WHO WILL WIN: Best Actress

[McTeague]

No ones trying to convince themselves. We're bringing up valid arguments that for one reason or another (mostly because it suits your point), you continue to disregard.

Which arguments am I disregarding?

The only arguments you’re offering are:

1- That BAFTA is a supposedly a stronger precursor nowadays than years ago, which is a false one given in the last two years BAFTA only predicted 2 of the 4 winners rights, with obvious disregard for being an Oscar prognosticator considering Bonham Carter or Carey Mulligan had exactly zero chances at winning Oscar.

2- That The Help has underperformed, which is not something I’m denying, but something I’m simply relativizing as an important factor in this race, because no matter how much it’s underperformed, it’s still a much more beloved film than Iron Lady.

How exactly am I wrong? I guess the only thing we can discuss a bit is The Help “underperforming”, but like, let’s analyse it. So, screenwriters didn’t vote for it (its main snub). So what. Can you honestly say that you think screenwriters liked “The Iron Lady” better? Do you really think the screenwriters that didn’t put The Help in #1 will vote in Best Actress for a film they, by all signs, liked even less? And don’t say that liking a film is not the same as liking a performance, because if that’s the case then your whole point about The Help underperforming is void, given that Viola Davis herself was nominated. Even with The Help underperforming, it’s seen by the industry, the critics and the audience as the better film. Hence it’s more beloved. Yes also by AMPAS. With all its underperforming, it’s more beloved than Iron Lady. And both Brokeback and Up in the Air lost to films that were even more beloved, not to films with abysmal reviews that were not beloved at all. So the comparison is absurd. If TGWTDT had gotten that picture nomination, you could use The Help’s underperforming to sustain the possibility of a Mara upset, but the overall underperforming of a film only matters when the competition has overperformed big way, not when the competition is still a crappy film nobody but the British and Harvey’s whores (AKA HFPA) give a damn about.

So far I have addressed each and every one of your arguments. I haven’t disregarded any of them, I’ve just exposed their inconsistencies (or their falseness, in the case of BAFTA supposedly being a stronger precursor than yesteryear, which is quite simply false).

[Jack Twist]

Eh, neither Streep nor Page really deserved that...although Streep was better. Goldberg was ROBBED that year

Will have to disagree there because Geraldine Page's win for The Trip to Bountiful was just . Page was never into the whole Hollywood movie star thing - she only made 28 films in her career and received 8 Oscar nominations.

Some of Meryl's nominations have been WTF - Ironweed, One True Thing and Music of the Heart.

But if she wins for The Iron Lady I think it will be seen as something like Ingrid Bergman's supporting win for "Murder on the Orient Express" - bland, bland, bland. Then 4 years later, she delievered a powerhouse performance in "Autumn Sonata" which was overlooked as she had 2 lead Oscars and 1 supporting.

[McTeague]

Will have to disagree there because Geraldine Page's win for The Trip to Bountiful was just . Page was never into the whole Hollywood movie star thing - she only made 28 films in her career and received 8 Oscar nominations.

Some of Meryl's nominations have been WTF - Ironweed, One True Thing and Music of the Heart.

But if she wins for The Iron Lady I think it will be seen as something like Ingrid Bergman's supporting win for "Murder on the Orient Express" - bland, bland, bland. Then 4 years later, she delievered a powerhouse performance in "Autumn Sonata" which was overlooked as she had 2 lead Oscars and 1 supporting.

Yes to all of this.

[Moviefreak]

Which arguments am I disregarding?

The only arguments you’re offering are:

1- That BAFTA is a supposedly a stronger precursor nowadays than years ago, which is a false one given in the last two years BAFTA only predicted 2 of the 4 winners rights, with obvious disregard for being an Oscar prognosticator considering Bonham Carter or Carey Mulligan had exactly zero chances at winning Oscar.

2- That The Help has underperformed, which is not something I’m denying, but something I’m simply relativizing as an important factor in this race, because no matter how much it’s underperformed, it’s still a much more beloved film than Iron Lady.

How exactly am I wrong? I guess the only thing we can discuss a bit is The Help “underperforming”, but like, let’s analyse it. So, screenwriters didn’t vote for it (its main snub). So what. Can you honestly say that you think screenwriters liked “The Iron Lady” better? Do you really think the screenwriters that didn’t put The Help in #1 will vote in Best Actress for a film they, by all signs, liked even less? And don’t say that liking a film is not the same as liking a performance, because if that’s the case then your whole point about The Help underperforming is void, given that Viola Davis herself was nominated. Even with The Help underperforming, it’s seen by the industry, the critics and the audience as the better film. Hence it’s more beloved. Yes also by AMPAS. With all its underperforming, it’s more beloved than Iron Lady. And both Brokeback and Up in the Air lost to films that were even more beloved, not to films with abysmal reviews that were not beloved at all. So the comparison is absurd. If TGWTDT had gotten that picture nomination, you could use The Help’s underperforming to sustain the possibility of a Mara upset, but the overall underperforming of a film only matters when the competition has overperformed big way, not when the competition is still a crappy film nobody but the British and Harvey’s whores (AKA HFPA) give a damn about.

So far I have addressed each and every one of your arguments. I haven’t disregarded any of them, I’ve just exposed their inconsistencies (or their falseness, in the case of BAFTA supposedly being a stronger precursor than yesteryear, which is quite simply false).

BAFTA is a strong precursor as people like Alan Arkin, Marion Cotillard, Tilda Swinton as well as films like Atonement and even The Reader can attest to. Denying that is silly. Yes, every precursor has gotten it wrong now and again, but thats the nature of the game. Everyone here keeps saying how good of a predictor SAG is, but it doesn't match up with Oscar all the time either. Plus, if you look at some of the mistakes that it's made it the past, it was usually to award someone from a very popular film, i.e. Bening, Depp, Zellweger. The examples that you bring don't really fly either. Bonham Carter didn't have to beat Leo because she wasn't nominated at the BAFTA and the Mulligan case is completely moot because Sabu wasn't even eligible. Plus, in those years both frontrunners were so out front that it didn't matter what BAFTA did. This year is different. It's a close race so it does matter.

Again, while The Iron Lady is not as popular as The Help, it did exactly as expected. It didn't underperform, The Help did. Will this matter in the long run? Maybe, maybe not. But, like I already said, had Tate Taylor been nominated and the film received a few other tech nominations, NO ONE would be doubting Viola Davis. The Help had Best Picture nominations at the GG and the BAFTA and that still didn't stop her from losing. Oh, but I forgot those are Harvey's whores and the Brits and no one else cares about this film. I guess the NYFCC must be in Harvey's pocket and all secretly British as well.

[McTeague]

[raguabros]

This should be posted in every "Who Will Win" thread with them being closed until Oscar night.

[Streeper]

This should be posted in every "Who Will Win" thread with them being closed until Oscar night.

Agreed. It applies to so many posts in this thread alone.

Though for the record, I'm with Moviefreak. The race is very close, anyone denying that is simply not looking at the facts too clearly.

And I hope we don't get too many "I told you so"'s when either of them end up winning because whoever wins will not mean the race wasn't close.

[kissfromarose]

LOL, if Viola had gone Supporting, this thread would be three pages long.

Think about it. Both Actress races LOCKED. Legend Mara wouldn't have missed precursors and Tilda would be a Lead Actress nominee.

Everyone gets to be happy!

[McTeague]

Agreed. It applies to so many posts in this thread alone.

Though for the record, I'm with Moviefreak. The race is very close, anyone denying that is simply not looking at the facts too clearly.

And I hope we don't get too many "I told you so"'s when either of them end up winning because whoever wins will not mean the race wasn't close.

Well, if Streep wins (a chance nobody's denying) it proves the race was closer than I thought. If Viola looses it proves nothing and you can still say it was a close race. Nobody's saying this is not a close race, I'm just saying it's not that close and, especially, that it's not a 50/50 race, which was the origin of the discussion.

So, what do you agree with? That it's 50/50? That it's super close? Or that it's close but not that close.

And also, you agree that BAFTA is such an important precursor despite having been 2/4 5 times in 8 years, with one more being 3/4 and only twice being 4/4? Um, cool. Feel free to fantasize.

[Streeper]

Well, if Streep wins (a chance nobody's denying) it proves the race was closer than I thought. If Viola looses it proves nothing and you can still say it was a close race. Nobody's saying this is not a close race, I'm just saying it's not that close and, especially, that it's not a 50/50 race, which was the origin of the discussion.

So, what do you agree with? That it's 50/50? That it's super close? Or that it's close but not that close.

And also, you agree that BAFTA is such an important precursor despite having been 2/4 5 times in 8 years, with one more being 3/4 and only twice being 4/4? Um, cool. Feel free to fantasize.

I don't think it's 50/50. If I had to put it in a ratio I'd say it's 55/45 in Davis' favor so I guess that means it's super close. That's what i think it is.

BAFTA is gaining importance as a percusor, though of course the SAG is the biggest one which is what pushes Viola a little bit further (the ensemble win, like I said before, especially).

I think the fact that in the last 10 years the only women to not get lead SAG and go on to win the Oscar had the GG/BAFTA combo, is not something to brush off so easily (and yes, that includes Winslet's GG win for Supporting for The Reader, that particular performance still got the award) by bringing up how big of a box office smash The Help is because you agree that no matter how big it is, it underperformed with AMPAS.

[City Lights]

Thankfully just one more week and we can go back to not caring about this race for a week.

[Madrileña]

BAFTA is gaining importance as a percusor, though of course the SAG is the biggest one which is what pushes Viola a little bit further (the ensemble win, like I said before, especially).

I still think that Viola Davis is going to win the oscar, but why the ensemble SAG win is a huge indicator?

In the past 16 years only one actress (Gwyneth Paltrow) won the oscar after winning the SAG ensemble, the rest of the actresses won their oscars without the SAG ensemble:

2010: The King's Speech/Natalie Portman (Black Swank)
2009: Inglorious Basterds/Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
2008: Slumdog Millionaire/Kate Winlet (The Reader)
2007: No country for old men/Marion Cotillard (La vie en rose)
2006: Little Miss Sunshine/Helen Mirren (The Queen)
2005: Crash/Reese Whiterspoon (Walk The Line)
2004: Sideways/Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
2003: The Return of the King/Charlize Theron (Monster)
2002: Chicago/Nicole Kidman (The Hours)
2001: Gosford Park/Halle Berry (Monster's Ball)
2000: Traffic/Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich)
1999: American Beauty (HIlary Swank (Boys Don't Cry)
1998: Shakespeare in Love/Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare In Love) **
1997: The Full Monty/Helen Hunt (As Good As It Gets)
1996: The Bridcage/Frances McDormand (Fargo)
1995: Apollo 13/Susan Sarandon (Dead Man Walking)

That's only a 6% against a 94%.

It's true that tha SAG winners were not "women-centered" films. But Chicago and American Beauty were, got their two leading actresses noms for their movies and nor Renee Zellweger nor Annette Bening got the oscar at the end.

ETA: for me, it just doesn't seem that the SAG voters are more eager to vote the actress who was in the SAG ensemble winner.

[crazyfists3600]

I still think that Viola Davis is going to win the oscar, but why the ensemble SAG win is a huge indicator?

In the past 16 years only one actress (Gwyneth Paltrow) won the oscar after winning the SAG ensemble, the rest of the actresses won their oscars without the SAG ensemble:

2010: The King's Speech/Natalie Portman (Black Swank)
2009: Inglorious Basterds/Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
2008: Slumdog Millionaire/Kate Winlet (The Reader)
2007: No country for old men/Marion Cotillard (La vie en rose)
2006: Little Miss Sunshine/Helen Mirren (The Queen)
2005: Crash/Reese Whiterspoon (Walk The Line)
2004: Sideways/Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
2003: The Return of the King/Charlize Theron (Monster)
2002: Chicago/Nicole Kidman (The Hours)
2001: Gosford Park/Halle Berry (Monster's Ball)
2000: Traffic/Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich)
1999: American Beauty (HIlary Swank (Boys Don't Cry)
1998: Shakespeare in Love/Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare In Love) **
1997: The Full Monty/Helen Hunt (As Good As It Gets)
1996: The Bridcage/Frances McDormand (Fargo)
1995: Apollo 13/Susan Sarandon (Dead Man Walking)

That's only a 6% against a 94%.

It's true that tha SAG winners were not "women-centered" films. But Chicago and American Beauty were, got their two leading actresses nom for their movies and nor Renee Zellweger nor Annette Bening got the oscar
at the end.

Um, sorry...outside of Shakespeare, Chicago and American Beauty, this arguement is a little considering that the ensemble winners didn't have any actresses in contention for a lead Oscar.

[Madrileña]

Um, sorry...outside of Shakespeare, Chicago and American Beauty, this arguement is a little considering that the ensemble winners didn't have any actresses in contention for a lead Oscar.

True, but even the few who were nom and won their SAG didn't get the oscar (at least most of them). It just doesn't seem an indicator to me...

ETA: And, to make it more interesting, the years of Chicago and American Beauty... Zellweger and Benning won both SAG awards (ensemble and actress) and they didn't collect the oscar.

[bluerose]

Is it wrong that im seriously hoping for an upset just to stop things being so predictable...I would like to see Davis win over Streep but i would love to see Close/Williams/Mara win just for the fun of it...mostly Close for the WTF factor

But i guess thats the way it always is with one week to go.

Out of curiosity which was the hardest year to predict BA? ive only been watching the past 3/4 so cant really judge

[Streeper]

I still think that Viola Davis is going to win the oscar, but why the ensemble SAG win is a huge indicator?

I just think it's more of an indicator this year than the others you mention perhaps because the ensemble SAG win is usually a good indicator for BP but I think we can all agree that The Help has as much of a chance in BP as Demian Bichir has in Best Actor.

With that said, The Help's acting obviously has huge support from the other actors after arguably sweeping the SAGs which can only favor Davis and Spencer.

bluerose, that's a good Q. I'd like to know as well, I haven't been a hardcore follower of awards for a long time either.

[Madrileña]

I think we can all agree that The Help has as much of a chance in BP as Demian Bichir has in Best Actor.

Yep. I got surprised too with the lack of love that "The Help" got from the academy. I expected more nominations (as director or screenplay). And I think they snubbed Mary J. Blidge and her song .

But of course tha acting is another story, I think they were right in the nominations (I even miss someone more over there, they were all marvelous)). Will wait to see the actual wins.

[Silzi]

Out of curiosity which was the hardest year to predict BA? ive only been watching the past 3/4 so cant really judge

I don't know, in recent years maybe 2001 and 2002?

2001: Critics: Sissy Spacek, Naomi Watts
Golden Globes: Sissy Spacek/ Nicole Kidman
BAFTA: Judi Dench
SAG: Halle Berry

2002: Critics: Julianne Moore, Diane Lane
Golden Globes: Nicole Kidman/ Renée Zellweger
BAFTA: Kidman
SAG: Zellweger

Though I remember that most people felt that Kidman was winning in 2002. The fuss around that nose, the loss the previous year, the career peak, and all.

[crazyfists3600]

I was going to say 2007...not because it was all that hard (I figured Cotillard had it when her film was released) but because most prognosticators felt that a foreign language performance was not going to win and had it pegged as a Christie/Page battle.

At least from what I remember.

[Blasty]

I think it's fair to say that Marion winning was as shocking as this category gets nowadays. She had won several important precursors, of course, so some may say that it wasn't all that shocking, however, almost every year someone will win a couple of other precursors that the favorite can't win (due to 2 categories at the Globes) or can be written off in other ways (those kooky BAFTA voters!). That doesn't mean the person who wins those precursors is in anyway close to an actual victory much of the time.

Because of the foreign language stigma, and her relative obscurity stateside, many prognosticators felt it was an impossibility for Marion to win the Oscar.

However, I think every year many of us fall into the trap of thinking something can't happen simply because it has never happened before. Which is really the worst thing an Oscarwatcher can do. More than ever, over the last 15 years or so, we've seen the Academy makeup change SO drastically, there have been more firsts and breakthroughs than ever before. (Crash winning without guild support, The Hurt Locker winning despite being the lowest Best Pic winner since like the records have been kept) That old adage that 'Rules are made to be broken' has never before been more true than with this current incarnation of the Academy.

Which is why, to those of you who carp on stats such as 'No one has ever won a 2nd Best Actress Leading Oscar (since Bergman) without being in a Best Picture nominee!', I say this to you: Until it happens this year.