This is exactly how I felt, but I never really had hope that Academy voters would choose Ronan. If Academy voters weren't going to vote for Saoirse Ronan for Brooklyn or Lady Bird, they weren't going to vote for her for a part they already saw Winona Ryder and Katherine Hepburn play and passed on, even though Ronan is very good.dws1982 wrote
I'm still a Ronan voter in Best Actress, but I think Zellweger is very, very good. I could definitely understand someone saying that her performance is not at all naturalistic and is full of tics and mannerisms, but I think that is probably in keeping with someone who is as drug- and alcohol-dependent as Judy Garland was at that stage of her life, and there's also genuine brokenness and vigor to her performance that I found really moving.Yes, the real-life situation of Zellweger as the past-her-prime star playing the past-her-prime star probably adds some resonance to the film and the performance (as does the fact that everyone watching the movie knows that Garland is at the end of her life) that Zellweger doesn't actually contribute through her acting, but honestly, Best Actress awards have been given out for much, much less.
Watching Judy, I didn't feel like I was watching a caricature. I felt like I was watching something more personal, more interesting, but also just a bit tiresome. That's mainly the fault of the script, not her, for failing to give her much of interest to do. But it's not like anyone in that lineup was terribly robbed, so... moving on.