Beware: Oscars upsets ahead
Don't believe those clueless "experts" who harrumph and dismiss this Academy Awards race as the most obvious and predictable ever. If the current kudos calendar had been in place four years ago, those same chowderheads who now say — with convincing haughtiness — that Reese Witherspoon can't lose best actress for "Walk the Line" probably would've insisted that Sissy Spacek couldn't lose for "In the Bedroom" for the same reason: both actresses swept the early kudos in January, after all, didn't they? Therefore, the experts proclaim — sounding utterly reasonable — that the Oscar is, inevitably, next.
Thirty-two years ago they would've claimed that divine intervention couldn't possibly stop "The Exorcist" from winning best picture. After all, it had won the Golden Globe and was considered to be the top film of the year both culturally and financially. Indeed, terrified America seemed to be possessed by it. Three of its Oscar rivals hadn't even been nominated for best drama picture at the Globes. The fifth nominee, "A Touch of Class," was considered featherweight fare without a chance of exorcising Hollywood's blockbuster from the category.
Oscar "experts" tend to be only as good as their crystal balls and this year they don't have the same ones that saved them from making fools of themselves earlier. Four years ago a Screen Actors Guild Award revealed a late-breaking surge in the lead actress race by Halle Berry ("Monster's Ball"), who'd previously lost the Globe and all critics' awards. Thirty-two years ago "The Sting" won its first big Hollywood prize very late in the race too, when it was hailed by the Directors Guild of America in the Oscars' home stretch. Just like "Crash," "The Sting" had not been nominated for best pic at the Globes.
If those guild awards hadn't tattled on Berry and "The Sting," the vast majority of self-proclaimed experts never would've seen those wins coming.
This year the Oscars are unique because we don't have those guild awards positioned at the tail end of the race to give us a gauge of late-breaking industry views. The actors' and directors' guild kudos were bestowed back in January, pushed back on the calendar so they could stay out in front of the Oscars, which moved its ceremony date from late March/early April two years ago. The previous two Oscars were held in late February, but now they're occurring in early March so they don't have to compete against the Winter Olympics. In between the January awards and the March Oscars this year is a long period of eerie quiet when many key races could shift without us knowing.
What the producers', actors' and directors' guilds revealed in January was what we already knew: that "Brokeback," Lee, Hoffman and Witherspoon were ahead. OK, fine, but what about now, eh?
Personally, I decided to be conservative and bet on only one major upset. Here's how I decided which one.
Photo: No one could've foreseen "Midnight Cowboy's" dark-horse dash toward the Oscar finish line if it hadn't won the Directors Guild of America Award in the last few weeks of the 1969 derby. Previously, it had not been hailed as best picture by Golden Globe voters or film critics.
(United Artists)
I believe Ang Lee, Philip Seymour Hoffman and George Clooney will win because they all have something in common with many past champs: it's their year and they're nominated for career-defining work.
Upsets are possible for best picture, actress and supporting actress. I don't have the guts to call "Crash" over "Brokeback," so scratch that. That leaves actress and supporting actress.
Remember the blog item I posted a few weeks ago about those scientists up at the University of Oregon who use a new stats system to predict the Oscars? When applied retroactively, it claims an accuracy rate of 81% in the top four races (picture, director, actor, actress) since 1975. This year the system forecasts wins for "Brokeback," Lee, Hoffman and Witherspoon. Fine, but its past performance suggests that one of those four will be wrong. It gives the least favorable odds to Witherspoon.
OK, so there. I have permission to vote against Witherspoon if I so wish. And I do because I believe The Last Movie Seen Theory, which gives the edge to Felicity Huffman, considering that sneaky, Oscar-grabbing studio chief Harvey Weinstein sent "Transamerica" screeners last to most Oscar voters.
Also, I'm employing a little common sense here. Just look at the two performances. Reese is sweet, perky and just A-OK in a supporting role that's old news. Felicity dominates her own film, giving a sledgehammer performance that leaves academy members smarting during these recent weeks since they finally caught up with that amazing film. Granted, it's rare that women over age 40 win, but they pull it off when they're considered to be cool like Susan Sarandon ("Dead Man Walking") — and perhaps that holds true for TV's red-hot Desperate Housewife, who recently pulled off a jaw-dropping upset at the Emmys.
Daniel Kenealy: "Turning our attention to her perceived stalled momentum I would just say that common sense tells us that her Screen Actors Guild loss could easily be attributed to her "Desperate Housewives" nomination. She has the Golden Globe and a clutch of critics awards and should be taken very seriously. The Academy will likely never have another chance to honor Huffman. The same cannot be said of Witherspoon."
Posted by: Winston | March 04, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Reese Witherspoon's performance was a SUPPORTING ROLE! I keep hearing people say, look back at this scene in the movie, do this, do that! Just because she has one good scene, does NOT mean she should be awarded a Best ACTRESS Oscar! It would be a travesty to give the award to someone who had a supporting role instead of a leading one! Personally, I dont care who wins, as long as its someone who was the LEAD in the film!
Posted by: S | March 03, 2006 at 01:50 PM
By the way, I am so going to be there this Sunday. Just read today's Wall Street Journal!
Posted by: Dame Judi Dench | March 03, 2006 at 01:17 PM
I wish you silly gooses would stop already about this Best Actress nonsense in a few days. Look! Once and for all.....I got the scoop. The complete gossip. Heard it from Felicity herself. OK fine. I admit I eavesdropped on her and her toenail girl. Anyway, she herself came right out and admitted that precious little Reese Witherspoon has it locked. She kept mentioning this 'her royal majesty Dench person' ("Damn Dench" she kept saying) broad too, some regal queeny British type, and said that Damn Dench isn't even coming to the big party because she is so jealous of that little Witherspoon girl and could not possibly stand to see her win. Just an FYI.....
Posted by: A Hairdresser Who Works Where Felicity Huffman Gets Her Hair Done | March 03, 2006 at 11:23 AM
I just got off the phone with Felicity.....Don't worry. She's holding up. She'll be fine. But she knows she's going to come in second at the Oscars to that hot young babe who has it ALL....What's her name again? Oh yeah...Renee....oh no wait, that's Zellweger. It's REESE! I mean Reese. Reese Witherspoon. Yeah. The stunning looker with the hunky hub and the two adorable kids. The knockout with talent and charm to match, who's already proved to Hollywood she's a force, not to mention that she's being paid $29 mill for her next flick, "Our Family Troubles, yet still shops at Target when she takes her kids back to Nashville to see their grandparents. Yeah. Yeah, that's right, $29 million.....What a sweet, down to earth girl. Even Meryl adores her. And Felicity understands, some actresses just have it all. Such is life......but Felicity knows she'll get hers one day too.....But she also feels its wrong for someone to root for her just because they identify with her role.
The only thing keeping Reese from that coveted statuette this year, I think, is the fact that MICHELLE WILLIAMS is not nominated in her category. She's the only one who could possibly topple Reese, but then, she's nominated in the greatest motion picture ever made. And she's got Heath Ledger. My God......what more could anyone ask????
Posted by: Felicity Huffman's Dad | March 03, 2006 at 05:25 AM
I'm with Tom on calling for an upset in the Best Actress race this Sunday. So Ms. Witherspoon took home the SAG for Walk the Line. But so did Ms. Huffman--for Housewives. Perhaps the Screen Actors Guild took the easy way out by sharing the love?
Nonetheless, Huffman has been campaigning strongly and her personality has been giddy and enthusiastic all the way.
And for the people questioning Huffmans' acting credentials: she was in theatre with David Mamet for goodness sakes!!!
Posted by: Cal | March 03, 2006 at 12:29 AM
I'm with Tom for calling Felicity to take home the Oscar come Sunday. So Reese won the SAG and Golden Globe, all strong indicators of the Oscar. But lest we forget, Huffman also won the SAG that same night---for Housewives. The fact that Huffman won that night shows that she has the momentum...and the SAG took the easy way out to award both actresses that same night. There is no clear front runner guys.
Go Felicity!
Posted by: Cal | March 03, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Dear Tom,
I am 200% behind you -- FELICITY HUFFMAN will pull an upset this Sunday, and if she doesn't, it's a lifetime Acheivement Award for Witherspoon, who was so-called snubbed in her movies, even though I, a showbiz pundit, find her utterly one dimensional and boriiiiiinnnnnng! The likeability factor? People like Annette Bening, the same way people love Witherspoon, BUT I think it times to remind people that likeability factor is not the reason why Oscar was created in the first place! I mean, I do miss the times when big-time talented 40something actresses were awarded against the perky lil' thing, such as Katharine Hepburn's victory over Meryl and Diane Keaton in 1981. Wish I was in the 80s again (minus Reagan as the Prez, of course). And whoever who says Witherspoon is the new Meryl Streep, PLEASE GET YOUR BRAIN CHECKED by neurolosgists in 45 different hospitals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gwyneth Paltrow is the new Meryl Streep. Period. Witherspoon is the new Susan Hayward, for her right-wingness (sp???).
To sum up my view, here's a look at some of the oh-so-its-time-for-Felicity best Oscar moments:
KATHARINE HEPBURN over everybody (1981)
PEGGY ASHCROFT over GLENN CLOSE (1984)
JESSICA TANDY over MICHELLE PFEIFFER (1989)
BRENDA FRICKER over JULIA ROBERTS (1989)
KATHY BATES over JULIA ROBERTS -- OUCH! (1990)
MARCIA GAY HARDEN over KATE HUDSON (2000) --> this was the best!
And to Oscar voters, stop handing out the oh-so-holy-and-sacred Oscar to pretty face! This is BEST ACTRESS competition, not MISS CONGENIALITY!
Posted by: Kamal | March 02, 2006 at 10:59 PM
If Brokeback Mountain loses best picture, The Academy will make a political statement, whether intended or not: That statement will be "It is still o.k. to discriminate against homosexuality in America."
Posted by: Robert the Idealist | March 02, 2006 at 04:39 PM
Allright. My daughter is a fine actress. A fine, fine actress, but her film work has been practically nil, and if I hear one more comment about her upsetting Reese Witherspoon at the Oscars, I'm gonna puke. I understand columnists and media people need to incite controversy and talk, and they have to fill space. But the thought of Reese Witherspoon losing at this years Oscars is utterly asinine.....
I've been around long enough to know there are many things that determine an Oscar winner, one of which is "body of work." Why do you think Sir Anthony Hopkins prevailed in "Lambs" in 1991 over Nick Nolte ("Tides") in a role giving him 16 minutes of screen time? 16 minutes as Hannibal Lecter!!! Don't believe me? Time it!
So let's drop the crap about Reese being a supporting player. Has everyone forgotten "Election?" Has anyone stopped to think that only an actress of Reese' or Julia Roberts' charm and talents and appeal could have pulled off Elle Woods? Has anyone seen "The Importance of Being Earnest," where her English accent rivaled Meryl's Polish accent in "Sophie's Choice?" My God, has everyone forgotten "Freeway???????????"
Fact is, Reese has what it takes to become the Streep of her generation. She's proving it now. Hell, she's ALREADY proved it. She will prevail.....
Oh and Senator, one more thing....."Love your suit....." That's 'Hopkinsese' for anyone and anything related to "Brokeback Mountain" ruling the world. Heath and Jake are Acting Gods.....Michelle Williams is an Acting Goddess. Ang Lee is a Directing God. Gustavo Santaolalla is a Composing God. Rodrigo Prieto is a Cinematography God. Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana are a Writing God & Goddess. James Schamus is a Producing God.
Congratulations in advance to all of them.....and congratulations Reese.....
Posted by: Felicity Huffman's Mother | March 02, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Hold on a minute. The Exorcist was was "considered to be the top film of the year both culturally and financially"? Are you kidding? Financially, yes. The lines were around the block. But culturally, no way! It is statements like this that make me doubt the critical ability of you columnists. The Exorcist was almost universally trashed by the critics. It did not figure in any of the critics prizes that year. So where did you get this idea that it was the top film culturally? Did you just make it up?
Posted by: Mark Esposito | March 02, 2006 at 08:44 AM
What about Charlize? I think she was easily the best actress this year for "North Country".
Posted by: Dr. Jekyll | March 02, 2006 at 08:01 AM
If the predictors are 81% accurate in the top 4 races over 30 years, it doesn't mean that every year there's reason to seek out an upset: if there were an upset every year, the rate would be 75%, not 81%.
The statistic could just as easily be read: 100% accurate 81% of the time.
Not to say there won't be an upset; but to go out of one's way to rationalize an upset based on that stat in the way that has been done in this article doesn't seem totally logical.
And, if we want to talk about the upsets in the top 4 categories in recent years, how many more times has it occurred in Best Director or Best Picture than in Best Actor or Best Actress? There was Adrian Brody...and...
Then there have been all the recent splits between Best Director and Best Picture, which have really blindsided a lot of people and would be more in-tune with that 19% failure rate of the prediction scientists.
Posted by: Ethan Peter | March 02, 2006 at 06:49 AM
Glad somebody reminded us that it was only a few months ago when Tom O’ Neill predicted that Felicity Huffman had absolutely no chance of winning the Emmy. Complete turnaround this time, no?
I’ll refute the points in Felicity’s favor that have been cited by those who posted that they think Felicity will upset.
First, regarding the allegedly strong influence of Harvey Weinstein. This perceived influence has waned in the last couple of years, since The Weinstein Company was established. Mr. Weinstein’s influence wasn’t even enough to secure a win for Martin Scorcese in the two consecutive years he was nominated. After the Shakespeare in Love upset, voters have become turned off by aggressive campaigning. Mr. O’Neill cites the Jim Broadbent case as a good example as to why this last-minute sending of screeners will work. IT’S NOT AN APPROPRIATE COMPARISON. For one thing, Iris was a film that got three acting nominations. I would imagine that Academy voters then immediately watched the screener of Iris, because then they could simultaneously judge three nominated performances in one screening. But Transamerica is nominated for only one major award, and there are A LOT of other equally small films that have sent out screeners and will probably be prioritized on an Academy member’s “to watch” list. Capote, for example. Or GNAGL. The Transamerica screener will be left unwatched by a majority of those who received it.
Second, why is everyone making a big deal about the fact that Felicity is married to William H. Macy, who supposedly has a lot of friends in the Academy? William H. Macy is a respected character actor, yes, and I’m sure he has a lot of friends who are voters. But wasn’t this same argument being floated around in the two years that Annette Bening was up against Hilary Swank? People were saying that Warren Beatty’s influence would be enough to secure an Oscar for Annette. As we all know, Annette is still Oscar-less. This “spouse-influence” is overrated…if someone like Warren Beatty couldn’t pull through for his wife, I doubt Macy can. No offense but Bill Macy is not even in the same league as Warren Beatty.
Finally, I don’t see why people keep on saying that Felicity will get it because she’s more due, because she’s a respected actress etc etc. Felicity is a respected actress, but more for her TV work. Sure she’s been a supporting player in a handful of films, but this is the first time she is getting serious notice for a film portrayal. Reese, on the other hand, is considered to be “owed” because of her snub for her brilliant work in Election. And can we please stop it with the Helen Hunt comparisons? Hunt is a TV star yes, but she was nominated for a film that got a Best Picture nomination. As Good As It Gets was highly-regarded, and earned over $100 million at the box office. Unlike Felicity, Hunt WON the SAG for Best Lead Female Actor in a Film, despite being nominated for Best TV Actress in a Comedy Series in the same year.
It all comes down to the this: if Felicity was in a bigger film, a film that was praised by critics and a film that was embraced by the public, I’d say these predictions are valid. But the fact is, Felicity starred in a small film that very few people saw, and it would be an uphill climb for her to make the Academy voters notice her work, never mind vote for her. The only chance she had when this awards season started was to win all the major awards, but she was unable to achieve that (unlike Theron and Swank, who both won a handful of prizes during their respective years, so they were able to overcome the disadvantage of starring in a small film)
Posted by: melvel | March 02, 2006 at 06:08 AM
"The fifth [1973 Oscar] nominee, "A Touch of Class," had won the [Golden] Globe for best comedy/musical picture..."
Uh, no. AMERICAN GRAFFITI won the Golden Globe for "Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy" that year.
An interesting note on the 1973 Globes: eventual Best Picture Oscar-winner THE STING failed to be nominated for either the "Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy" or "Best Motion Picture - Drama" Globe.
Posted by: Griff | March 01, 2006 at 10:32 PM
I have to disagree with tallsonofagun. I just returned from seeing BBM for the third time tius afternoon and I have no doubt that it is the Best Picture of the Year. But the bigger crime would be NOT to award Reese her Oscar Sunday evening. I think it is truly inconceivable.
Posted by: Mike | March 01, 2006 at 05:15 PM
I have to agree with Petey. He took the words right out of my mouth. For some reason, awards juries are dazzled by portrayals of real-life characters at the expense of fictional ones - they can ooh and aah over the physical resemblance and all the verbal tics and mannerisms of the character which the actor can hook onto, whether it is Capote or Ray Charles or Virginia Woolf. Hoffman is to me very clever, but it's just brilliant mimicry.
It's a crying shame that Ledger will not have received a single trophy for his perf. How this lanky, happy-go-lucky Australian who has never really impressed before was able to dig deep within himself to create the tortured soul that is Ennis is a small miracle of acting. I hope he treasures the memory of it for a long time.
It's too bad actors have to compete with one another - I say, give all five on the short-list a statuette and have a party celebrating the best films of the year - not this torture-fest that is the Oscars.
Posted by: Don | March 01, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Reese-baby versus Felicity? Come on people, Hollywood is about one thing: MONEY! The fact that "Line" has grossed $120 mill (and counting) against a budget of $28 mill is what will impress the Oscar voters foremost. Remember, this is Hollywood's "Year of the Slump." When you combine that with the performance, Reese-baby's "body of work," the fact that she did her OWN SINGING in this film, that angelic face and that knockout bod, and the fact that she has literally---LITERALLY!---already won virtually every Best Actress prize known to man, it defies all common sense and logic that she will lose. She appeals to EVERY SEGMENT of the Academy voters and if she doesn't win there should be an investigation.....
Posted by: Michael | March 01, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Isnt this the same man who said Felecity Huffman had ZERO shot, not a chance in hell at winning the Emmy?
Whta has really irked me during this whole Oscar season was how Tom has gone on and on about Felecity's "pedigree" How Felecity is the seasons film star and Reese is the "fresh face". I think Felecity is an amazing actress, but in terms of film surely Reese's "pedirgree" tops Felecity.
Posted by: Sean | March 01, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Reese has it in the bag!!!! She was the best performance and even won the BAFTA against Dame Judi Dench and Rachel Weisz!!!!!!
Mr. O'Neill obviously is working with The Weinstein Co. Have you noticed how many articles about Marcesa gowns and Felicity's upset have popped up on this website. By the way, who cares about Marcesa gowns besided Tom O'Neill.
Also, Transamerica was mediocre at best. Felicity was good, but not as good as Reese, Hillary, or Charlize. Laura Linney and Joan Allen should be the real winners in this category.
Posted by: Alex | March 01, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Okay, I actually disagree with Tom often on things he has to say, but find myself backing him up on his thoughts about this - there will probably be one upset and it is most likely Felicity over Reese for Best Actress more than any other main race. He's saying that it's not a lock, just that it's the most open of the main catagories. I actually loved both performances by both actresses and really feel that it is a complete race between the 2 with very little competition from the other 3 actresses - despite the fact that they were all great and carried their films. So here's my breakdown:
Reese positives: did the difficult task of singing live and doing it beautifully; was in total movie star mode looking beautiful and maximizing the things people really like about her like spunkiness and heart; her movie is a big hit and a lot of people saw it; she took all your attention away everytime she was on screen - not an easy thing to do when the main character is Johnny Cash; she's playing a real person which the voters seem to favor.
Reese negatives: she's got more of a supporting role than the other actresses and the movie doesn't really rest on her shoulders; although she was terrific and the singing thing might have been difficult, it's not like she was playing against type or really stretching far; she's young and will likely be nominated many times in the future; despite her perkiness on screen, in Hollywood, she's thought of as a little bit cold and removed from the Hollywood machine; this is the year of the political/statement movies and her movie was the exact opposite of that; her speeches at other awards shows have been borrrrrrrrrring!
Felicity positives: she completely transformed herself and had one of the most difficult roles to play with the woman being a man trying to be a woman thing; she uglified herself in a grittier role much like Halle, Charlize, Nicole and Hilary did - the past winners for the last 4 years; she's widely respected and has conquered both tv and film this year - the Helen Hunt factor (who also won her year); she knows just about everyone in Hollywood because of her relationship with husband William H. Macy who has been in just about every film ever made in the last 10 years (a slight exaggeration - LOL); she has Lord of the Oscar Promotion, Harvey Weinstein, plotting to make sure she gets maximum exposure at just the right time; she has a national platform on Desperate Housewives where she gets to come into your home every week and it's hard not to like her in that or for older Academy voters who don't see many films to escape her exposure; her speeches that she's given so far have all been very funny and very touching which the voters really like.
Felicity negatives: the film has only done a small percentage of Walk The Line, so the screeners that were sent to voters need to be watched by almost everyone in order for her to win; she is seen as more of a tv actress than film actress since this was her first lead role; she's in her forties and it's been a while since a fortyish woman has won best actress.
I'm sure there are other postives/negatives for both, but I think those are the main ones. So, for me, I think Felicity Huffman will be the big upset in the main categories because she has more in her favor than Reese and I think that Tom is right on this.
The one thing I absolutely feel though, is that Crash had better not be the upset. That movie is soooooo overrated and the one film of the five that truly did not belong in the top 5 best films of the year. Despite some fine acting, the film is manipulative, contrived and implausible. There are people who do love the film, but the people who don't like it really hate it. In my own little polling of people I know or have met who saw both Crash and Brokeback Mountain, I asked 12 people individually about the films and of them, 5 Hated Crash, 4 didn't much like it and 2 of the other 3 that did like it did not think it was worthy of a Best Picture nomination. It's a pretty random sampling of people (although none in the film business), so I think that the general belief is that it is not worthy of winning. Some of those 12 people didn't like Brokeback either, but none of them hated it and a majority (7) thought it should win Best Picture. And I would have to agree with that. If Crash wins over Brokeback, it would be a bigger crime than Shakespeare In Love beating Saving Private Ryan or Ordinary People beating Raging Bull - just utterly unfair, unjustified and remarkably wrong.
Posted by: Tallsonofagun | March 01, 2006 at 10:58 AM
"Mind you..this is something Reese didn't do at all..."
Ummm, how do you think the groundswell developed for Reese. You think it was organic?! Of course she has campaigned, appearing at the opening of an envelope as needed....
Hell, Julia Roberts was campaigning for "Erin" while still shooting the picture! That is the way it is done..not just by Harvey and Felicity. If you don't get your face out there, then you won't win most of the time...hence all the harping about great jobs gone unnominated or unrewarded.
Posted by: petey | March 01, 2006 at 08:31 AM
Hoffmann's performance in CAPOTE was amazing and he channeled the character flawlessly. BUT, he had the finite parameters of that man's personality to guide him in the process. Ledger , on the other hand, created a complex, nearly inscrutable character out of whole cloth and provided him with motivation and expression with only inchoate clues from a short story. And he inhabited Ennis so well that it even amazed the author who created him.
That is genius. Without Ledger (and Gyllanhaal) there would have been no Brokeback.
Posted by: Joe | March 01, 2006 at 08:00 AM
I'm sorry, but don't we hear this EXACT same thing each year...and ALWAYS with the Best Actress race?? Whenever there is a CLEAR frontrunner---I mean, come on, Reese has won practically every award in the last months, even the BAFTA--a few people start claiming there will be an "upset." And does is ever happen....NO. And I don't think Berry's win was that shocking of an upset because she won the SAG. Huffman didn't.
Remember last year about this time people were SO sure that either Bening or Staunton were going to upset Swank..using some of these same "last film seen" theories?? Or what about when some of the same people were saying Theron was going to loose to Watts because of last minute backlash?? Or even when again, the same people said Roberts was going to loose-in the upset of the century-to Burstyn. Seems to me the only thing these types of predictions have had in common lately is that they are wrong.
I have been following the Oscars and know Oscar history as well as almost anyone and I would be willing to bet A LOT (heck, even my posting status on the forums and that means a lot to me!! hehe) that Reese has this in the bag. While it's nice to try to add some excitement to the race, you also have to be realistic about it.
And I realize that judging acting is subjective, but I was saddened to see you use the old "Reese is supporting" argument against her winning the Oscar. I thought it had been clearly established by all the awards that she has won that she is LEAD. She is crucial to the plot of the film...she doesn't support it. The movie would NOT be the same without her. Secondly, she was certainly better than "A-OK." In fact, she is, in my opinion, leagues above Huffman. You say Huffman carries her film? So what? That's not saying much considering the film itself is very mediocre. And I know I can't be the only one who was not fooled by the "gimmicky" performance Huffman gave and then mistook it for great acting. Weinstein may have sent out as many screeners of "TransAmerica" as he could, but my guess is voters shelved them or couldn't even get through the movie. Huffman is GREAT as a suburban mom on "Desperate Housewives," but when it comes to playing a transgendered person, leave that job to Hilary Swank, who knows how to do it right.
Witherspoon, on the other hand, carried her film. Hell, she stole the film right out from Phoenix, who was suppose to be the heart of the picture. She also has the likeability factor in a role that certainly most of the voters and general public are going to be able to relate to more than Huffman's. And if "Brokeback" and Phillip S. Hoffman do win, I think that will only help Witherspoon, I don't think the Academy will overdue it with the gay theme.
My opinions of course. I respect yours as well. Don't mean to sound rude or condescending, but if you can't tell, I am also very passionate about the Oscars. =)
Posted by: Troy | March 01, 2006 at 03:46 AM
The most upsets have usually occured in the best supporting actress catagory. I think there will be upsets this year. A lot of what has changed the past two weeks is Heath Ledger has gotten more picks and best actor and George Cloony has gotten a bunch for Syriana. I agree with Cloony but don't about Heath. I loved Brokeback MOuntain, but Hoffmans portayal of Capote was incredible. Of course if the voters don't like you like MArtin Scorcese or barbra Strisand, hell would freeze over first before they would give you an oscar.
Posted by: Mike | March 01, 2006 at 03:44 AM