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 »

Will Kate Winslet split her Oscars votes and ultimately be — yikes! — snubbed?

November 5, 2008 | 11:31 am

Just got an interesting e-mail from my pal Tariq Khan, a journalist at Fox News who is an ace Oscarologist. He's worried that poor, Oscar-overdue Kate Winslet (five losses so far) might end up getting totally shut out this year despite having two strong roles in the running. Or, actually, because she has two roles, which could split her votes.

It's happened often in the past. Think Michael Douglas in 2000 ("Wonder Boys," "Traffic"). Tariq cites a lot more examples. If you want to check out his prowess at Oscar prognostication, read the perfect predix he penned last year for Fox News HERE.

Below, Tariq's e-mail:

Kate_winslet_oscars

Kate Winslet may very well emerge as a double Oscar-nominee this year, for best lead actress in "Revolutionary Road" and best supporting actress in "The Reader." However, there's also a very real possibility that her name could go unannounced on nomination day.

If members of the actors branch decide that she's clearly leading in both films (as they might do), she faces the danger of splitting her high-ranking votes on the nomination ballots. If half of her supporters vote for her for "Road" and the other half for "Reader," she could end up without enough points to score in the top five. And with the best-actress race looking as fiercely competitive as it does now (Meryl Streep in "Doubt," Anne Hathaway in "Rachel Getting Married," Angelina Jolie in "Changeling," Kristin Scott Thomas in "I've Loved You So Long," Sally Hawkins in "Happy- Go-Lucky" and Cate Blanchett in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button") Winslet needs every vote that she can get.

If this does happen, Winslet can take consolation in the fact that other actors have suffered the same tragic fate. In 2003, Cate Blanchett had strong lead roles in both "Veronica Guerin" and "The Missing." She received a Golden Globe nod for the former, yet more Oscar campaigning for the latter. She ended up with Oscar nods for neither, being bumped by dark-horse contenders Keisha Castle-Hughes in "Whale Rider" and Samantha Morton in "In America." I firmly believe that if Blanchett had only appeared in one of those films that year, she would have been nominated.

In 2001, Billy Bob Thornton gave acclaimed performances in "Monster's Ball," "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "Bandits." He was named best actor for all three by the National Board of Review, and earned Golden Globe nominations in the dramatic category for "Man" and in the comedy category for "Bandits." He seemed a good bet for an Oscar nod too. But when the honors were announced, Thornton's name was nowhere to be found. I suspect that he probably just missed for "Monster's Ball," losing the slot that went to Will Smith for "Ali." If "Monster's Ball" had been Thornton's only film that year, I think that he would have made the cut.

In 1994, Meg Ryan was cast against type as an alcoholic in "When a Man Loves a Woman," surprising both critics and fans who had never seen her in such a dramatic role. The film was released in May and earned Ryan some well-deserved Oscar buzz. At the end of that year, Ryan appeared in the comedy "I.Q." and somehow generated Oscar buzz again. (1994 was a terrible year for actresses, so it seemed possible that a comedic performance by a popular actress might actually be recognized.) Ryan received a SAG nod for "Woman," but was eventually snubbed at Oscar time. Without a clear Oscar focus and votes spit between two films, she lost out to the less-worthy Winona Ryder in "Little Women" and Susan Sarandon in "The Client."

(Weinstein Co., Paramount, Buena Vista, USA Films)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Comments

Another interesting thought when an actor has two strong movie roles is when they actual do get nominated for one of those roles. I forgot what year it was but Richard Dreyfuss was in both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Goodbye Girl got nominated for later and won. Same year Diane Keaton was in Looking for Mr. Goodbar and Annie Hall and got nominated for later and won. When that happens do you think Oscar voters have a tendency to vote for them for their collective work for the year, even though they are only being recognized for one role?

But this brings up an interesting question. What if she TIED herself with an equal number of #1 votes in, say, the main category for both films? I think, in that case, they aren't both disqualified & then they go to the #2 choice. Right?

AJ, the Academy rules clearly state that an actor can get only ONE nomination the SAME category. EVEN if her performances in both films get the required number of votes, only the performance which first gets the the required number of votes gets the nom. Which is why studios try to push one in supporting and one in lead.

BTW I must also add that in 2005, it happened to Kate too. She did manage to get nominated for 'Eternal Sunshine', but lost out on 'Finding Neverland'.

But to be really honest, I don't think the other examples really work. I remember most sites predicting that Cate would NOT be nominated for BOTH performances in 2003, so there was no surprise there.

Ditto Billy Bob in 2001. I don't think he was ever a serious contender for Bandits, or 'Man who wasn't there'. Sometimes, a GG nomination means absolutely NOTHING.

As for Meg Ryan, I don't even remember her being considered for IQ. I don't think that played a part in her not being nommed for 'Woman '. There were just better performances, and honestly, her no-nomination at the Oscars was expected.
The only good example as someone pointed out, may have been Scarlett in 2004. Though again, realistically, she was only expected to be nommed for 'Lost in Translation', and not for 'Girl', the confusion over her whether her role on 'Translation' qualifies as lead or supporting, and some votes for 'Earring', might have cost her a nomination for 'Translation'.

There's also the notable example of Scarlett Johannsen, whose 2003 star turns in "Girl with a Pearl Earring" and "Lost in Translation" were both snubbed by the Academy.

I have a question that I would love to be answered! Say an actress or actor gets enough points to be nominated for two films in the same category. Will they be nominated for one of the films or just left off completely? What about in the unlikely event that they have received equal points for both roles?

Tom: As great as Ryan was in "When A Man Loves A Woman" to say that her work was more deserving than Ryder's luminous, career-best performance as Jo March in director Gillian Armstrong's powerfully resonant adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's enduring classic, "Little Woman," and Sarandon's commanding, movie-elevating (not to mention movie-stealing) turn in what's arguably the shrewdest and best film adaptation of any of John Grisham's potboliers is, in my honest opinion, plain wrong. It's true that 1994 was a horrible year for actresses, no arguing that absolute fact. But I think that Ryan's fine work would have been overlooked come Oscar nomination time had the film been released the year before, in 1993 (an amazing year for actresses on the big screen) or the year after in 1995, which was also amazing. So amazing, that a number of primo turns were overlooked, namely Nicole Kidman in "To Die For," Angela Bassett in "Waiting to Exhale," Annette Bening in "The American President," Jennifer Jason Leigh in "Georgia," Kathy Bates in "Dolores Claibourne," and Jessica Lange in "Rob Roy," among others. But I wouldn't say that any of the eventual nominees were less deserving. It's all in the luck of the draw who'll land nods and who won't. Any given year you have the usual bridesmaids, the newbies, the flavors of the moment and the one-hit wonders. How about organizing a small, uneven numbered panel consisting of yourself and other experts or Gold Derby regulars that go back as far as the 1950s and right some past wrongs by awarding what you all feel are the films and performances that should have been recognized. Not just lip service, I mean actually go back and re-evaluate the Oscars from as far back as you choose and hand out your own hardware to the people (or their estates) and films that were actually the best of that given year. Lord knows I'd love to right some wrongs from the past 25-30 years myself.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:


About the Blogger


Pop & Hiss



Categories


Archives
 



In Case You Missed It...