SubscribeEnvelope's Oscars smackdown over Angelina Jolie in 'Changeling'
Our new blogger at The Envelope, Scott Feinberg, disagrees strongly with my assessment of Angelina Jolie's shot at getting an Oscar nomination for "Changeling" and has invited me to spar with him.
OK, so let's put the gloves on and go at it, just for fun, like we're in the ring in Clint Eastwood's earlier Oscar heavyweight, "Million Dollar Baby."
First off, to back up Scott's disappointment in Angelina Jolie's screen turn, he comes out swinging with quotes from Manohla Dargis of the New York Times, who refers to Angelina's "waxworks performance." Hey, Scott: why did you neglect to quote Dargis' subsequent assertion? Even she concedes in that same article, "It will doubtless earn Ms. Jolie another shot at an Oscar."
The other reviews Scott cites are all from second- or lower-tier Internet media. Is that fair? Other Web reviewers like Emanuel Levy cheered her "strong, dramatic performance." Let's see what other major media have to say, please, when they pipe in soon. One already has, which you fail to quote. When "Changeling" debuted at the Cannes Film Festival last May, Variety's Todd McCarthy hailed her "top-notch performance" in a film that's "emotionally powerful and stylistically sure-handed" and "impressively continues Clint Eastwood's great run of ambitious late-career pictures." READ MORE
Doubtless, reviewers will continue to disagree somewhat on Angelina Jolie's performance, but I think it's clear, based upon the enthusiastic response "Changeling" received at the press screening we both attended at the New York Film Festival last week (where I perceived "huzzahs galore," yes), that reax will generally be good.
What matters next is what Oscar voters will think and, to predict that, we have lots of tea leaves. We know that they adore roles based upon real-life people (four of the five past best-actress champs), especially when they're crusaders battling injustice. We also know that Clint Eastwood has an impressive history of scoring Academy Award nominations and wins for actors in his films, as you and I both ticked off.
All of that certainly hikes Angelina's hope of being nominated, assuming she garners some more top rave reviews like Variety's.
The chief wild card -- and lingering mystery -- is what voters think of Angelina herself. That's what I largely dwelled upon in my original article that got you riled up. Why didn't she get nominated last year for "A Mighty Heart" after reaping bids from the Golden Globes, SAG, Critics Choice and Indie Spirits? It's possible that those notorious snobs within the academy now think less of the star they gave an Oscar to back in 1999 for "Girl, Interrupted" because of her life in the tabloids since.
However, despite all of the media attention she's received over the past few years, she has managed to dodge personal scandal and she's comported herself with class and integrity while being a generous philanthropist who seems to be striving to save the Third World one adopted child at a time.
But it's also possible that she didn't get nominated for "A Mighty Heart" because of other factors. While reviews of her performance were stellar, the movie flopped at the box office because studio execs decided to open it wide (they should've gone limited) at the wrong time of year (summer), which is months before the commencement of derby season. Furthermore, as I point out my piece, "A Mighty Heart" may have been one more casualty of its theme: war in the Mideast. Many similar flicks like "In the Valley of Elah" and "Charlie Wilson's War" fell short of Oscar expectations.
At this early point, before "Changeling" opens in theaters and more major-media reviews are out later this month, these are the chief points we can weigh. And they're fun for Oscarologists like us to noodle, because we're sick that way. That's all I did in my original blog piece.
Soon we'll know more and can take further blog jabs at whether her Oscar hopes are brightening or dimming. So let's agree to meet back in the ring then, OK?
(Photo courtesy Universal Pictures)
She is trash. Make her go away PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ELLLA | November 28, 2008 at 01:57 PM
I just finished watching the movie. I must admit that I cried, two hours out of the two hours and twenty min flick. I knew a little about the story but how no idea nor was I prepared to dive in so deep with emotions such as sadness, betrayal, anger and feelings of somehow I had lost my son specially after dancing for two hours at Madonna's concert last night.
I think that AJ is just fantastic. She can go from Tomb Raider to Ms. Smith to Mighty Heart to Changeling all with ease.
Yes, She is constantly publized and is not by choice. People want to know about her personal life. She nor Brad want the spot light but that is part of the beautiful life that they have chosen together. Its so beautiful, its almost unreal. What is real however is her talent. Her talent as an actor that is so big and bold that you somtimes forget the beauty. She sucks you in in every character she plays and she infatuates you with her personal life. Hey, some people just got it all. Oscar is coming for her and if its not, F the oscars as it will not be the first time that it has been disappointing. I mean come on, Juno's actress over Elizabeth's Cate B??!!! And if she doesnt win, its ok to her cuz she has has her oscar and her emmys and her other nobles causes. Let just accept the women as she is- talented, kind, and beautiful and yes, a bit crazy which just adds to her charm. Good Luck AJ.
Posted by: neda | November 07, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Angelina is over rated. Her popularity stems from her personal life. She is her own publicist and she is good at getting alot of attention. The attention she garners is what is important. I think actors that keep their personal lives private add to a mystery that works. Meryl Steep, Paul Newman, Sally Field etc... they all kept their families out of the lime light. That tells me it is possible. We looked at just the actors not their lives and all the phony publicity that goes along with it. Angelina goes so far as to expoit her family. Brad Pitt will suffer because of all her publicity stunts as well. If she is not nominated I think it is because Hollywood knows this and she has lost that respect she needs to win such an award.
Posted by: Justme | October 25, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Now that Dargis's review in the NYTimes has come out, it's pretty obvious the woman has it out for Jolie. Even David Denby in the New Yorker (a publication that has negatively reviewed Jolie's performances in the past), wrote that Jolie "gives a skilled and selfless performance." Dargis, on the other hand, describes Jolie's performance as "exhausting" and says Jolie "hurtles through 'Changeling' as if it were the latest installment in the Lara Croft action franchise." I mean, those are pretty disparate opinions, and Dargis's Lara Croft comment strikes me as a bit...condescending? In review after review (from A Mighty Heart to Beowulf to Jolie's bit part in A Good Shepherd), Dargis has been at the helm, sneering at Jolie's various performances, even when she's supposedly being "positive" (in AMH, which Dargis liked, she wrote that "Jolie is..as much a distraction as a pitifully easy target"). Dargis, will you pease stop using your reviews to work out a thinly veiled personal vendetta with the actress, since it's gone beyond unprofessional and is frankly uninteresting?
Posted by: sarita | October 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Angelina deserves to get another Oscar nomination. If she doesn't get one, then it only means one thing. Oscars suck!
Posted by: thirdie palma | October 12, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Yes, tabloid press does make a difference, whether we want it to or not. Angie is falling into the trap where the viewing public no longer see her as the character on screen; they see her as Angelina Jolie. This is the same trap Tom Cruise fell into, and he is a terrific actor. If a serious actor wants to remain a serious actor, they have to find a way to distance themselves from the paps. Or, perhaps, not make themselves covers of magazines. She did this to herself. No tears from me.
Posted by: Dianne | October 11, 2008 at 03:49 PM
I think, like most awards, the Oscars are all fixed well in advance, and the films are not even watched by the people responsible for handing them out.
Angelina definitely did not deserve to win an award for Girl Interupted, and I doubt her performance in The Changeling will deserve a win either.
But as the actors who are truly talented rarely win the awards, I expect Ms Jolie is making room for another trophy.
------------------
Jolie was phenomenal in Girl Interrupted. It's her second best performance after A Mighty Heart.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 at 01:31 PM
ITA.. Jolie deserved an Oscar for A Mighty Heart. I think her tabloid overexposure was the biggest factor of her snub. Other factors include the bad reviews of the film (not her performance) and the box office flop. Jolie's performance was way better than Ellen Page's in Juno.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Anyone who uses tabloids as an arugment to question an actress' crediblity is an idiot. 20 years from now Jolie will no longer be the tabloid IT girl. Nicole Kidman was the tabloid IT girl of the 90s, and she's now one the most respected actresses. 20 years from now there will have been new favourite tabloid targets. The future generation won't have a hard time seperating celebrity from her character because they weren't around during Jolie's peak at the tabloids.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 at 01:27 PM
Laura Linney didn't deserve a nomination for Best Actress last year and Ellen Paige's nomination was very. very questionable. Wei Tang's performance was astonishing for a first film and she had no noms because her film was NC-17. The Oscar process is highly flawed and becoming a horse&buggy award.
Posted by: Jules | October 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I don't think pursing your big lips and staring into the camera with that "I'm-so-gorgeous" plastic face is acting. She just irritates the living hell out of me. Pretty? I guess. But she constantly babbles about herself (pretentious) and her life (image driven) and her family (contrived coolness but not really) and her work (overrated hack acting)...blah, blah, blah! SO BORING! She didn't get nominated because she's simply not THAT great of an actress...good, but not GREAT...Great is like, Meryl Streep...Glen Close...Helen Mirren....those ladies (and they are truly classy ladies) are great actresses. Jolie is okay in a pinch but she is guaranteed in all her movies to, at some point, pout and stare into space with that weird stare she does...Ugh. So sick of her.
Posted by: CC | October 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Less than 1% of actors get nominated, not to mention win an oscar. Angelina Jolie is already in that 1%. Chances of winning a second oscar are even rarer. There are more important things in her life than another statuette.
Posted by: dupe | October 10, 2008 at 08:28 AM
Last year Cate Blanchett got mixed reviews (most critics writing that she chewed the scenery) in a bad movie (Elizabeth:The Golden Age) and, yet, she was nom'd twice.
Bad reviews do not mean no nomination.
PS, why she was nominated last year. People may have really like her performance, but not enough to rank 1 or 2. I think there were 4 women last year getting 1s and 2s in the oscar ballot rank (all but Cate). And, it probably just happened that cate ended up making the cut over Angelina, but I bet it was close. So that doesn't mean that the Academy doesn't like Angelina. Which would only help her more this year.
Posted by: BryanSamo | October 10, 2008 at 06:48 AM
I think, like most awards, the Oscars are all fixed well in advance, and the films are not even watched by the people responsible for handing them out.
Angelina definitely did not deserve to win an award for Girl Interupted, and I doubt her performance in The Changeling will deserve a win either.
But as the actors who are truly talented rarely win the awards, I expect Ms Jolie is making room for another trophy.
Posted by: victoria | October 10, 2008 at 06:45 AM
Manohla Dargis has always had problems with Angelina's fame (beauty?) and devalues her performances. She has slammed Angelina every since her days at the LA Times. In my book that creates a conflict of interest and Ms. Dargis should elect to have others review Ms. Jolie's films from now on, since she is (self-confessed) not able to separate AJ's acting from her persona (beauty?)! Dargis had previously done a hit job on AJ's performance after the screening at Cannes. Will she do another when "Changeling" premieres?
Posted by: Katya | October 10, 2008 at 12:02 AM