Categories One-by-One: Leading Actress

[Sonic Youth]

The race seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Cate Blanchett is the type of foreign language nominee that the Academy loves to honor with a nomination but no win. Many great actresses like Catherine Deneuve, Isabelle Adjani, Fernanda Montenegro, Penelope Cruz several times. and of course Yalitza Aparicio have been honored similarly. It's a lovely gesture, and it demonstrates how broad-minded and far-reaching they are. Blanchett is in good company with many other great foreign language actresses.

Wait! You say she wasn't speaking in a foreign language? Trust me. To most of the voters, she was.

[Okri]

It's always dangerous to let your own opinion slip over into your predicting, but since you sort of ask:

Cate Blanchett's "hook" is that she gave a performance for the ages, easily the best of the year, and everyone damn well knows it.

I let my own opinion slip in all the time and am fine with it [aka, why I'm sticking with Farrell despite evidence to the contrary]. In this case, my opinion is that I'd rather someone won their first Oscar than someone else win their second/third. Like I'm confused that Renee Zelwegger won her second Oscar in the year that Scarlett Johansson finally broke through and Saoirse Ronan got her fourth nomination [especially since, for all intents and purposes, she became somewhat of a joke]. Frances McDormand winning her third over Mulligan rankled (especially since each of her wins has come from terrific races - Watson, Ronan and Mulligan would be undeniably thrilling winners). I don't quite get how Mahershala Ali stomped over the competition in 2018. Heck, I still get cranky about Waltz in 2012 and that race ended up requiring someone win their second (or third) Oscar. I think Blanchett is extraordinary in Tar - one of the all time greats delivering one of her all time greats.

You mention Bogart vs Brando. I think another example might be Lancaster vs Fonda in 1981. Burt Lancaster won the three biggies but Fonda, the sentimental choice, took home the oscar. I mentioned before that if I was a voter in that race, there's no chance I'm not voting for Fonda over Lancaster despite Lancaster delivering the better performance in the movie I prefer. That year also had the feeling of righting previous wrongs (I genuinely am startled when I realize Fonda's poor Oscar history and can rant about that for a while if allowed to).

[Eenusch]

I cannot see EEAAO getting three acting Oscars ala A Streetcar Named Desire.

I think Supporting Actor is a lock.

Then, if it gets Supporting Actress, that's it and Cate wins.

If it misses Supporting Actress, Yeoh's chances are better.

If it only gets one acting award I think it misses Best Picture.

[Mister Tee]

It's always dangerous to let your own opinion slip over into your predicting, but since you sort of ask:

Cate Blanchett's "hook" is that she gave a performance for the ages, easily the best of the year, and everyone damn well knows it. I honor Michelle Yeoh's career, I'm happy for her she's getting some time to be feted...but, from the moment her film opened, I never heard "She gives a great, Oscar-worthy performance" -- I heard "She'll never have a better chance to win an Oscar". Now, there have of course been such cases as this where said actress did win -- Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, for a start -- but usually in years where there was no truly luminous competition, or where the opposition was split. In my view (and I don't think I'm alone: witness the three legacy critics' groups, BAFTA, even the Broadcasters), Blanchett is seen as clearly deserving it, but Yeoh is someone for whom many would like to do something nice. (And that it gels with the racial zeitgeist just now of course makes it more appealing.)

It could happen -- the pundits have swung wildly to Yeoh after her SAG win. But that seems wildly premature: the Colman/Hopkins wins of recent years suggest BAFTA's less-sentimental ways can be more likely to hold sway (at least outside best picture). I'm still leaning Blanchett. But it should be close, which is fine with me.

I've been trying to think of precedent for such a win -- passing over the one widely thought the best, in favor of someone whose victory made voters feel good -- and I came up with one that might surprise you: Bogart in The African Queen over Brando in Streetcar. Circumstances weren't identical, of course -- it was Brando's first nomination, and he was recompensed many times over in years that followed. But, in emotional terms, it was similar: I have no doubt voters were gleeful that the popular Bogie was finally a winner. But, when we re-voted this in our poll, we made Brando the overwhelming choice, because of course we did -- and so should they have, then. Should Yeoh prevail, I'd expect history to make a similar "I get it it, but wrong in every way" judgment.

A quick word for the irrelevant three: I keep waiting for Williams to get a screen role comparable to her Fosse/Verdon one; I'd have voted for her for that without hesitation, but, so far, I wouldn't have chosen any of AMPAS nominations... It does seem to speak to the strength of biopics just now, that de Armas could slip in with a nomination for a film that so many people loathed so deeply... I certainly saw that Riseborough HR cover, but I think, otherwise, she's been rather quiet (work, unfortunately, kept her from the nominee's luncheon). I haven't heard if she'll be attending next Sunday night. If she doesn't, I'll wonder if this whole thing might have been a net negative in her head; she certainly hasn't got the bump a standard mid-fame-range actress would have from such an honor.

[Big Magilla]

I cannot envision someone who ranks the film highly on their best picture ballot voting for anyone else [on the other hand, I still just don’t know how highly EEAAO is going to place anyway]. But I also wonder if the news about how the film was originally meant for Jackie Chan and only reconfigured into a vehicle for Yeoh after hurts her a little. It makes the film feel less like her achievement and more like the Daniels’ achievement. I also wonder when it comes to these tenured but international performers just how deep the impact they made on Hollywood. I know they’ve been around much longer, but I’d predict that most voters had seen more than 3-4 Charlotte Rampling or Isabelle Huppert films – whereas I have a hard time believing AMPAS has seen anything other than Crazy Rich Asians, Tomorrow Never Dies, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Memoirs of a Geisha.

An interesting perspective.

As to your first point, it depends on how high they rate it. If at they rate it at no. 1, yes, they will probably vote for her over Blanchett. If, however, they rate it 3rd or 4th, they may be inclined to vote for someone else, that someone else being Blanchett since as you point out, this is a two-woman race.

As to your second point, Oscar history is filled with performers winning for roles turned down by more famous actors. The fact that the screenplay was retooled to her plays to her strengths and popularity within the Hollywood community.

As to your third point, older voters will probably have seen more Rampling ad Huppert films, but that shouldn't be an issue. They know who Yeoh is.

Yeoh has had the momentum with younger voters since EEAAO film opened but Blanchett has had more support from older voters since Tár opened. Anyone on the fence would probably think that Blanchett is more likely to have another Oscar friendly role on the horizon than Yeoh so give it to Yeoh while we have the chance. The question is how many voters are on the fence?

[Okri]

On a side note, do you really think Riseborough’s career benefited from her nomination? I tend to disagree. The so called “grass roots” campaign probably worked against her. She has done almost zero appearances after nominations day. I think she will fade into oblivion.

I'm more referring to the size and profile of her future roles, but I also don't know what you mean by appearances. She gave a fairly lengthy interview to The Hollywood Reporter, for example, which was also the cover . I think she's too talented, canny and ambitious to fade into oblivion, to be honest.

Link to interview: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235325509/

[mlrg]

I think it’s a toss up between Yeoh and Blanchett. One of the closest best actress races I can recall.

In the end I think Blanchett will prevail based on the international base of the academy.

On a side note, do you really think Riseborough’s career benefited from her nomination? I tend to disagree. The so called “grass roots” campaign probably worked against her. She has done almost zero appearances after nominations day. I think she will fade into oblivion.

[Okri]

Okay, diving in.

Cate Blanchett – Tár
Ana de Armas – Blonde
Andrea Riseborough – To Leslie
Michelle Williams – The Fabelmans
Michelle Yeoh – Everything Everywhere All at Once

De Armas and Riseborough will get career boosts from this nomination but no victory (if Blonde was more well liked I wonder if it would’ve happened for her but a different universe). I said before that I doubted Williams would ever win and I don’t think she’s going to prove me wrong this year. It’s a fight between Blanchett and Yeoh.

Nathaniel Rogers at the Film Experience, when pointing out why Yeoh got nominated, described the film as “like a feature length FYC reel for her inimitable gifts.” And I think that is as astute an insight as we’ll get for this race. And honestly, I cannot envision someone who ranks the film highly on their best picture ballot voting for anyone else [on the other hand, I still just don’t know how highly EEAAO is going to place anyway]. But I also wonder if the news about how the film was originally meant for Jackie Chan and only reconfigured into a vehicle for Yeoh after hurts her a little. It makes the film feel less like her achievement and more like the Daniels’ achievement. I also wonder when it comes to these tenured but international performers just how deep the impact they made on Hollywood. I know they’ve been around much longer, but I’d predict that most voters had seen more than 3-4 Charlotte Rampling or Isabelle Huppert films – whereas I have a hard time believing AMPAS has seen anything other than Crazy Rich Asians, Tomorrow Never Dies, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Memoirs of a Giesha. The Criterion Channel is doing a “Michelle Yeoh Kicks Ass” playlist/celebration in March so I’ll check out a couple more of her films and maybe voters will too. But I just don’t know how much genuine affection or historical admiration there is for her. But on the other hand, like Nathaniel’s comment implies, if you’re looking for a hook – this performance has loads of them. And they really liked the film.

Obviously, we know they like Cate Blanchett. Eight nominations has her tied for tenth of all-time nominated Actors. And as AMPAS showed, they responded to TAR much more than we anticipated, with cinematography and editing nominations. She gives a hugely raved performance that could also be called a feature length FYC ad for her gifts. If she was going for a second win, I think it would undeniably be hers. But a third win? I want to hypothesize that third wins are difficult to achieve, but then I realize that of the 7 performers to win three Oscars, only Streep and Nicholson had nominations in between their second and third win – the rest won on their first post-2nd win nomination. Then I want to hypothesize that they’ve become easier to win recently – indeed, Blanchett would be the fastest of anyone since Brennan to win a third and Brennan is a weird outlier. That said, if we go back to dws’ comments about hook, what’s the hook for Blanchett here to win? She’s amazing in a very Blanchett role, but it’s not a comeback, it’s not a biopic, it’s not a career award. I also wonder now that the film is going to be tested with all of AMPAS how much everyone loves it – we’re seeing guilds lining up to throw victories at EEAAO. We’ve already mentioned how post-nominations functions almost as a reset for parts of the race and films have gotten tripped up by that reset as of late and I wonder if TAR could come off as too intellectual/pretentious to a certain segment of voters who just don’t grock with ambiguity.

Don’t want to decide yet, but I’d love to hear other thoughts.