SubscribeKate Winslet: back in the Oscar derby?
Kate Winslet's in love again on screen, magnificently so in "Little Children," and it looks likely that Oscar voters will be smitten again, giving her another nosegay nomination for a performance full of the same ache and romantic abandon she displayed in "Titanic" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." But this time without the curse of a doomed ship or that orange and blue hair, she might even win.
That is, if she isn't cursed now by the academy's infamous prudery. Read on.
In "Little Children," she aches this time as a wife trapped in a vacant marriage because she wants to give her own little girl a traditional family life. But when she boldly befriends a mysterious Adonis dad on a dare from a gaggle of drooling peers, she ends up in his naked arms on the sly and, as she did with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jim Carrey, let's goooooo.
Academy members and filmgoers love her as a lover because she's real and pretty without looking like a donut-deprived Heidi Klum or Paris Hilton in heat. And because, when she's in love, her bashful eyes and trembling looks and voice make viewers feel how strongly she wants her screen prince to dash her off to a casbah.
In "Little Children," she gets a finely tuned vehicle for the trip by director Todd Field, who tops his achievement in Oscar best pic nominee "In the Bedroom." In fact, "Children" shows powerfully how Field has grown up as a filmmaker — it's 10 times better, nay, 20 times. It's clearly one of 2006's most excellent films, but one that faces a serious challenge when weighed by that notoriously squeamish academy crowd. An essential and a devastating subplot involves a creepy flasher who can't be viewed as a poor, misunderstood victim of Kate's neighbors who want him lynched. However, what makes that story line so compelling is the sympathy Field forces us to feel for him anyway when he's doing things he doesn't want his "mommy" to know.
CLICK HERE to Continue Reading!
Photos: As Patrick Wilson's lover in "Little Children," Kate gives a brave perf, exposing lots of skin, including her breasts, in bold sex scenes. But she also displays the same romantic fragility that made her so alluring in the arms of Jim Carrey in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," one of her four previous Oscar bids. She was also nommed in the best actress race for "Titanic" and, in supporting, for "Iris" and "Sense and Sensibility."
(New Line)
Will it cause academy prudes to turn against this film in disgust? Will they jilt Kate, too, if they flinch and run? Her Oscar fate, sadly, seems to be in the paws of a perv and there's nothing she can do about it.
I saw "Little Children" a few weeks ago and was knocked out by it, but there's been a journo embargo in place till this weekend when it premieres at Telluride. Other reviews and Academy Award assessments will be coming out soon. Let's see what other Oscar pundits have to say.
yawn! usual suspect getting hyped again.
Posted by: steandric | September 08, 2006 at 05:20 PM
I saw this movie and the most compelling performance, and the one I hope gets some award recognition, was that of Phyllis Somerville. Very Good!
Posted by: Umbacka | September 08, 2006 at 01:33 AM
Tom, we all have been talking (on the imdb.com boards for Little Children) how this movie is going to get Kate the Great her first Oscar, and I'm glad it's for a well deserved performance and not for something that they would just give it to her for, a la, Morgan Freeman for Million Dollar Baby, I loved his performance, but there were better ones that year and it was probably the last time voters thought they could have the chance to award him.
And anyways, if you want to talk about Little Children come to the imdb.com board and my name is movietvwatcher and post your thoughts about the movie and ask quesitons!
Posted by: Mike B. | September 03, 2006 at 02:54 AM