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 »

Experts split on who'll win Oscar's best actress derby

December 19, 2009 |  4:17 pm
SAG Awards nominations-2

The Oscars' lead actress race is wide open, according to Brad Brevet (RopeOfSilicon), Michael Musto (Village Voice), Mark Olsen (The Envelope), Richard Rushfield (Gawker), Susan Wloszczyna (USA Today) and me. Check out pundits' predictions for best actor here and best picture here. Contenders are ranked according to their likelihood of winning.
 

BEST ACTRESS Brevet Musto Olsen O'Neil Rushfield Wloszczyna
Meryl Streep, 'Julie & Julia'

2

4

2

2

1

1

Carey Mulligan, 'An Education' 

3

2

2

Gabourey Sidibe, 'Precious'

3

1

3

3

Sandra Bullock, 'The Blind Side'

4

5

3

 

4

Helen Mirren, 'The Last Station' 

2

4

4

Abby Cornish, 'Bright Star'

   

 

 

5

   

RELATED POST

Oscar pundits predict best-actress race

Photos: "Julie & Julia" (Columbia), "The Blind Side" (Warner Bros.), "Precious" (Lionsgate), "An Education" (Sony Pictures Classics)

Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Comments

Jess! I don't think Meryl should win because she is overdue, but because she gave a brilliant performance in Julie & Julia (and also in It's Complicated, but there is no way that film would be considered by the Academy at any level, of course).

For the 15 Oscar nomiations - it is NOT an obligatory Meryl slot, she is just that good. That's why it is so sad she hasn't won on any of the last 12 occasions. I'm not saying anybody robbed her of an Oscar, but being nominated so many times without winning is a result of Academy voters (and also the audience) taking for granted the steadily delivered great-to-brilliant performances by Merly Streep, so nobody actually considers the real possibility of her winning. It is sad, and happens all the time to subjectively judged performances (unlike a run race, e.g.).

There are great performances by Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe this year, but I think they have to prove themselves with more roles until they get the award. Only the two of them can be in the final race with Meryl and she has already proven that it is not only this particular role she can play very well but she is a versatile actress who is indeed excellent in yet another film, Julie & Julia.

I truly think is Meryl the one who will win at the Oscars, however, her PR's need to catch up and lock that thing already because Sandra Bullock is coming with a fierce force out of nowhere. She was the most vulnerable of the group of locked. Now she is really at second place, right behind Meryl. Sandra does have an ENORMOUS support in Hollywood . People like her. She has the Julia, Reese factor. They both won playing true story characters.
Meryl will win the globe for Julie and Julia. And if Sandra wins for the blind side it will be a 2 way race all the way to the oscars based solely on popularity not performance. how exciting!

Mark my word? To begin, I am not sure where this so-called backlash would come from? Because neither critics or fans vote for the Oscars. And the AMPAS have always had their own selective rules of reward - and that's the thing that makes them interesting. It is actually her fellow actors within the Academy who has decided to give Meryl Streep a record 15 nods. And I do not see the Oprah comparison? The Emmy’s have nothing to do with the Oscars. Different set of voting rules altogether. And a talk show host is vastly different than an actor playing different roles in different films. The only actor I have ever heard of trying to withdraw his name from contention, was George C. Scott for Patton – and he ended up winning Best Actor that year. Meryl Streep has received some of her best critical precursors since Sophie’s Choice. Julie and Julia has made a lot of money at the box office. And at 60, she is considered one of the most bankable actresses working today.

I can't help but guffaw at some of the comments from Meryl's super-fans. First, let me say upfront, Meryl is indeed one of the greatest actors and is a sheer delight in everything. That said, the comments of "Meryl should have won for this or that, but instead someone else was given it for 'being due'", and then in the same post mentioning that it's been nearly 3 decades since she last won and therefore SHE is due (and not only that, but to win for a flimsy, lightweight film), that is hilarious. By that theory, then she would be taking someone else's Oscar and the Academy will later on have to take someone else's Oscar to give it to the other person who should have won originally. You see this domino effect? It does happen already, but does it make it right? That's the very reason people on here are crying foul over Kate Winslet's (over Meryl no less).

Meryl WILL win again one day, but not for tripe like Julie & Julia. She can do better than those unfunny romcoms she's been churning out far more than sharp, smart dramas lately. She needs a meaty, juicy role and then we'll talk. She will be a placeholder yet again this year for the obligatory Meryl nomination slot. Mark my words, if she gets nominated this year for Julie & Julia or even for It's Complicated, there will be Meryl backlash. It's been building for years with all the asides and subtle jabs I see every time she gets a nomination. She should be gracious like Oprah and no longer allow her name for submission for awards.

And now I'm going to be flamed for having a differing opinion, huh.

Who's going to win: Meryl
Who should win: Meryl or Carey Mulligan

I'm just hoping there isn't going to be some terrible mishap like last year's Kate Winslet win (whoever thought her portrayal of an Eastern European was incredible obviously hasn't seen "Sophie's Choice").

The awards have become about who's overdue or who knows who or who campaigns the best, but if it came down to who really deserved their award for their individual performance it would have to be Carey Mulligan. But I'm okay with Meryl winning, because she's always amazing and "Julie & Julia" without her would have really sucked.

Julie Christie lost the Oscar because of her unpopularity in Hollywood. She had often going on record loathing Hollywood, acting, awards and had refused to join AMPAS. She even said she wasn't sure if she was going to show up the year she was nominated for Away From Her. I am not sure how overdue she was, since she's only had 4 career nods. It's ironic, because I remember the buzz after Chrisite lost, that if Meryl Streep had played that role, she would have easily taken the Oscar. Meryl Streep is extremely popular in Hollywood and she was likely going to win a 3rd Oscar at some point. She is now also getting great reviews for It's Complicated. And in the last few years, her career has going through a resurgence and she has become a big box office draw.

I think Meryl will finally get her 2nd lead and 3rd Oscar this time. Love you Tom! You are so great!

Streep should have won last year but everyone decided that Kate Winslet was overdue (and, anyhow, you just can't say "no" to Harvey Whine-stein). Ergo, this year it'll be an overdue Meryl who triumphs in a role she could have played in her sleep. Unless I overlooked something, no one who's posted here has even mentioned Abby Cornish in "Bright Star" (Richard Rushfield, I salute you!). Her's is the performance that SHOULD win in this category but no one has seen it, and so...

"Doubt"
"The Devil Wears Prada"
"Adaptation"
"Music of the Heart"
"One True Thing"
"The Bridges of Madison County"
"Postcards from the Edge"
"Ironweed"
"Out of Africa"
"Silkwood"
"A Cry in the Dark"
"Sophie's Choice"
"The French Lieutenant's Woman"
"Kramer vs. Kramer"
"The Deerhunter"

Add "Julie & Julia" (and "Angels in America", though cable, not theatrical). Need I say more? But I will. Even though some weren't "Oscarworthy", there were brilliant bits in each of her "losing" performances. I don't even think some of Hepburn's nominated/winning performances come close in quality ("On Golden Pond"? 'nuf said.) And Meryl shows up to each ceremony! It's been a long, long -- too long a -- time since "Sophie". 27 years.

My only fear is the Marion Cotillard-over-Julie Christie "babe/newcomer" factor. While Cotillard's was certainly a wonderful performance in "La Vie en Rose", Julie was the favorite going into the awards, too, and wasn't she overdue, too?

First off, Meryl Streep is beloved in Hollywood. She has gotten some of her best career reviews and Oscar precursors for Julie and Julia since Sophie's Choice. And she also can be considered the sentimental favorite. Both Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe are Hollywood unknowns. They would have been much stronger candidates if either had swept the precursors (like Helen Mirren did a few years ago). And the fact that Mulligan failed to do that, especially when she was considered the critics’ darling doesn’t bode too well for her at all. Meryl Streep is guaranteed to win the Globe. Whereas neither Mulligan and Sidibe are. And here's interesting fact about the SAG – for Lead Motion Picture Actress, they have yet to give this award to a Hollywood unknown. Even if Mulligan wins the BAFTA, I don’t think it will be enough to overtake Streep.

I think Meryl Streep is going to take it because she should have won for both Doubt and Adaptation, but Sandra Bullock should come in and steal it because she should have been nominated for and won for her amazing performance back in 2005. Gabourey and Carey still have a long career ahead for both of them because these are their debut roles and the Oscar voters will never give a newcomer Best Actress or Actor, and I don't know who else is going to get nominated, but Meryl Streep is going to win for It's Complicated because she deserved at least 3 more Oscars other than the two she won over her 33 year career.

Hepburn was right in that the Academy seems to have a cummulative sense of fairness. When it seems that someone has been overlooked, or overlooked for some time, Academy members seem to vote for a 'body of work'. Denzel Washington deserved an Oscar for Malcolm X and his turn in Philadelphia was a much more complex role than Tom Hanks played. He was overlooked for both of those roles, but when Training Day came around, the Academy gave him the award he deserved. Al Pacino is another... Kate Winslet had been nominated multiple times for the Oscar. Her role in The Reader was not her best work, but it seems the Academy thought she deserved her shot at the Oscar. Meryl Streep actually had a better role last year. This is definitely Meryl's year.

I want Gabby to win!! First, she's pitch perfect. Second, when is Gabby ever going to get another role like Precious? Honestly, Hollywood will make her lose 300 pounds before they give her anything of substance. Tyler Perry will put her in his movies, but Hollywood doesn't take him seriously, so they in turn don't take his actors seriously. Just like they have the Latin Grammys, maybe it's time to have the Non-Hollywood-Insiders Oscars and get some fresh, different faces, backgrounds, and abilities up on that stage.

I have to say, Meryl is LONG overdue and utterly beloved in Hollywood. I don't know that anyone in the Academy would DARE vote for anyone else. All the other performances are a one-off. Bullock still has lots of time to win an Oscar. I predict it will be a Meryl win and a long, long standing ovation at the podium. You watch.

I would like to comment on winning on the wrong movies, how can we explain Kate Winslet's win last year for The Reader? I preferred her performance for Rev Road. Whether its for It's Complicated or Julie & Julia, this is the right time for Meryl Streep.

What The Great Kate said was true for her--she won for the forgettable "Morning Glory", but most of her truly great performances were snubbed; of her winners, only "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" is even on the map of her greatest roles. But then it's not true for everyone.

Frankly, Oscar tends to prefer the ingenues here; that narrows it to Gabby vs. Carey, and in that case I say it goes to Gabby. However, if they decide to honor the veteran instead, it'll be Meryl vs. Sandra (Helen's Oscar is too new), with Sandra having the edge as Leigh Anne Tuohy is her Erin Brockovich.

I take exception to another comment made here. It is true that Katharine Hepburn said that you always win for the wrong movie. It is also true that was the case with Hepburn with at least two of her four wins and it is certainly true of Bette Davis' two wins and probably a number of others (Jessica Lange in Tootsie and Blue Sky for one!), but it is not true of Streep. She has won one supporting and one leading Oscar each and she emphatically deserved both. While I would have preferred to have seen her win for a few other roles since then, her performance in the lightweight Julie & Julia would not fit into Hepburn's statement either. Because her role here does not require great depth has nothing to do with the fact that her performance is literally flawless.

Meryl Streep. I actually think this is one of the easiest categories to predict. She is a beloved Hollywood icon. She's had her best showing in a long time with the precursors. Julie and Julia was a box office success. And she is overdue for a 3rd Oscar.

I love Meryl to bits , so can never do wrong , But this is Sandra's year. the film is hanging on and grossing more than anyone thought it would. And its all because of her performance.Carey is no Hepburn. even though critics have said she is. Audrey was a one and only . Carey can't touch her

If Bullock wins it, I'm going to vomit. Go, go Carey Mulligan.

If "It's Complicated" makes a killing at the B.O., that will certainly help Meryl's chances as well. Not to mention that her co-stars from the movie are hosting the Oscars.

Katharine Hepburn said you always win for the wrong movies (which was true in her case) and if Meryl wins for Julie/Julia it will be true for her as well. I know this is an unpopular view but I didn't think this was an Oscar worthy performance (and in a different year not even worthy of a nomination). I'm not saying Meryl Streep isn't one of the best but I really hope her third Oscar doesn't come from Julie/Julia.

A few months ago, when an Education and Precious were just out and the buzz was on those films, I thought that, once again, Streep was gonna lose. And there was still the unknown factors of Saiorse Ronan in The Lovely Bones, Hilary Swank in Amelia, and the actresses in Nine.

Now, with the dust settled, it seems clear to me that Streep is the front runner.

First and foremost, Streep was great in Julie and Julia, and was popular with the public as well as critics.

Second, Streep has huuuuuuge goodwill and sentiment behind her. The standard take on Streep at the Oscars now is that she is way overdue for another leading Oscar win.

Third, in previous years, there has always been someone who seemed more deserving at the time, or who had more buzz. Winning an Oscar is all about timing -- who happens to be your competition this year. This year, I don't think that Streep has any serious competition. People who want to give Precious an award will vote for Mo'Nique. I don't think there are many people who will want to tick "Precious" in two acting categories. And let's face it, Gabourey Sidibe is just not typical Oscar fodder. It's hard to know what kind of career she will have after Precious. As for Carey Mulligan, she is too new. This performance, full of charm, definitely has "it's an honour just to be nominated" written all over it.

The Streep steamroller has begun. She'll win and get a standing ovation for a career in which she has excelled at heartbreaking tragedy and high comedy.

I think that once Meryl won the New York Film Critics Circle, it obviously boosted her chances. She has other critics' awards - Boston, Southeastern, New York Online etc. as does Carey. But Carey doesn't have a major critics' group. She lost the LAFCA (being the runner-up), she wasn't a real factor in the NYFCC voting. And there is real sentiment for Meryl. Critics obviously want to see her win that third Oscar. At the age if 60 Meryl Streep is a critics' darling, a box office queen and still gets nominated all the time. I think that it's her year and I thought that since the enthusiastic critical responses to her performance when the film premiered. It's also noteworthy that she managed to keep all the buzz through the summer. And none of Meryl's competitors have enough steam right now to overtake her. Being overdue goes a long way. And critical love for a performance that wasn't expected to be winning many critics' awards (especially the majors) happens from time to time and it means a lot in terms of Oscars (think Reese Witherspoon winning NYFCC and NSFC for Walk the Line).

Gabourey Sidibe and Carey Mulligan have problems in terms of Oscar. They're both too young and unknown. And in terms of the precursors they don't the huge support everyone expected them to have. Meryl is the sole of them to have won a major critics' award and she got many other as well alongside Mulligan and Gabourey.

As a Meryl Streep fan I am always pulling for her, don't want to sound stupid but please help me understand these numbers that these critics are giving to these actresses, what they mean??

 


Stay Connected:


Advertisement


About the Blogger


Pop & Hiss



Categories


Archives