The Envelope Logo

Gold Derby

Tom O'Neil has the inside track on Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and all the award shows.

« Previous Post | Gold Derby Home | Next Post »

Oscar's most overdue actress: Winslet is still winless

March 7, 2008 |  8:02 pm

Let's assume that Kate Winslet gets nominated for the Oscars again next year, a safe bet considering she usually makes the cut whenever she's in a worthy film. Winslet Even though she's only 32 years old, she's already been nominated and lost five times — that's a record tally for someone her age. Voters adore her so much that she often gets nominated even when her equally compelling costars don't: Leo DiCaprio ("Titanic") and Jim Carrey ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind").

However, if Winslet gets nommed and is defeated again, she'll tie another record — Oscar's biggest loser among actresses — a dubious title currently shared by Deborah Kerr and Thelma Ritter. Biggest loser of all among performers is over on the guy side: Peter O'Toole (8 defeats).

This upcoming year Winslet has two shots at new bids. One is opposite DiCaprio as lover again, this time in "Revolutionary Road," director Sam Mendes' drama about a disillusioned suburban couple faking a happy life. The last time Mendes — who is wed to Winslet in real life — had a film with a similar theme in the derby, it won five Oscars, including best picture of 1999 ("American Beauty"). It almost won best actress too, but Annette Bening was eclipsed in the home stretch by Hilary Swank ("Boys Don't Cry") after Bening won the equivalent kudo at SAG.

Winslet will also be considered for her lead role in "The Reader" as a mysterious German woman whose secret complicity in the Holocaust gets exposed. The latter comes from the creative team that gave us the overhyped "The Hours" (director Stephen Daltry, scripter David Hare), which nonetheless swept up kudos galore in 2002, including lead actress Oscar, Golden Globe and BAFTA trophies for Nicole Kidman.

Winslet may be partially to blame for her tragic Oscar fate so far, considering she might have won in 1998 if she hadn't turned down a role that earned an Academy Award for Gwyneth Paltrow: "Shakespeare in Love."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Comments

With two wins and twelve other nominations (more than any other actor -- male or female), I find it hard to regard Meryl Streep as overdue.

I think a more apt comparison to Kerr and Ritter will be Laura Linney who is always great and is always nominated,but is never a front runner.Irene Dunne was similar.

If anyone is overdue for an Oscar it's Sigourney Weaver. She just needs a really big campaign for "The Girl in the Park". It would be horrendous if Meryl had won her third whe she even hasn't one. It would be amazing if Sigourney and Kate (for "The Reader") would have won this year :)

I would disagree that Gwyneth Paltrow hasn't done anything relevant since Shakespeare In Love. I think she gave her best performance in Proof. She was also lovely in Sylvia as well as The Talented Mr. Ripley. But on the whole Paltrow's film choices haven't been as good and that has hurt her standing. She's a great actress who just gets better over time. She needs better roles.

As much as i would like to see either Winslet or Moore win the Oscar this year, my gut tells me it's Meryl Streep's year. She wll win her third award for DOUBT after 15 nominations. Though the other two are due, Meryl is OVERdue,

We have an intersting competition for Best Actress competition... *Meryl Streep "Doubt": The 15th nomination, and If she'll great, she'll win her third Oscar and enter in a new group alonside Walter Brennan, Jack nicholson and Ingrid Bergman.
*Julianne Moore: With two great roles "blindness" & "Savage grace" she gaves her fifth nomination
*Kate Winslet: "Revolutionary road" and "The Reader". Maybe she gaves her sixth or even her seventh nomination two consecutives in a same year. I think Kate has more chances in the supporting category for "The Reader", because Moore and Streep are important contenders...

If Moore gets another nod but loses to someone else (Winslet?) then she'll be a five-time loser, tying with Irene Dunne. (And perhaps someone else?) She'll then have to lose another time (to Maria Bello?) before she can be on a league with six-time losers Deborah Kerr and Thelma Ritter. (Ritter, by the way, is the only one who's lost all six times in the supporting category. In fact, I think she holds the supporting-nomination record.)

here, here for julianne moore - in "far from heaven", she was just otherworldly - just saw her last night in "the end of the affair". however, i really wish they would award the best of the year so we don't feel the necessity for all the make-ups. every time you do a make-up or a life achievement oscar for best performance, you have cheated someone of the award and then owe them. it's an endless cycle.

Kate Winslet is one of the best actresses in my generation. I agree she picks parts and roles that are off the beaten path since Titanic. I compare Winslet to Meryl Streep. I want to see both this wonderful actresses in movie and it will be quality work. Julianne Moore is another one that is due an Oscar

Don't be so sure that Winslet would have necessarily won the Oscar for Shakespeare in Love. She was a relatively unknown quantity at the time, where Paltrow had the benefit of the whole Brad Pitt publicity, as well as a ceaseless Miramax hype machine behind her. Winslet, apart from The Holiday, has done a fairly brilliant job picking good movies and harder parts over the years. When's the last time Paltrow has done anything relevant?

I think you're forgetting about Julianne Moore. Technically, Winslet has 1 more nomination, but Moore is just as owed. It's gonna be a damn shame if both are amazing this year, meaning one of them will have to lose again.

Linney isn't far behind either.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:


About the Blogger


Pop & Hiss



Categories


Archives
 



In Case You Missed It...