When I think of the male performances of the year I think there is Leonardo DiCaprio and everyone else. Setting aside Michael Fassbender, for the moment, Michael Shannon, Gary Oldman and Woody Harrelson – those actors who transformed themselves into wholly other people, I am still left with what Leo did with J. Edgar Hoover. I know that it isn’t the popular choice right now for one of the best performances of 2011, but I do know it’s one I can’t forget.

The scene that stays with me most is the one between DiCaprio and Judi Dench. She creepily tells him about a young boy they both knew who was ridiculed for being a “daffodil.” “I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son.” The statement so final, so cold, so terrifying cemented any potential openings for Hoover to have lived outside of a lie. As his mother took him in his arms and vows to teach him “how to dance,” so does Hoover know then that he’ll be “dancing” for the rest of his life. Whatever he did behind closed doors was and remains a secret. But dancing doesn’t require anything more than putting on a show.

Even those who are taken aback by DiCaprio’s makeup and odd vocal patterns in the beginning eventually must admit that, at some point during the movie, he becomes compelling, believable, and heartbreakingly altered. DiCaprio’s J. Edgar is one of his best.

The Best Actor race this year appears to be filled with likable heroes. The darker portrayals aren’t going to be embraced as much, for whatever reason. Perhaps in times of strife – economic and otherwise – the Oscar race forms around more soothing films. DiCaprio in J. Edgar is similar to Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady. Both Hoover and Margaret Thatcher were complex, not well liked people in real life. The trick to playing them, therefore, was to find and reveal their vulnerabilities.

It becomes difficult to decide how to feel about them by the end because neither performance gives you an easy interpretation of whom the actors believed their characters to be. I guess what we always look for is some kind of sweeping judgment: good or bad. It isn’t that simple, as it turns out. Both actors are heavily ladened with makeup and both characters require a love story to pull focus from their own daily political decisions. Since both films are told from the main character’s point of view, the films aren’t really required to take a position so much. They’re attempting to earn our compassion, to erase our preconceived notion of who they are in order to see them from a different perspective.

It was recently discussed on NPR as to whether he portrayed Hoover correctly, and apparently what he captured best was how fast Hoover talked. It’s not often you get an actor in any year working that hard to build a character.  While Streep is earning praise for having done a similar thing, DiCaprio, I feel, has not.  I can’t speak to whether or not J. Edgar was an accurate portrayal of Hoover. Nor can I speak to whether DiCaprio ultimately captured him. But what I do know is that DiCaprio’s acting was deeply realized. He showed a side of him he’s never revealed before now.

Here is some praise for his performance:

This man was closed down, his face a slab of petulance. He was so uncharismatic that it’s possible to miss the brilliance of Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in “J. Edgar.” It is a fully realized, subtle, persuasive performance, not least in his scenes with Armie Hammer as Tolson. In my reading of the film, they were both repressed homosexuals, Hoover more than Tolson, but after love at first sight and a short but heady early courtship, they veered away from sex and began their lives as Longtime Companions. The rewards for arguably not being gay were too tempting for both men, who were wined and dined by Hollywood, Broadway, Washington and Wall Street. It was Hoover’s militant anti-gay position that served as their beard.

J Hoberman:
Hoover has already been splendidly embodied by Broderick Crawford in Larry Cohen’s 1977 pulp masterpiece, The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover. But with prosthetics simulating Hoover’s bulldog look, the better to enact the FBI man’s bulldog tenacity, Leonardo DiCaprio turns out to have been a quite canny casting move. With his own celebrity presence, DiCaprio successfully promotes the movie’s idea of Hoover as a star (rather than the squat balding troll familiar to anyone who grew up in the ’60s), even as he makes convincing the sexual ambiguity crucial to the Hoover conceived by Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black.

Load More Related Articles
Load More By Sasha Stone
Load More In Leonardo DiCaprio
  • Juan

    He was great, his performance deserved a better film

  • Casey

    Couldn’t disagree more. Leo was good (in a horrible film), but the male performance of the year is Peter Mullan in Tyrannosaur!

  • I still think he could win, his real competition is

    – Clooney who won recently
    – Pitt whose performance is probably not flashy enough for the Academy
    – Dujardin who is a relative unknown

    And then there is DiCaprio, who excels EXACTLY the kind of juicy, flashy performance the Academy LOVES to embrace. If J.Edgar was a viable bp-contender, it wouldn’t even be a question, but because it isn’t – and The Descendants, The Artist, Moneyball most certainly ARE – we consider Dicaprio fourth-fifth. I think he could take the SAG Award…and if he takes that…

  • Awesome performance in what I feel is a masterpiece of a film, which because it was a gay film, basically, coming from Eastwood, all the het male critics dumped on it, because they couldn’t deal with what it was saying about gender and being in the closet.

    Kudos to Leo and Clint AND Armie Hammer! He could surprise in Supp. Actor and I keep hearing that the Academy liked “J.Edgar” Remember the Academy ARE NOT CRITICS, thank goodness!

    They live on their own planet and they’d like to think it’s Planet Hollywood when it’s more simply Planet Oscar, where all bets are off and all rules are theirs and known(but probably unconsciously)only to them. And they answer to no one, but…Harvey.

  • Zach

    This year is a real test of whether you would rather award an overdue actor giving an immersive, even terrific performance in a subpar movie or a more likable/lovable actor and character given a more secure narrative. What makes a performance better or “best”? Is it the most transformative, the most unique, the most credible, the most relatable, the most expressive?

    A little off-topic, but I’m finding it a double standard that some people can’t get behind Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (and then usually favor Viola Davis) because Thatcher was such a terror (granted, they condemn the movie for glorifying her), whereas in our own country J. Edgar is infamous and yet nobody cites his character as a reason for not backing Leo. Granted, they don’t have to, since the movie itself is so weak and Leo given so little to do.

  • Sasha, your opening sentence mirrors my thoughts exactly and the article as a whole gives welcome recognition to a brilliant actor turning in a heartbreaking performance. The “be my little speedy” scene (which also included the daffodil speech Sasha refers to) was the most memorable in my mind of any film this year. And despite some flaws, J. Edgar was a fine film that reached a higher plane thanks to Dench, Hammer, and of course DiCaprio. I don’t think I’m overstating things by calling him the Paul Newman of his generation.

  • By the way, am I the only one who thinks this new rule favors EXACTLY the kind of film that is J. Edgar ? I mean it won’t be a problem if it doesn’t get many No2s, No3s etc, it ‘just’ needs 5% No1. In the old system it would have had a shot, but are we really that sure that despite the disappointing reviews, there isn’t an Eastwood-fanbase in the Academy that could secure that crucial 5 % No1 ? I will have J. Edgar as my NGNG pick for bp.

    Here is an old comment : This might be the biggest surprise…first of all, don’t let the critics’ scores fool you : the RT-score is ridiculous (or at least that 41 looks rather irrelevant considering the average rating is 5.8, and in the top critics-section it is 6.7), and though the MC-score isn’t stellar, either it IS slightly better than The Reader’s which received picture, director, screenplay nominations AND lead acting victory. What should be also emphasized, that most of the critics who ‘matter’, liked/loved the film : Kenneth Turan, Roger Ebert, Lou Lumenick, Manohla Dargis, Todd McCarthy, Peter Travers. Considering how much the Academy seems to love Eastwood, I firmly believe we should NOT count out J. Edgar just yet…Eastwood could EASILY have that 5% fanbase in the Academy. By the way, The Reader-comparison might be more accurate than we thought : both films revolve around controversial/arguably pure evil lead characters, the stories span lifetimes therefore both heavily rely on ‘old’ makeup, both were written and directed by top talent and yet both received mixed reviews despite the onpaperperfect Oscar-concept… then of course we underestimated both and though the jury is still out on J.Edgar, The Reader surprised in the main categories…when there were only 5 (!) bp-slots. I think if Leonardo DiCaprio can pull a ‘Winslet’ (overdue actor finally takes the lead category for an arguably evil/controversial role in a film that received mixed reviews yet got nods in the main categories) and becomes the frontrunner, J.Edgar is destined to pull a ‘Reader’, as well…we’ll see!

  • jude

    Excuse me, but Michael Fassbender “transformed into another person”? What does it mean? Fassbender portrays a fairly normal person, sex addiction aside, Brandon is a normal joe. Di Caprio plays Hoover under a ton of make up. Please explain your sentence, as I see little sense in it, sorry!

  • Stefan

    phantom, always a pleasure to read your analyses. I mentioned to a friend just last week that I regard Leo as the potential frontrunner this year. However, with regard to bp I want to pull out a different rabbit from the hat. How about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close? As far as I understand ELIC is a love-hate movie, which could get the 5%. And with Daldry directing, it embraces the Reader-analogy even more than J. Edgar does…

  • Dan

    DiCaprio gave a terrific performance and worthy of an Oscar Nomination. It’s stiff competition this year though. Clooney gave easily one of his best ever performances in Descendants.Dujardin is the probable front runner and deservingly so. Oldman in Tinker, Tailor had one of the best performances of any actor in the past several years. Fassbender was amazing in Shame (which was a very average movie itself). Pitt gave a very good performance in Moneyball but I don’t think it has that “uumph” to win it. Harrelson is completely insane in Rampart and like Cage in Bad Lieutenant he may get snubbed but I hope not.

    Right now I’d rank the the top 3 for Best Actor at the Oscars as this:
    1. Dujardin
    2. Clooney
    3. Oldman/DiCaprio

  • Tero Heikkinen

    J. Edgar was a solid film. At least it felt better after Invictus and Hereafter. I didn’t care for those at all.

  • Robert A.

    See, I think this new voting rule hurts a movie like J. Edgar. It’s difficult for me to believe that enough people are going to have it ranked at #1 or #2. I also don’t buy the argument people make that the Academy “loves” Clint. I mean, I did buy that argument…back in 2004. Clint’s heyday with the Academy seems like it was 2003-2006, but since then the Academy hasn’t been exactly clamoring to shower his movies with awards. I highly doubt a large number of voters are automatically going to be listing J. Edgar #1 just because it’s a Clint Eastwood movie. Who do they think they are, the NBR?

    I also think the comparison with The Reader is a little off. For one, The Reader by this point in the race was starting to pop up in a few places. It was nominated for Globe Drama BP. It did well with the BAFTA nominations. Despite the myth that The Reader just popped out of nowhere to get nominated for Oscar BP, there were indications that it was stronger than people were giving it credit for. In fact, I seem to remember a post Sasha wrote in which she was saying, “Don’t discount The Reader.” But J. Edgar…I mean, in terms of picture, it’s made almost a zero showing other than being listed on NBR’s Top 10. It didn’t show up in the critics awards, it didn’t get a Globe BP nomination, it’s not popping up on the guilds. The BAFTA longlist was just released and J. Edgar wasn’t even in the Top 15 for Best Film. I mean, this support for J. Edgar, if it’s going to happen, has to come from somewhere, and right now there’s zero evidence it has any support except for Leo in Actor and maybe an outside chance for Hammer in supporting.

    I can’t imagine Leo winning Best Actor for J. Edgar. I’m not even fully convinced he’ll get nominated. I’m expecting he will, but I wouldn’t be that surprised if he isn’t. He made the BAFTA longlist but right now he doesn’t look like he will receive a BAFTA nod: BAFTA actor leaders right now are Clooney, Pitt, Dujardin, Fassbender, and Oldman. Again, I expect he probably will squeak in with the Academy. But he’s definitely vulnerable for even a nomination.

  • I hated Leo in this…Thought I’d hate him when I saw the trailer, and hated him when I saw the movie. So disappointed, because I’ve liked him more and more with almost every performance he’s given in the last few years.

  • Bobby C

    Haven’t seen J. Edgar yet (waiting for it on video) but Di Caprio should have won years ago in The Aviator. My favorite male performances this year are: Dujardin, Fassbender, Gosling, Clooney and Pitt. Haven’t seen TTSS and Take Shelter.

  • Question Mark

    This is the first time in several years that the Best Actor race has been so wide-open. Usually there’s one major front-runner who’s a lock (Firth last year, DDR in 2007, Whitaker in 2006) or it’s a two-horse race (Penn and Rourke in 2008, Penn and Murray in 2003). It’s also relatively unusual to see so many of Hollywood’s biggest stars all in the running at the same time.

    This star-studded field helps Leo the most, since voters can’t help but compare him, Pitt and Clooney. Clooney’s performance, while good, isn’t much more than a variation on his usual role. Pitt does a good job in turning Billy Beane into a real character and it’s different from his ‘usual role’ (though Pitt is more of a chameleon than we give him credit for). DiCaprio, however, totally transforms himself into Hoover’s personality and is clearly the standout of these three men.

    So DiCaprio will edge out the big names, but now the question is if he can overcome the hot new names of the moment like Fassbender, Dujardin and Gosling.

    Best Actor will be either DiCaprio, Pitt or Dujardin. If Artists gets more and more momentum on its side, Dujardin will likely be carried along as part of the sweep.

  • Jesus

    I am not a Leo fan but he really wowed me with this role. Oh and P.S. J. Edgar is a severely under-appreciated film. It contained a great gay love story that I really felt for.

  • Not Harrison Ford

    Wow I can’t believe how many people insist this is a good movie. The script was one of the worst, it lacked cohesiveness and did not teach me or make me feel anything about J. Edgar. I felt the character was just there. Leo did not overcome the scripts many flaws. He is a movie star, we know how he speaks, acts and looks. He is not an impressionist, he worked so hard on speaking in a distinct style that it distracted me and took his focus away from creating subtleties. Leo is a good actor and there are scenes where it shows, but as a complete performance it is severely lacking.

    Leo will get a nomination, but he won’t win. The nom will just go to show that people reward the film, character and actor over the performance.

  • Stefan

    ‘Loud and Close’ could surprise, you’re right. If it IS LOVE/HATE, there might just be enough LOVE for that 5%. Although it would have been helpful, if the incomplete mediocre critics scores wouldn’t have available during the whole voting process, now even if those 40s,50s end up in the 60s-70s, it will be irrelevant.

    Robert A.

    We know that Eastwood’s recent films (Hereafter, Changeling, Gran Torino, Invictus) didn’t make the bp-cut in the old system, but are we really that sure that none of these had the 5% No1 or at least close to it ?

  • nechoplex

    If enough people had seen Shame, then Michael Fassbender would be without a doubt the frontrunner in the Best Actor category. But with such a polarizing film he isn’t even a lock, which I think is criminal. But then again, his brilliant performance for Hunger was also criminally overlooked.

    I don’t think Leonardo DiCaprio will win. He should get nominated as he gave an amazing performance, but his performance isn’t what the Oscars seem to be about this year: and that’s about awarding likeable men. Besides, there’s seem to be more people who hated J. Edgar than those who even liked it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t even get a nomination. If he gets a nomination over Fassbender then that’s also extremely insulting.

  • JP

    Haven’t seen J. Edgar. Hope Leo’s performance is better than the Aviator, which I though awful and one of Scorsese’s worst films.

  • JP

    @ Phantom

    Considering Changeling and Grand Torino were from the same year, I think none of those had enough number 1 votes. They probably splited votes. if there was the old top 10, Dark Night, WALL-E and Doubt would definitely be nominated. I’d say Revolutionary Road and The Wrestler would be the other 2 exactly because of this split. In the new system, there would probably be 8 nominees only this year.

    Invictus probably didn’t… the Academy members didn’t fall in love with it. The weakness of Invictus is that it was supposed to be remarkable and it’s just a good film. A typical film that may have gotten lots of number 4,5… not number 1 and even in the old system, number 1’s were really important to make a film nominated. Invictus lost its spot to non-typic Oscar movies like Up, District 9, A Serious Man, to a overrated british film, An Education, and to… The Blind Side. Blind Side was I think took Invictus out of the race. Two sports movies, but the first was a big hit and that got people emotionally unvolved with. If this new system was applied that year, I guess only H. locker, Avatar, Basterds, Up in the Air and Precious would have been nominated.

    Hereafter definitely didn’t. Critics didn’t really like it.

  • koook160

    I despised this performance with a passion. I’d go as far to say this is the worst performance of the year. Don’t get me wrong, I love DiCaprio, but this was just painful to watch.

  • g

    I thought DiCaprio was amazing! Definately deserves a nomination, and I am okay if he doesn’t win because I know his ship will eventually come in!

  • austin111

    In a fair contest, all the best actors would be nominated. By that, I mean the usual (Fassbender, Clooney, Pitt, Dujardin, Oldman) but also DiCaprio, Shannon, Bechir, and probably a few more that I haven’t seen yet. I actually think limiting to 5 actors is insulting especially in a year when so many actors were so wonderful (this happens quite often, actually). But it’s been boiled down to some sort of competition, which is awkward and silly. It’s all about the favorite performance, which isn’t necessarily the finest. Still that’s the way the world works. I never watch the oscars anymore due to this. The pre-show stuff is where things are actually somewhat entertaining. Everything else is sort of fluff.

  • Awards Fan

    The Oscar’s are supposed to be about rewarding the best performance of the year, not whose turn it is to win. Like if someone received 1 or 2 previous nominations but didn’t win, then it’s their turn to win. That’s nothing to strive for. It’s just a scam. Why have a best actor category, why not just give an honorary Oscar to a good actor and skip the contest?

    Every year we go through this, and in the Best actor category, it’s rarely the best performance that wins.

    I doubt the Academy is brave enough to reward Michael Fassbender when you have Decaprio & Pitt having previous nominations and no wins, and George Clooney having only a best supporting actor Oscar. It’s so depressing to see all this on Oscar night. But I keep hoping it will be different this year.

  • Simon Warrasch

    My question is: Can Leonardo DiCaprio win like Adrien Brody won in 2003??? Adrien won for “The Pianist”. In my opinion the best Male Performance in 2003 and “The Pianist” was definitely one of the best Movies in that year!
    In 2003 everbody thought that either Jack Nicholson will win for “About Schmidt” (he won Critics Awards, Golden Globe and Critics Choice) or Daniel Day Lewis will win his second Academy Award for “Gangs of New York” (he won the Golden Sattelite, Critics Choice, Bafta, SAG and the most Critics Awards in that season). Adrien Brody has won only Boston and National Society!!!!

    Can Leonardo win against the favourites who are George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Jean Dujardin?? We will see! And i wouldn’t be suprised if he will because the Academy has awarded in the last years some suprise winners like in…

    2000 Hilary Swank won over Anette Benning (Hilary won the GG, BFCA, GS and the most Critics! BUT Anette won also Critics, the SAG and the Bafta and “American Beauty” was a lock for a win in Categories like Picture, Director and Screenplay! So… It was a surprise but no other actress has deserved to win except Hilary Swank!)

    2001 Marcia Gay Harden won over Kate Hudson, Judi Dench and Frances McDormand (Kate won the GS and the GG! Frances won BFCA and Judi won the SAG! Marcia didn’t get nominated for the SAG, GG, GS and for the Bafta! So..! That was a huge suprise! But she deserved that oscar more than any other actress who was nominated in that year!)

    2002 Denzel Washington won over Russel Crowe (Ok Russel has won the year before for a stupid role! In 2001 Javier Bardem should have won for his phenomenal work in Julian Schnabel’s Masterpiece “Before Night Falls” but in 2002 Russel should have won out from the nominees because he was the best and he also won GG, BFCA, SAG, Bafta and the most Critics awards in that season! All over Denzel! So…)

    2002 Halle Berry over Sissy Spacek (Halle won the SAG! Ok, but Sissy won the GS, GG, ISA, BFCA and the most Critics in that Season! She was the favourite! But in that year Naomi Watts should have won for “Mullholand Drive” but she didn’t get nominated! So..)

    2003 Adrien Brody won over Jack Nicholson and Daniel Day-Lewis

    2006 Crash won over Brokeback Mountain (Brokeback Mountain won all Awards that year and Crash won the Oscar! What!?!!?)

    2007 Alan Arkin won over Eddie Murphy (Alan won the Bafta but Eddie won the BFCA, SAG and the GG! Those three Awards are the most important you can win before the Osar and Eddie won all of them! So… By the way Leonardo DiCaprio should have won for “The Departed”. He wasn’t nominated so..!)

    2008 Marion Cotillard won over Julie Christie (Thank you soooooooo much Academy for this decison! Marion was definitely the best in that year! THANK YOU!!!!)

    2008 Tilda Swinton won over Cate Blanchett and Ruby Dee (Cate won GG, ISA and Ruby won SAG both over Tilda! So…)

    2009 Sean Penn won over Mikey Rourke (Ok Sean won BFCA and SAG but most of the people thought that Mikey will win!)

    2010 Sandra Bullock won over the Rest (Ok Sandra won the GG, BFCA and SAG but Hey for that role and for this movie!! C’mon!)

    You see everything is possible at Osar Night!

  • Robert A.

    @ Simon:

    I just don’t see a Leo win happening. I think Adrien Brody and The Pianist was a much different case because the Academy obviously really loved The Pianist. The movie received 7 nominations, including Best Picture, and it won director, screenplay, and actor. It was probably pretty close to beating Chicago for BP. I think Brody got swept along on The Pianist surge. It didn’t hurt that Nicholson had been doing a little stumping for Brody around Hollywood (does anyone else remember that–magnanimous Jack praising Brody’s performance?).

    So unless there’s some J. Edgar surge for Best Picture (all but impossible at this point, I think), I’d say the two cases aren’t really comparable, and Leo is probably not going to win. First we have to make sure he’s even nominated.

    Plus, most of those cases that you cite as surprises weren’t really that surprising. Not everyone thought Mickey Rourke was going to win, for example, in 2008. It was pretty evenly split between whether you thought Penn would get it or Rourke, but Penn did have the SAG win and so the advantage. I, for one, was pretty confident that year that Penn was going to win. In fact, the only two you mentioned above that were really surprises were Brody’s win and Crash’s win for BP, and there were even murmurings going around about Crash defeating Brokeback before it actually happened.

  • austin111

    Leo will have a tough time being nominated I think. If he is, it will be a kind of victory beyond just winning. I think the stampede is on to nominate certain actors for certain films and J. Edgar simply isn’t one of them. It’ll get appreciated later down the line I suppose. It’s not an easy sit, after all, while most of the others are. Too bad. You can’t get past the herd mentality, even where critics are concerned. Just look at what happened last year. Social Network should have won in a landslide but didn’t. Great movie called out by a good movie with a more likable and moving plot and characters. And, of course, the critics are always right. RIGHT???

  • steve50

    “Both Hoover and Margaret Thatcher were complex, not well liked people in real life. The trick to playing them, therefore, was to find and reveal their vulnerabilities.”

    To this point, I think that Leo actually exceeded Streep, probably due to the fact he was wrapped in a better script and film overall. It is his best performance since Gilbert Grape, perhaps ever.

    It’s tough to get past the characters they play, though, especially if you lived though their shenanigans. I guess the fact that both are/will be serving time in the seventh circle of Dante’s hell for what they did to others will fade with time. (sorry – I watched Hunger again last night)

  • Pierre de Plume

    Leo was good in J Edgar but that’s about it. I don’t think he has a prayer in hell of winning. Comparisons of this film, Oscarwise, to The Reader or The Pianist don’t work for me. Both of those films had the German/WorldWar II catnip factor (yes, I’m being cynical). What J Edgar has is a repressed central character who is difficult to play because we know so little about him. The screenplay, though well-intended, had neither the substance nor deep enough insight to make the experience truly worthwhile. Leo/Dench/Hammer gave it their best shot, but that’s about all.

  • Lee

    I couldn’t agree more! It’s an unforgettable performance.

  • austin111

    Leo was much better than good in J. Edgar and like a few critics who actually watched the movie, I have to agree that it was probably the best adult performance he’s given. However, one must bow to what is inevitable at this point. I see it this way — Pitt is the likely winner followed closely by Clooney. Dujardin after that. Fassbender, a revelation in Shame, is a nominee only this time out, with likely wins in the future. Oldman gets the “due” vote, but will be a nominee only — his performance was excellent but perhaps a little too underplayed to play into a win (honestly, I know people who fell asleep during TTSS). Leo should be in there and might be, but only if there is a god. Shannon, too, was superb and deserves to be nominated rather than shunted aside. Harrelson could slip in, though, on the strength of a fine performance and his general popularity in the acting community. So these are the most likely with a straggler here and there (Bechir?) who could be a dark horse contender. Sometimes the academy is happy to hand a nod to someone who has no way in hell of winning.

  • steve50

    I have a very dark feeling that Fassbender, Shannon and Harrelson will all be left off the list. I think Leo is going to be safely included in the final five, but not for the win. Although he gave a great performance, I’m not particularly upset by this because I think the stars are – rightly – aligned for Pitt this time around. There are rumblings that he may be packing it in soon, with regards to acting, so that would add more weight to choosing him this round.

  • Jay

    I don’t think he’ll win but he definitely deserves a nomination.

  • Awards Fan

    So there’s another reason to give someone an Oscar, because they are threatening to leave show business. That’s a new low. Golly I sure hope Pitt doesn’t win, let alone win because we may not see him acting anymore so we have to reward him so he won’t leave. His head is big enough.

    Please, this year, can someone with no vanity or need to impress win?

  • Mattoc

    Have not see Leo’s performance so I cannot judge. I have seen a fair few and there is none better that Woody in my eyes. It ‘s not my awards and they can pick what they like, but I’ll be fucked if I’ll let any of them choose a video on movie night…

    Fuck you and your bad taste, now go and stare at the picture of yourself on my wall…fuckball.

  • Raphael

    Leo is my favorite actor, i wish he win, but i think that academy will do like Colin Firth, nominee this year and give him next year for Django Unchained or The Great Gatsby

  • helena

    I feel Leo’s performance in J Edgar is as worthy of an Oscar nomination and win as the other mentioned contenders.

Check Also

Predictions Friday – Manchester and Moonlight Get a Boost

*Updated this to rework screenplay, as Moonlight is considered original. I also altered ad…