She Had Oscar Buzz!
Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:30AM
Yes, the title is an homage to our friends podcast "This Had Oscar Buzz". Here's a piece from new contributor Elie Chivi that we think you'll love on women who strangely haven't been nominated yet...
by Elie Chivi
After Kirsten Dunst’s comments last month about the relative lack of awards attention she’s received throughout her career, I couldn’t help but think of the many other never-nominated yet deserving actresses of the past couple of decades. Some actresses can get Oscar nominations for doing the bare minimum (think Frances McDormand in North Country or Catherine Keener in Capote) due to a mix of bandwagoning on to a bigger lead performance or simply because of who they are.
On the other hand, some of our finest actresses consistently do interesting, complex, or hilarious work yet always come up short on Oscar nomination morning. From the crop of post-90’s era performers, the list below highlights five of the most egregious members of the never-nominated list...
KIRSTEN DUNST
Most realistic chances at Oscar nominations
• Interview With The Vampire: Globe nom, Critics Group noms (Boston, Chicago, Dallas Fort Worth)
• Melancholia: Cannes Best Actress win, National Society of Film Critics Awards win, Critics group noms (Chicago, LA, NYC, Dallas Fort Worth nom)
Never had a chance but is also good in: Bring It On, The Virgin Suicides, Marie Antoinette, Bachelorette (one of the most underrated comedies that had the unfortunate luck of coming out riiiiight after the somewhat but not really similar Bridesmaids), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Drop Dead Gorgeous, The Beguiled, and Crazy/Beautifu.
Kirsten Dunst has been so good for so long. Her subtle, unshowy work has caused the industry to take her for granted for over twenty years now. Her brilliance is either completely overlooked come awards season or overshadowed by controversy (Melancholia and that awful press conference). A pivot to TV (Fargo, On Becoming a God in Central Florida) might be where she’ll finally find the recognition she deserves.
SCARLETT JOHANSSON
Most realistic chances at Oscar nominations
• Lost In Translation: Globe nom, BAFTA win, Venice win, Critics Group wins (LA, Boston) Critics group noms (Broadcast, Pheonix, Vancouver)
• Girl With A Pearl Earring: Globe nom, BAFTA nom, British Independent Film Awards win, LA win shared with Lost In Translation, Critics group noms (Pheonix)
• Match Point: Globe nom, Critics group noms (Chicago, Dallas)
Never had a chance but is also good in: Under The Skin, Her
Johansson may be problematic and mind-boggingly tone deaf in interviews and about the scope of roles she thinks she should be allowed to play, but her performances as an alien in Under The Skin and computer software in Her kiiiiiiiiind of make me think that maybe she should be able to play any tree or animal she wants? (Just kidding, someone please save this woman from herself.)
Regardless, It still blows the mind that the studios behind Translation and Earring didn’t quite figure out a way to campaign ScarJo in separate categories in 2003 (Category fraud is very much frowned upon at TFE but in situations like these, we know how the studios like to play it). Thankfully, she won’t have that problem this year with a lead role in Marriage Story and an actual supporting turn in Jojo Rabbit both earning early raves.
CAMERON DIAZ
Most realistic chances at Oscar nominations
• Theres Something About Mary: Globe nom, New York Film Critics Circle Award (lol)
• Being John Malkovich: Globe nom, BAFTA nom, SAG nom, Critics group noms (Las Vegas)
• Vanilla Sky: Globe nom, SAG nom, Critics Group wins (Boston, Chicago), Critics Group noms (Broadcast, Dallas Fort Worth, Pheonix)
Never had a chance but is also good in: My Best Friend’s Wedding, In Her Shoes
The fact that Diaz received Globe, BAFTA, and SAG noms for Malkovich and then got Globe and SAG noms for Sky within a two year span at the height of her career (Charlie’s Angels was released in between them!) is insane. Nominations for both or either would’ve been the perfect kind of “moment” the Academy loves to create. This will never not be a head scratcher.
JENNIFER ANISTON
Most realistic chances at Oscar nominations
• The Good Girl: Indie Spirit nom
• Cake: Globe nom, SAG nom, BFCA nom
Never had a chance but is also good in: Friends With Money
We all know how close she was to making it in for Cake in 2014 but had 2002 not been such a crazy good year for female lead performances Aniston would’ve had serious traction for The Good Girl. She had just won an Emmy for Friends, and was in peak Brad & Jen phase. She might have pulled through had the movie been bigger. Her general knack for making terrible movies has tarnished her brand as an actress but hopefully The Morning Show can bring some of that magic back.
EMILY BLUNT
Most realistic chances at Oscar nominations
• The Devil Wears Prada: Globe nom, BAFTA nom, Critics Group noms (Dallas Fort Worth)
• A Quiet Place SAG win, Critics Group noms (Central Ohio, ST Louis)
• Mary Poppins Returns: Globe nom, SAG nom, BFCA nom, Critics Group noms (Central Ohio)
• Into The Woods: Globe nom, Critics Group nom (London)
• The Young Victoria: Globe nom, BFCA nom, Critics Group noms (Dallas Fort Worth, London)
• The Girl on the Train: SAG nom, BAFTA nom
Never had a chance but is also good in: Sicario, Edge of Tomorrow
From the moment she nearly stole Prada from Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt has almost been nominated for an Oscar a handful of times. From her surprise A Quiet Place SAG win to the even more surprising attention given for her work in mediocre films (Victoria and Train), Emily Blunt is clearly loved by the industry. At this point, she’ll likely need to star in a major Best Picture nominee to make it in which is exactly what we all thought was going to happen with Mary Poppins Returns although yet again... nothing for her or the movie.
Which one of these women's never-nominated status most perplexes you and why?
Reader Comments (84)
Come back, Cameron Diaz!
Shirley MacLaine got a Globe nom for IN HER SHOES, yet I still think it’s also one of Cameron’s finest hours.
There is not enough love for Scarlett Johansson's performance in Don Jon. She was acting with her whole body that entire performance.
I do think Diaz deserved a nomination at some point.
Dunst deserves an Oscar nomination and probably a win by this point, but I think if she does get a nomination within the next 5 years, she can get a career win for her cumulative filmography.
Blunt always seems to finish in 6th, and it is weird. Of course, it doesn't help when lesser performances are campaigned instead of hers.
I agree with most about Diaz she did too many stupid comedies that did nothing to tell name directors she was interested in expanding her range and giving her career that boost it needs.
Oh boy, you lost me immediately with your choices of "the bare minimum." Yikes.
Multiple things happening here. First, your "bare minimum" performances are actually two wonderfully realized works. Oscar worthy? Maybe not. But bare minimum? And what's the inclusion of Jen Aniston here? I like her a lot, but I don't think there's many, besides Ms. Aniston, sitting around thinking she's "overdue" for an oscar nomination. All that being said, I think Dunst is the longest overdue and Blunt is the oddest exclusion at this point based on her multiple chances. I also think Diaz had a remarkable run for a while there in interesting projects and I hope she comes back to cinema in the coming years.
Surprised not to see any mention here of Maria Bello, who turns in Oscar-worthy work in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and was at least nomination worthy for THE COOLER and, honestly, COYOTE UGLY. And she's great, if given little to do, in the ensemble of PRISONERS. Too bad the film roles started disappearing for her.
@Troy H.-HOLY SHIT!!!!!! You're right. She would've perfect for that part as Lawrence I felt was way too young to play that role. Wow...
Kiki, Scar-Jo 3:16, and Emily Blunt should've had several Oscar noms and Diaz when given the right role and working the right people can be great. Jennifer Aniston has her moments but I don't take her that seriously.
I love to discuss about that Topic, but the most forget how easy to say that one particular actress should be nominated for but also how hard it is to shut another nominee to let this oscar nom happen, so please write the nomm you bumbed out of the exclusive field and the discussion getting way more serious for my taste! Thanx. ;-*
Johansson for GHOST WORLD, LOST IN TRANSLATION and MATCH POINT - she would be an "obvious" 3 times nominee by now... I got nominating her for a (fantastic) voice work in HER would never be the AMPAS cup of tea, but that performance was so so good! DON JON and UNDER THE SKIN would be that kind of "surprise" nod if she was an Oscar nominee already for the "obvious" I mentioned before
.
I'm a huge fan of Dunst's performance in THE CAT'S MEOW and it would have been a great Oscar nominated one. She simply transcends in MELANCHOLIA.
And then there's Amy Adams who's competent but only brilliant in ARRIVAL, yet the Academy was able to snub her for her best performance lol. Amazing in JUNEBUG and Oscar enough in THE FIGHTER, but the rest I would say overrated (but I respect the fans)... Thank God she didn't win for VICE like some people were predicting
All of them! But Johanson lack of nomination for Lost in Translation is the worst for me,,,, This is one of the finest performance by an actress her age ever in one of the best movie ever (It is in my top 10)
Emily Blunt is like the anti-Amy Adams.
Cameron Diaz is flat out amazing in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. I even think she's better than Catherine Keener in that film. Speaking of her, her performance in CAPOTE was nothing. A blip. One of the most baffling Pscar nods there is. Sandra Bullock gave a much better version of Harper Lee in INFAMOUS. She actually brought me to tears with that late monologue of hers.
You can find excuses for everybody except for Diaz in Malkovich. That seems like such an easy nomination. She would’ve been nominated today. Same as Malkovich himself.
" Scar-Jo 3:16" Cringe.
Kirsten
Nominated - Interview With The Vampire
Top 10 - Melancholia, On The Road
Scarlett
Win - Under The Skin
Jennifer
Top 10 - Dumplin'
Cameron
Emily
Nominated - The Devil Wears Prada, Sicario
Top 10 - The Girl On The Train
Essentially, there are definitely 5 actresses with more wins/nominations/Top 10s from me than these 5 - sadly, most are predominantly Foreign Language performers so a single career nomination from Oscar is probably the best they can hope for...
Sorry, missed the following for Scarlett -
Top 10 - Lost In Translation
I really hope Kirsten Dunst, January Jones, and Zendaya all have longevity. Same with Natalie, Saoirse, Charlize and Lupita.
A.O. Scott liked The Laundromaut, which is an actress fan amber alert.
It was so great Julie Andrews got AFI and I hope Nicole is next. Goodbye Mr. Trump.
Inclusion of Aniston on this list is indefensible
Aniston - SHE'S FUNNY THAT WAY.
Kirsten Dunst has been Oscar-worthy in SO many roles it is actually dizzying (and I think out of all of them she has the most in terms of sheer volume of great performances.)
Lead: Melancholia, Bachelorette, All Good Things, Marie Antoinette, The Virgin Suicides, The Cat's Meow
Supporting: The Beguiled, Eternal Sunshine, Interview with the Vampire, Midnight Special
The difference between her and other Supporting contenders those years was that she was in *actual* supporting roles, not beefed-up almost-lead/co-lead roles. Should have gotten at least 2, and the year of The Beguiled she actually was the *only* one who actually had buzz. In Lead, it's totally baffling that she doesn't have at least 3 (and one win—for Melancholia).
Diaz was great in Vanilla Sky but that's about it. Johansson...honestly, Kirsten should probably have played that role in Lost in Translation, sorry not sorry. Blunt is awesome, she's had the most near-misses. Aniston—only for Cake, sorry. Blunt & Dunst are far and away two of the best actors of their generation and Dunst is SO underrated it is baffling, but the rest...I can see the justification for 1 each but not more.
Nobody nearly stole Prada from Streep. No matter how much somebody hates her, she was absolutely brilliant and the undeniable MVP in that film.
Without Streep as Miranda in Prada, Blunt wouldn’t have got as close, so I can see how she missed.
Any list of snubbed actresses should include at least one of the Asian powerhouses: Zhang Ziyi, Gong Li, Maggie Cheung. Despite the movie, Zhang should have been nominated (and almost was, given the SAG nom), and she should have been in contention for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; 2046; and Grandmaster.
I'm surprised you didn't add Amy Adams to the list. Maybe she has won a GG? I don't know. But I'm so tired of her doing great work and not getting recognized. Especially for Sharp Objects, which was such a wonderful, moody series, and her portrayal was mesmerizing. She was also wonderful in American Hustle, The Fighter and Miss Pettigrew. I hope she doesn't become another Glenn Close as far as nominations and no wins.
Rrrich - 6 noms by 45, mostly in supporting, if she gets just one nom a decade from here on in, by 8 or 9 they will give it to her. Sentiment, nostalgia and likely worthiness will ensure that. Shit, they can’t do worse than Don Ameche winning for close to nothing in Cocoon!
This is an interesting list to me because although each and every actress listed is very professional and highly skilled at screen acting - not one of them is brilliant. I'll confess I am not a fan of Dunst - never have been and doubt I ever will be. I find her almost insufferable on screen and will actually NOT see a film if she's in it and no one else I like is. On the flip side - I adore Johannson and Blunt and have enjoyed everything I've seen them do. But neither of them have ever blown me out of the water. Granted I have never seen GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING but I've seen all the other films listed for these 2 actresses and they are excellent in them but not awe inspiring. (Of course, lots of NOT awe-inspiring performances get nominated for Oscars and if I did a careful review, I might very well wish one of these actors would have been nominated in one of their years more than another.) But them not being nominated does not leave an ache in my chest. I don't know if it's chemistry or what...but there it is. I wonder, if by some chance, there are others who possess the same undercurrent of feeling about these actresses as I do and that's why they never quite make the cut. I am very much looking forward to MARRIAGE STORY because it seems like this may be the role that gives Johannson the chance for brilliance. And Blunt did, indeed, come close in THE QUIET PLACE and GIRL ON THE TRAIN but hasn't quite achieved it for me yet. As for Aniston - I think she is extremely effective at what she does and I very much enjoy seeing her do serious roles. And Diaz was very, very entertaining when she was working and, I suspect, could have been brilliant in the right role. She was perfect for THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and I think she came close to brilliant in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. Plus I agree with Pete, Diaz was fascinating in GANGS OF NEW YORKl. Of course, these things are all so subjective but it struck me odd that this particular list of actresses all fell into the "not quite there" category for me. Anyone else feel the same?
This is an interesting list to me because although each and every actress listed is very professional and highly skilled at screen acting - not one of them is brilliant. I'll confess I am not a fan of Dunst - never have been and doubt I ever will be. I find her almost insufferable on screen and will actually NOT see a film if she's in it and no one else I like is. On the flip side - I adore Johannson and Blunt and have enjoyed everything I've seen them do. But neither of them have ever blown me out of the water. Granted I have never seen GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING but I've seen all the other films listed for these 2 actresses and they are excellent in them but not awe inspiring. (Of course, lots of NOT awe-inspiring performances get nominated for Oscars and if I did a careful review, I might very well wish one of these actors would have been nominated in one of their years more than another.) But them not being nominated does not leave an ache in my chest. I don't know if it's chemistry or what...but there it is. I wonder, if by some chance, there are a lot of others who possess the same under current of feeling about these actresses as I do and that's why they never quite make the cut. I am very much looking forward to MARRIAGE STORY because it seems like this may be the role that gives Johannson the chance for brilliance. And Blunt did, indeed, come close in THE QUIET PLACE and GIRL ON THE TRAIN but hasn't quite achieved it for me yet. As for Aniston - I think she is extremely effective at what she does and I very much enjoy seeing her do serious roles. And Diaz was very, very entertaining when she was working and, I suspect, could have been brilliant in the right role. She was perfect for THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and I think she came close to brilliant in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. Plus I agree with Pete, Diaz was fascinating in GANGS OF NEW YORKl. Of course, these things are all so subjective but it struck me odd that this particular list of actresses all fell into the "not quite there" category for me. Anyone else feel the same?
Amy Adams's issue with regard to Sharp Objects and American Hustle was unbelievably tough competition. No one was beating Blanchett in 2013 , and this year, no one was beating Michelle Williams, and Patricia Arquette was likely the runner-up, which is why she won in the Supporting category. That said, if that Fighter line-up had come along later in her career, when she had amassed more nominations, she probably would have beaten Melissa Leo. I think The Fighter and Junebug are her best performances, fwiw.
Let’a hear it for Dunst in The Beguiled! Great performance that got no attention in an underrated film
"Oscar enough in THE FIGHTER." - I legit cackled. It's so true and I enjoy Amy's performance.
Thinking of David O Russell missing his muse in Cameron Diaz might cause me to weep. She would have been electric for him. Surely she'd have an Oscar by now.
The Keener comment is absurd. Hoffman wouldn't be nearly as effective without her Harper.
@is that so wrong; I too liked "The Counselor" a lot. And I agree Diaz really did swing for the fences and deserves props for that. Considering the potential in the role though, I don't think she hit a home run. Good, sometimes very good - but not great. On the other hand, Penelope Cruz and Rosie Perez were both flat out amazing in the picture and should have been in the supporting actress hunt that year.
Of those mentioned, Dunst and Johansson are the most overdue. Aniston should not even be on that list.