Best Actress: Post-BFCA/SAG/GG, 4

[Luffy]

Have you considered that Cotillard likely missed some of the smaller critic awards because her film has not really expanded much, so they likely did not see her film?

You are probably right, but i think no one in the academy members think about a movie not being seen yet in some places or about someone being ineligible for an award.

I like to think most of them are honest and will watch the movies before voting, but they can't watch everything and actors will surely watch the performances with the most buzz and precursors. After all academy actors branch's members have to watch enough movies to nominate people in 4 different categories.

So Ithink they will watch Chastain & Lawrence first, being the favorites and their movies being in contention for Best Picture too, and a lot of them will probably agree with the general consensus they are good and have them in their ballot.

Then it's up to them to watch movies which aren't in contention for anything else, which didn't get good reviews or/& are pretty bad, movies they probably would never pay to watch it

I think they most of them will choose to see Watts first because of the recent buzz, it's in English and the movie being a much academy friendly movie than Marion.

After that maybe actors will probably go for any of Weisz or maybe Riva's movies.

Wallis biggest chance iIMO is not only that she is good, it's her film being in contention for a nomination for BP.

If I was an academy member and that I had to watch a lot of movies to cast my ballot, knowing Im the king of proscratination and that work & life would mix with all this, right know I would have ZD30, SLP, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Argo, Life of Pi, Django Unchained, Beasts of the Southern Wild, the Master, the Sessions on my 'to watch absolutely list'.

Then i will have to choose what to see between the Impossible, Flight, Rust & Bone, Amour, the Deep blue sea, Hitchcock, Magic Mike and it seems to me that after hours of movies, i would go for Naomi & Denzel because they were the ones with the most buzz from others awards groups.

[babz]

You are probably right, but i think no one in the academy members think about a movie not being seen yet in some places or about someone being ineligible for an award.

I like to think most of them are honest and will watch the movies before voting, but they can't watch everything and actors will surely watch the performances with the most buzz and precursors. After all academy actors branch's members have to watch enough movies to nominate people in 4 different categories.

So Ithink they will watch Chastain & Lawrence first, being the favorites and their movies being in contention for Best Picture too, and a lot of them will probably agree with the general consensus they are good and have them in their ballot.

Then it's up to them to watch movies which aren't in contention for anything else, which didn't get good reviews or/& are pretty bad, movies they probably would never pay to watch it

I think they most of them will choose to see Watts first because of the recent buzz, it's in English and the movie being a much academy friendly movie than Marion.

After that maybe actors will probably go for any of Weisz or maybe Riva's movies.

Wallis biggest chance iIMO is not only that she is good, it's her film being in contention for a nomination for BP.

If I was an academy member and that I had to watch a lot of movies to cast my ballot, knowing Im the king of proscratination and that work & life would mix with all this, right know I would have ZD30, SLP, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Argo, Life of Pi, Django Unchained, Beasts of the Southern Wild, the Master, the Sessions on my 'to watch absolutely list'.

Then i will have to choose what to see between the Impossible, Flight, Rust & Bone, Amour, the Deep blue sea, Hitchcock, Magic Mike and it seems to me that after hours of movies, i would go for Naomi & Denzel because they were the ones with the most buzz from others awards groups.

Films that are sent early might also get an advantage. I would agree that of the best actress contenders alot of the members probably saw the best picture contenders ZDT, Silver Linings, Beasts but lots of critics push will make them see Amour and maybe the actors push will make them see Impossible. So that leaves people like Weisz at a disadvantage.

[Dr_Dmitri-Yuriev]

Films that are sent early might also get an advantage. I would agree that of the best actress contenders alot of the members probably saw the best picture contenders ZDT, Silver Linings, Beasts but lots of critics push will make them see Amour and maybe the actors push will make them see Impossible. So that leaves people like Weisz at a disadvantage.

Beasts was sent even earlier than SLP and ZDT and considering the buzz it had back in October, I would think that most members would have seen it? Weisz film was sent out October 15th, the only question is did AMPAS members see it?

[Jali]

If Wallis isn't nominated I bet the film isn't nominated at all except maybe adapted screenplay.

[Dr_Dmitri-Yuriev]

If Wallis isn't nominated I bet the film isn't nominated at all except maybe adapted screenplay.

I think the film could still get nominated without Wallis. Beasts of the Southern Wild is a Malick inspired type film which might appeal to the people who nominated The Tree of Life; a film that did not get any acting nominations, though one could argue that "Beasts" is much more of an acting showcase than TTL was?

[erikdean]

If Wallis isn't nominated I bet the film isn't nominated at all except maybe adapted screenplay.

That's the thing; the film is not getting a Best Picture nomination if it doesn't also get an acting and/or a screenplay nom. It just won't/can't/doesn't happen.

I still think all are happening though.

[Jali]

I am predicting Mirren for the moment, but if Wallis is nominated for Bafta I will change my predictions even if Mirren is also nominated there.

[Zuranthium]

The SAG nominees are the Oscar nominees.

Old women want someone to identify with and Helen Mirren is tops this year. The film practically makes it look like she was the brains behind Alfred Hitchcock, a brilliant woman who has sat by supporting her husband for decades and not getting the respect she deserves. Mirren's performance is fun and authoritative, and the film is easily digestible. Amour is too depressing and difficult, The Deep Blue Sea is too tiresome, and Quvenzhane Wallis just doesn't have enough big scenes to pull support in support like Keisha Castle-Hughes did. Keisha cried her face off and astounded people with her actual acting. Wallis is seen as more of a charming, well-directed kid. Trying to get a lead nomination is asking too much.

[guido]

The SAG nominees are the Oscar nominees.

Old women want someone to identify with and Helen Mirren is tops this year. The film practically makes it look like she was the brains behind Alfred Hitchcock, a brilliant woman who has sat by supporting her husband for decades and not getting the respect she deserves. Mirren's performance is fun and authoritative, and the film is easily digestible. Amour is too depressing and difficult, The Deep Blue Sea is too tiresome, and Quvenzhane Wallis just doesn't have enough big scenes to pull support in support like Keisha Castle-Hughes did. Keisha cried her face off and astounded people with her actual acting. Wallis is seen as more of a charming, well-directed kid. Trying to get a lead nomination is asking too much.

This category in a nutshell.

[with_one_voice]

If Wallis is nominated at BAFTA, I'll be pretty confident that she'll show up at Oscar. While the SAG ineligibility hurts, what is keeping her in my predictions is that I (and most of us) are reasonably sure that she would've gotten that SAG nod had she been eligible: she had the buzz, the acclaim, and SAG loves recognizing children and unknowns. Besides the fact that SAG-to-Oscar crossover is very strong, she also has a BFCA nod, and if she lands BAFTA, she'll have BFCA, BAFTA, and, I'll call it... a latent SAG nod. Although it's not quite the same as a real SAG nod, the BFCA + SAG + BAFTA combo has resulted in an Oscar nod 9/9 times that it's happened.

[erikdean]

If Wallis is nominated at BAFTA, I'll be pretty confident that she'll show up at Oscar. While the SAG ineligibility hurts, what is keeping her in my predictions is that I (and most of us) are reasonably sure that she would've gotten that SAG nod had she been eligible: she had the buzz, the acclaim, and SAG loves recognizing children and unknowns. Besides the fact that SAG-to-Oscar crossover is very strong, she also has a BFCA nod, and if she lands BAFTA, she'll have BFCA, BAFTA, and, I'll call it... a latent SAG nod. Although it's not quite the same as a real SAG nod, the BFCA + SAG + BAFTA combo has resulted in an Oscar nod 9/9 times that it's happened.

True, but she doesn't have a SAG nod and if she gets BAFTA then she'll have that and BFCA and according to your list....no one has gotten an Oscar nomination with that combination, lol.

[with_one_voice]

True, but she doesn't have a SAG nod and if she gets BAFTA then she'll have that and BFCA and according to your list....no one has gotten an Oscar nomination with that combination, lol.

Well firstly, it's Souler's list, lol. But yes, what you said is certainly true. I've said it a bunch of times, but the SAG ineligibility complicates things a lot. If one assumes Wallis would've made SAG, which is the best indication of industry and actor support, then I don't think the fact that she was ineligible is an enormous blow to her chances; SAG and Oscar often respond similarly, so although she wasn't able to get any resultant buzz from a SAG nod, I think that industry support from actors is, in effect, there -- we just can't see it because of the ineligibility.

Also, saying that BFCA + BAFTA has never resulted in an Oscar nomination, while true, is a bit silly in a sense because there are cases of BFCA only, and cases of BAFTA only, leading to Oscar nominations, and obviously having both isn't more of a detriment than only having one.

Anyway, my point is essentially that I'm still predicting Wallis because I'm confident that she would've received a SAG nomination had she been eligible, and I don't think the fact that she couldn't get that nomination is going to negate her industry support among actors. I'm not confident that she'll be nominated (I have her at no. 5, I guess), but I think people are a bit quick to dismiss her chances and to act as if her being ineligible for SAG was the same as her being snubbed by SAG (the latter of which would've completely killed her chances).

[guido]

Can we stop ignoring how telling Wallis's GG snub is?

Maybe the HFPA was just being its "OMG racist star-fucking" self, but AMPAS isn't much different. Look how it turned out last year with Viola x Meryl.

[Dr_Dmitri-Yuriev]

The SAG nominees are the Oscar nominees.

Old women want someone to identify with and Helen Mirren is tops this year. The film practically makes it look like she was the brains behind Alfred Hitchcock, a brilliant woman who has sat by supporting her husband for decades and not getting the respect she deserves. Mirren's performance is fun and authoritative, and the film is easily digestible. Amour is too depressing and difficult, The Deep Blue Sea is too tiresome, and Quvenzhane Wallis just doesn't have enough big scenes to pull support in support like Keisha Castle-Hughes did. Keisha cried her face off and astounded people with her actual acting. Wallis is seen as more of a charming, well-directed kid. Trying to get a lead nomination is asking too much.

Hughes gave a performance that was just as quiet as Wallis; in a 2 hour film Hughes only had like a 2-3 minute scene that you could call showy. Wallis has that final scene with her father which is quite touching.

[with_one_voice]

Can we stop ignoring how telling Wallis's GG snub is?

I don't think it's so telling, to the point that it delivered an unrecoverable blow to her chances. Sure, a GG nod would've been excellent for her chances, and probably locked up her nomination, but it's important to keep in mind each voting group's biases, and more than anything, the GGs are star fuckers. Probably the only (remotely recent) example of an unknown actress in an indie with no mainstream appeal landing a GG nod was Jennifer Lawrence, who arguably had much weaker competition in the Drama category than Wallis did this year.

Lawrence getting a GG nod for Winter's Bone was certainly the exception, and not the rule. Unknowns in indies essentially HAVE to rely on SAG -- SAG was the only place that Castle-Hughes, Sandino Moreno, Bichir, Hawkes, etc, showed up. These are all examples of relative unknowns in films that were uber indies that made very little money.

Point being, these types of actors almost never get GG nominations, and the fact that these examples all went from having SAG only to Oscar nomination highlights the importance and influence of SAG; the number of actors who've been Oscar nominated with only a GG nod, by contrast, is much, much smaller. Again, this goes back to my point that if we assume Wallis would've landed a SAG nomination (as most of us do), then I think she is still a top 5 contender.

[guido]

I don't think it's so telling, to the point that it delivered an unrecoverable blow to her chances. Sure, a GG nod would've been excellent for her chances, and probably locked up her nomination, but it's important to keep in mind each voting group's biases, and more than anything, the GGs are star fuckers. Probably the only (remotely recent) example of an unknown actress in an indie with no mainstream appeal landing a GG nod was Jennifer Lawrence, who arguably had much weaker competition in the Drama category than Wallis did this year.

Lawrence getting a GG nod for Winter's Bone was certainly the exception, and not the rule. Unknowns in indies essentially HAVE to rely on SAG -- SAG was the only place that Castle-Hughes, Sandino Moreno, Bichir, Hawkes, etc, showed up. These are all examples of relative unknowns in films that were uber indies that made very little money.

Point being, these types of actors almost never get GG nominations, and the fact that these examples all went from having SAG only to Oscar nomination highlights the importance and influence of SAG; the number of actors who've been Oscar nominated with only a GG nod, by contrast, is much, much smaller. Again, this goes back to my point that if we assume Wallis would've landed a SAG nomination (as most of us do), then I think she is still a top 5 contender.

They had no problem nominating Sidibe, though.

[with_one_voice]

They had no problem nominating Sidibe, though.

I said indies with no mainstream appeal. Precious is not comparable to films like Beasts, Winter's Bone, Whale Rider, A Better Life, Maria Full of Grace, etc, because it was much more mainstream than all of them. Precious was a top 5 Best Picture film that made $40-50 M at the box office, and generated a LOT of discourse and dialogue in the news, largely because of its controversies. On top of that, Precious also featured a number of very famous celebrities, not the least of which was Mo'Nique, the Supporting Actress frontrunner, whom the Globes could/would not ignore. Beasts (and the films I mentioned above) had nowhere near the star power that Precious had.

[Matt-10]

I just don't buy a Chastain-Cotillard-Lawrence-Mirren-Watts line-up. I know that is the easy route to predict given precursors, but I feel like there is always someone who doesn't make it at the end. Whether it be Riva, Wallis and/or Weisz, I think at least one of them will make it over one of Cotillard/Mirren/Watts.

[babz]

Can we stop ignoring how telling Wallis's GG snub is?

Maybe the HFPA was just being its "OMG racist star-fucking" self, but AMPAS isn't much different. Look how it turned out last year with Viola x Meryl.

It doesn't really hurt her though, seeing that GG was the place she could miss, if she did anywhere. A SAG or BAFTA snub is worse. She was ineligible for SAG, so BAFTA snub would leave her completely off my list. Sadly.

[francesco-natale]

1 Chastain
1 Lawrence

2 Watts

3Mirren

4 Weisz

5 Cotillard
5 Wallis
5 Riva