getting actual wins, but when they invite you back to the party again and again...it says something, right?
I think actors are human beings like everyone else. Maybe Moore doesn't know the stats. I know that if I were her or any other nominated actor, I'd be looking up stats, comparing medical histories of past winners vs. that of my own, zodiac signs, the whole bit. It's like Helen Mirren said "all kids love to get gold stars". I don't think that any actor, even the ones who appear to be just basking in the honor of it all JUST bask in the honor of it all. They're all stressing and nervous. They've got to be, right? How can you not?
kermit_the_frog: The only other Lead Actress, that I've seen, who really brought "it" enough, AND hadn't won before, to snatch it from Julianne Moore was, seriously, Eva Green in 300: Rise of an Empire. Yes, I saw it. And, frankly, most critics were a bit too harsh. Yes, Sullivan Stapleton isn't quite BIG enough to match Gerard Butler, but the difference between Butler and Eva Green is the difference between decent ham acting and PHENOMENAL ham acting.
I can't help but be nervous for Julianne & that stat is an irritant - I keep reminding myself that it's Julianne and she seems to do pretty well at boldly going where no (or few!) actresses have gone before. I'll be standing o when it happens :).
Volvagia: Despite never having been on their radar, Eva Green really does get better and better... not seen the 300 sequel yet, but I rather loved the first one.
She makes my Top 5 (Supporting Actress) for Dark Shadows...
I'd have to think Julianne is a little more keyed in this year since she's considered the far and away "lock" or at least frontrunner by just about every sane person. She's never been thisclose, in other words.
In terms of how I feel, I've really invested some energy into Julianne fandom for a few months. I decided to watch every performance of hers I could get my hands on, which turns out to be just about everything she's done outside of the soap operas. She's done a lot of crap, actually. Some of which she really rose above, some of which she just put in a performance, very little of which she actually put in a bad turn ("I'll Take Manhattan." Wow. Glad she learned fast.) I will be devastated if she loses, because of whatever reason.
She doesn't seem like she's in her 50's. That's gotta help. And it's not like people older than that haven't won, so...
Has anyone ever won the Globe (with the other Globe winner not even being nominated), SAG, BFCA and SAG and LOST the Oscar?
...Replace my second "SAG" with BAFTA.
She'll win for STILL ALICE. It's a great, convincing performance. She's on screen in every scene. Her character changes dramatically over the course of the movie -- and just in case you missed it, the pre-illness Alice and the very-ill Alice get to face off late in the story. All that, AND you'll find a lot of voters personally relating deeply (as I did) to the story of watching a family member brave their way through such a horrible and slow loss.The film is plenty strong enough to support rewarding the performance.
I still wish she won for FAR FROM HEAVEN. (Nicole could've been supporting that year, right?) (Or is that heresy to say on this site??)
@San FranCinema: "The Hours" was a tough movie to assign in terms of roles. Personally, I think all 3 were leads. Toni Collette should've been nominated for SA.
Bruno - as far as I know, only Russell Crowe won everything before losing at the Oscar. But he had won the previous year and was plagued by a BAFTA controversy.
Moore has this in the bag. Done deal and I couldn't be more thrilled.
I might be slightly nervous for her if there were even a viable alternative in that category. But who do we presume to be the runner-up? Rosamund Pike? A win for her would surprise me more than any acting Oscar since I've been following the awards, and that includes Adrien Brody (I actually predicted both Alan Arkin and Tilda Swinton, so I won't mention those--not to brag or anything).
Maybe the age statistic is a bit unnerving, but she has EVERYTHING else going for her, so I'm not worried at all. SAG/Globe/BAFTA/BFCA + ostensibly the most overdue actress there is + no real competition = can't lose. I'd be SHOCKED.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that an upset in this category would surprise me more than any of the other three acting categories, including Supporting Actor.
Bruno: I think in terms of screen time in The Hours, Nicole actually had fewer minutes onscreen than Julie. But you're right about co-leads. And yes to Toni!
She is glowing, she's no doubt holding her breath sometimes, but she is as much of a lock as there can be. It reminds me of Susan Sarandon finally winning in 1996, after getting nominated and losing so many times. She is overdue and it's a good performance, she looks radiant.
When McConaughey calls her name everyone in that theater better get off their asses and sing glory to her.
Regarding the ongoing debate about the categorization of the Hours actresses, someone actually provided the exact screen time for each actress a little while ago. I'm not going to bother to dig it up, but Meryl Streep was around 45 minutes, Julianne was around 35, and Nicole Kidman was just under 30 minutes. So if you're just going by screen time, you could easily make the argument that Nicole should have been in the supporting category. Then again, you could make the argument that all three belonged in the supporting category, or that all three belonged in the lead category. I think it just depends on how you personally interpret the roles in relation to the overall effect of the film.
@Edwin: "who do we presume to be the runner-up? Rosamund Pike?" She had been my pick for runner-up until the BAFTAs (though she may have split the "I'm voting for the Brit girl" vote with Jones). Not winning there has me wondering if it isn't Witherspoon after all. I'm 100% sure it isn't Jones, and fairly certain it isn't Cotillard either, though it Cotillard should be #2 (and I wouldn't really argue with #1) for straight-up performance quality.
I wish I could feel happier for her but I don't. Alice is not Amber Waves and it's not Cathy Whitaker and we all know that. At least Sarandon had a better project and a hell of a competition.
I loved Juli in Still Alice and it's most deserving if she wins. I won't believe it though until I hear her name loud and clear. Cotillard was great too and Reese - though she's not usually my cup of tea - was spectacular in an outstanding movie. The only one I don't think belongs in there is Felicity Jones. The whole movie was a drag and had - imho of course - nothing to say. Maybe 20 years ago but this day??
@Peggy Sue: No, we don't "all know that." I actually slightly prefer her performance in Still Alice to Far from Heaven. To each their own. It's wonderful, nuanced work in an otherwise thin film.
I think she'll win. The critic's awards were spread around somewhat but she's won all the industry ones so it would be a shocker for her not to take it.
As noted Shirley Booth was 54 when she won as Julianne is now so that seems a good omen. Perhaps winning at that age will be the new lucky charm and we'll see 52 and 53 year old actresses scrambling for that big flashy showcase role so it hits at that golden number!! Doubtful but ya never know.
Julianne Moore is in her Sarandon state, except one major difference
Sarandon, like Moore, was competing against two winners (Streep and Thompson; Cotillard and Witherspoon) and two people who are on their first nomination (Shue and Stone; Pike and Jones). There is no real push to honor the previous winners for this performance (Thomspon was winning screenplay, the drive for Streep's third didn't occur until Adaptation; Witherspoon's been a far ways away from quality stuff, Cotillard's first victory was controversial enough) and the newcomers to quality didn't have the career points to push them beyond their performance.
The performance itself was acclaimed. Maybe not acclaimed as her best, but no Scent of a Woman either. And, very intriguingly, I'd argue that the narrative hasn't overtaken the performance, which suggests that if she earns it, she might actually get nominated again (unlike Winslet or Pacino).
@Joe: I forgot about the Crowe fiasco. But not only did he win the year before and get dinged for consistently behaving like a jerk, his main competition and the eventual winner Washington had 2 major things going for him: 1) He himself was considered overdue, though he'd won a supporting award 2) Julia Roberts was making headlines campaigning for him. There just isn't even nearly a path like that for any of the other 4 contenders that I can see.The only way I could see an upset is if the Academy just really had their doors blown off by either Pike or Witherspoon, and there simply aren't signs of that so far.
I get goosebumps every time I check Julianne Moore's filmography. If she doesn't get a standing ovation when she wins the Oscar, the world would become the most terrifying place ever.
@Arkaan: "The performance itself was acclaimed. Maybe not acclaimed as her best, but no Scent of a Woman either." And we really can't forget how important it is that the performance here is widely considered worthy. It's not like she's getting a pity nomination for "Non-Stop" or "What Maisie Knew." The Academy didn't consider her overdue/worthy enough for "The Kids Are Alright" or "A Single Man" either, but this performance does stand up to the test. Even if when compared to a role like Amber Waves, but that'd be hard to top.
The gay community was so pissed about Beautiful Mind that I always wondered if that had something to do with Crowe losing.
I worship at the alter of Julianne Moore - still and all, it would have been nice to have seen her awarded for one of her great performances, as opposed to one of her good ones. That said, it would be a shame if the greatest American actress of her generation went Oscar-less for her entire career, so I'm happy to see her get it. As previous posters have noted, there's no logical upset candidate at this point, and while wins for actresses in their 50s have been scarce, we've had several wins by women that fall into that middle-aged category. Sarandon was only a few months shy of 50 when she picked hers up, and Mirren less than a year out of her 50s. At 62, Streep was not exactly elderly, either. Don't think age will come into play much with the decision.
Nat, with all this talk about best actress, I am going insane about seeing your personal ballot!! ;)
Why, Henry? Because of John Nash's bisexuality, which the filmmakers of A Beautiful Mind glossed over completely? A fantastic read that was reduced to shmatlz on film.
Russell Crowe is one curious case for me. When he won the Oscar for Gladiatior, I was sad he didn't win the year before (his all-time best performance). When he didn't win for A Beautiful Mind, I was glad he won the year before 'cause it cockblocked an otherwise steamroller.
Anyway, yay for Juli!
When the backwoods bimbo announces the winner for Best Actress I'll have the same nervousness I did when Russell Crowe announced Halle Berry. Best Actress is impenetrable.
I'm flummoxed as to why people are undervaluing Moore's performance in Alice. Is the Hallmark-Channel-ness of the script poisoning opinions? Because Moore rises well well well above it.
I'd rank Alice among her Top 5 actually. I've never seen anyone portray decline with such subtlety, detail, precision and sensitivity. She was both hypnotic and heartbreaking to watch, and unlike with most actors 'playing' disability, not for a moment did I get the sense she was showboating. She seemed so connected to the character through every development and injected so much insight and humanity into what would otherwise have been a pretty pedestrian piece of work.
Witherspoon is very good but not quite at the same level, Pike magnetic but (in my opinion) thoroughly uninspired, and Jones - like her film - is just a connect-the-dots diagram with one massive void at the centre.
In that category (which isn't all that weak, and is certainly stronger than the Actor one), only Cotillard is operating at Moore's level, and she has the benefit of a sublime script and directing team around her.
I still can't decide if my favourite performance of the year is Cotillard (in The Immigrant) or Moore. But there's no doubt Moore has earned this Oscar over and over again over the decades, and has in fact done it one more time (or hell, two more times!) in 2014.
@goran: I agree with every word you said. I think the Academy isn't undervaluing her performance, and hopefully that'll be proven so.
At the risk of harping (too much) on it, can we put a rest The Hours category placement? If you've read the book (please read the book), the three female protagonists are all clearly lead in that they factor largely of their individual screen time in the film adaptation. For that reason I have FAR less objection to Kidman in leading than Moore in SUPPORTING. I would've nominated them all in Best Performance by a Leading Actress (bumping Zellweger or, preferably, Hayek).
Anyway, yay for Juli!
P.S. I'm *still* horrified about the Michelle Pfeiffer snub for White Oleander, which was one of the best of the DECADE.
She's gonna win. There's no need to be worried because of history. This is how history is written, when something comes along and breaks the usual rules.
I do think she's attuned to these things, from what she;s said in some backstage interviews and such. As much as celebs act like they don't care about these things, who wouldn't want an Oscar??? And who wouldn't be bummed when you're the frontrunner winning all these awards and suddenly you lose the only one that truly matters? It would suck. It's a once-in-a-lifetime type of thing. I'm sure she knows but she'd be the most gracious loser on the planet anyway.
I've changed my tune a bit about her performance since I saw it a while back. I don't think it's her best performance ever, but that just speaks to the quality of work she consistently churns out. And Oscars are rarely won for best performances unless it's an undeniable shocker (like, say, Mo'Nique...but black actresses and the scarce opportunities they're given is too huge a factor in that anyway).
Her performance is really great. I don't think the movie around her is on her level at all, the script doesn't do her many favors, but that almost makes her even more worthy. She's really working to make up for what the script isn't doing. Like someone else said, it's not really a pity win... in any year she'd be a deserving nominee, and she's definitely still a deserving winner.
What obviously helped her was that there's no other plausible winner for this year. Reese already won, and her film never really took off the way it was expected to anyway. Marion is probably in second place just because she adds freshness to the category, but she's already won, and it's such a subtle performance (and foreign language) that it would never win. Felicity Jones is the "lucky to be nominated" nominee.
And Rosamund Pike would've had a better shot if Gone Girl was actually embraced. If Glenn Close couldn't win for Fatal Attraction, a film that was nominated in all the major categories, Rosamund isn't going to win Gone Girl's single nod.
Anyway, this year couldn't have gone better for Julianne. Cannes win made everyone excited but then the film wasn;t getting released. Then all of a sudden Still Alice comes out of nowhere and she's hailed as the frontrunner and it just somehow came true. As I've said before, I'm stoked because she's the most beautiful person and such a great actress and for years on this site everyone accepted that we'd have to settled for that daytime emmy...and then for the awards for Game Change. But now she's getting an Oscar. :D A leading actress Oscar! I can only hope Glenn Close is next (lol).
Poor Marion. People are so going to hate her again when she wins this time.
I kid, I kid.
People, this is not a Scent of Woman. It'smore like a The Reader/Training Day, in which a great actress wins for a very very very good performance that is not the best of his/her career. That's fine: nobody wins for his/career best, unless you are Robert De Niro, or Vivien Leigh.
But I don't think Still Alice, Scent of a Woman or Training Day is as loathed as much as The Reader is. (Not by everyone, of course, but the film itself is more divisive than Winslet's performance.)
Please, you all go see Winslet in The Reader again. It's a very moving and strong performance. The reason why The Reader is dismissed is that damn Batman movie - which is not as good as The Reader,
Moore's assured on paper Oscar win feels like it's preparing us for the inevitable Annette Bening victory lap. Though I continue in my mind being unable to support the idea that she would actually win one in Best Actress. Yet that can be said for my feeling on Moore doing the same thing prior to now.
cal roth: The Reader's Best Picture nomination is loathed (coughWall-EcoughThe Dark KnightcoughThe Wrestlercough), but Winslet was a fine winner.
Julianne has nothing to worry about. She didn't sweep the critic awards like Blanchett last year, but the television ones.
I do think Marion could have gotten a BAFTA nom if they were sure she'd get an Oscar nom too, but they played it "safe" with the Weinstein contender Amy Adams.
Julianne's very respected and will get a standing O. easily.
Meryl got it for her third win and didn't get it for her slam dunk performance in SC. A pure shame imo.
I love Julianne, but it feels like a default win, because none of the others CAN win. And really, why again is Felicity Jones nominated? I really don't want to have to sit through The Theory of Something.
goran -- i blame the devaluing of the performance on the fact that the movie was hidden so everyone made up their minds about it before it arrives, poisoning ttrue opinions.
Usually I would be worry 'cause I am SOOOO rotting for God to win (Personally it's one of my favorite performance of hers, and that is saying something!). But this line up is weak, VERY weak. Except for Julianne & Reese who did a good job. But the three other kind of bore me. Yes Marion is good but she can do SOOOO much better. I always said that I don't understand what Pike is doing in the first half of Girl. It gets better about half into the movie, but I don't get the love for that performance...as for the other one it's Felicity what again? So I am probably jinxing this but It feels like Julie will win this come Xmas night...
basically Julianne deserves an Oscar...Maybe not the best film she's ever been in but never the less its her time. If any of the actresses who lost to the Cate Blanchett last year were up this year I'd be worried...
Mareko-- I agree that people need to read the book, and yes, I do agree that all three women are leads. But I also understand why some people might consider them supporting roles based on the theory that ensemble film equals no lead (which isn't necessarily true, and in this case particularly I'm not even sure it qualifies as a true ensemble film). And I certainly understand why some would rule that 30 minutes of screen time in a 2-hour movie automatically means supporting, no matter how important the character is to the narrative. It's one of those hard to call decisions for which I understand both sides of the argument. I just don't get why anyone would consider one character a lead and another supporting since they all have equal importance to the film and are all within 15 minutes of the same screen time.
But people really should read the book. The character Ed Harris plays, in particular, is much better handled in the novel. In fact, that was the one thing that kept me from fully embracing the movie.
I can't imagine anyone with a firm grasp of Julianne's body of work feels that "Still Alice" is her very best performance, but that's sort of quibbling when one considers how great she is. I would actually want her to win for any reasonably good performance (even "What Maisie Knew"), but I'm comfortable that this one is wholly deserving, especially given the competition. If Cotillard was nominated for "The Immigrant" I'd have a little more to think about. I won't mind if Marion wins the ISA.
The consensus seems to be similar to what her friend and multi-time costar Jeff Bridges's reception was when he won. Not many people would rank their winning performances as their best or even in their top 5, but the performances are still good enough and their bodies of work are both so deserving that everyone still feels really happy about them winning.