I know, sort of like saying green plants like sunlight. But nonetheless, one of our readers, Phantom, lays out the (mostly) grim statistics. I remember Gold Derby’s Tom O’Neil telling me that “this Emmanuelle Riva” talk was crazy and that the actresses win are CTLF. Contenders they’d like to…you get the idea. There was no way Jennifer Lawrence was losing — her main competitors, all save one, were older than she was. So I guess next time I will listen to Tom O’Neil instead of thinking the best performance always wins (it hardly ever does, right?)
From Phantom:
1997 – Helen Hunt (34) vs. Judi Dench (63)
1998 – Gwyneth Paltrow (26) vs. Cate Blanchett (29) (twentysomething top2)
1999 – Hilary Swank (25) vs. Annette Bening (41)
2000 – Julia Roberts (33) vs. Ellen Burstyn (68)
2001 – Halle Berry (35) vs. Sissy Spacek (52) vs. Judi Dench (67)
2003 – Charlize Theron (28) vs. Diane Keaton (58)
2004 – Hilary Swank (30) vs. Annette Bening (46)
2005 – Reese Witherspoon (29) vs. Felicity Huffman (43)
2007 – Marion Cotillard (32) vs. Julie Christie (66)
2008 – Kate Winslet (33) vs. Meryl Streep (59)
2009 – Sandra Bullock (45) vs. Meryl Streep (60)
2010 – Natalie Portman (29) vs. Annette Bening (52)
2012 — Jennifer Lawrence (22) vs. Emmanuelle Riva (86), Naomi Watts (44), Jessica Chastain (35) and Lil’ Q (9)
Maybe we could give them voter viagra or something and that might help them vote for older women? Helen Mirren is one recent exception because even at her age she’s still a CTLF. Meryl Streep finally beat Viola Davis — I guess we don’t need to go over that one, right?
Riva’s co-star (who I actually think carried that movie) didn’t even get nominated. That was more of a crime if you ask me. He was passed up for the likes of Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington, and Bradley Cooper. So the movie-star good looks thing does go both ways. Daniel-Day Lewis and Christoph Waltz are good looking dudes. And so is Ben Affleck for that matter and his co-producer George Clooney. Being attractive goes a long, long way in Hollywood – male or female.
With that being said, Streep won last year. Portman was an easy choice in 2010. Bullock was in her mid-40s playing a mom and beat an attractive young Carrey Mulligan (who was incredible) playing a sexualized teenager in 2009. Winslet was overdue and she also beat Hathaway and Angelina Jolie. And Jessica Chastain was always Lawrence’s most realistic competition. She’s better looking than Lawrence. There isn’t a clear-cut case on that list. If Riva had been a hot 20-year-old she might have won. But then again, if she’d been in an English language film she might have won. If she’d been in a film directed by David O’Russell instead of Michael Haneke she might have won. There was a lot at play here, just like in the Best Picture race, just like the Best Actor race, etc. It wasn’t so simple.
I’m not naive and I’m not going to deny that there is superficiality and sexism in Hollywood. But I don’t think that’s why Lawrence won. I think Lawrence won because her serious competition was flawed (from the Academy’s point of view – Riva was old and French, Chastain’s film was tainted, Naomi’s film wasn’t that great, and it’s hard to give it to a 9-year-old) and because SLP was Cinderella. The fact that she’s 22 and good looking and most people personally like her? That didn’t hurt.
Just to throw my two cents into this over-heated thread. To point out that Hollywood commonly gives the Best Actress Oscar to young actresses at the start of their career is not sexist. It’s simply a fact. It’s not to say these young women didn’t deserve their Oscars, it’s just to point out what seems obvious looking through all of Hollywood history.
Bette Davis won her Oscars at the beginning of her career and then never again, for instance. Audrey Hepburn won for a charming role in 1953 but did not win for her more mature and more deeply felt later roles. Grace Kelly beat Judy Garland, Judy Holliday beat Bette Davis and Gloria Swanson. Etc….
Take a look at photos of this years winners: two men with gray hair and two young and lovely women.
Finally, I have to get this off my chest: Reese Witherspoon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Nicole Kidman, Natalie Portman were not the best performances by an actress in their years. (Note to haters: Just my opinion. You’ve stated yours, I’ve now stated mine).
One last thing (I know, won’t he ever shut up?): Oscars do not go to the best performances of the year – or very rarely do. That should be obvious to everyone by now. “Oscar” does not necessarily equal “Quality.”
Now I’ll shut up.
Oh and I’m wth Kane on this one. Helen Hunt is definitely an attractive woman.
May I offer an alternate hypothesis, if you want win play a real person, the more well known the better. Since 2000, the best actress Oscar has gone to people playing June Carter, Edith Piaf, Virginia Woolf, Queen Elizabeth II, Margaret Thatcher – all high profile public figures, not to mention less well known but still real Erin Brockovich, LeeAnn Touhey and Aileen Wuornos. If you’re keeping count that’s 8 of 13.
Add to it nominations for portrayals of Queen Elizabeth I, Marilyn Monroe, Frida Kahlo, and Julia Child.
And it’s not just the women. Look at the Best Actor nominations since 2000 – portrayals of Jackson Pollock, the Marquis de Sade, Muhammed Ali, Ray Charles, J.M. Barrie, Howard Hughes, Johnny Cash, Nelson Mandela, Richard Nixon, Idi Amin, Edward R. Murrow, Harvey Milk, King George VI, Mark Zuckerburg, Truman Capote and Abraham Lincoln. Six winners in that group.
Sure it may be that historical figures or cultural icons also have interesting stories to tell which in turn make good films, but I can’t help thinking that by playing a well known person so much of the character definition is already done for you, especially if you have a great hair and makeup department. (Seriously was The Iron Lady even a good film?)
IMO playing a character that you have to create from whole cloth and get an audience to care about them is much, much harder than immersing yourself in the role of someone we already know in a sense. Just my two cents.
I follow you on Twitter and could not pinpoint exactly what you had against Jennifer. I don’t disagree with statistics. But beyond age and sex, each movie (and its actors) resonates with each person differently. And being human – yes, human – voters are influenced by other factors. Maybe the older voters watched Amour and it depressed them to see ER staring into space and spitting at her husband. SLP had an upbeat ending and JL did a great job. Maybe that was a positive factor. I agree with the posters who say don’t blame Jennifer – all she did was play Tiffany. She also happens to be funny and relatable. On another note, it seems strange to block JL superfans and not her superhaters. Analyze what you want, but slamming a young girl who is also a very talented versatile actress and attacking her character (and background?) is just wrong. I am a mother of two daughters who finally have some good young role models, including Jen L, Emma W, and Emma S. I appreciated all of the nominees performances and would have been happy with any of the winners – but I was definitely rooting for Jennifer.
I think that Ellen Burstyn should have been nominated for supporting role. She would’ve won.
The concept of “fuckable” Oscar nominee is a durable meme that was created on this site many years ago and it’s hard to pretend that it’s not a thing when we look at 90% of the immensely talented women who have been nominated for Best Actress, both lead and supporting. Granted, that’s a result of — lo, and behold! — some of the prettiest women in the world who rise so fast in the ranks in the Hollywood star machine. (sorry, Ann Dowd! tough luck!)
If Lensley Manville were younger (though it wouldn’t have suited her role) she’d have been nominated for Another Year – the most heartwrenching performance I’ve seen in years. You’re definitely right – if an actress is stunning *and* talented, she gets a nom. If she’s talented, she better how another celeb campaigns for her.
@Ryan, I am gone for 1 night–1 NIGHT and you tell a reader to beat off to a screen capture? Well played my friend! Nearly spit up my breakfast, then I’d be short a breakfast.
For the record I’ve always found Helen Hunt to be attractive. She ages pretty naturally and gracefully.
I wanted to leave a comment about how much I disagree with this theory (since I agree with most of these wins that were listed, including Lawrence), but I LOLed so hard ah this:
“JoJoDancer, if you’re planning to harass me much longer, pretty soon you’ll realize it was a bad idea to use your employer’s email domain.”
Ryan is a Lisbeth Salander.
Sorry, silly me.
Forget it.
I do think it’s insulting to actresses to credit their wins to their fuckability, specially when we have performances as fantastics as Portman’s, Cotillard’s, Swank’s, yes, Roberts’, et cetera
Brian
With all due respect, if we take into consideration, that Jennifer Lawrence played a textbook Oscar role (hot, likable, endearingly neurotic) that had the luxury of remarkably Academy-friendly, flashy crazyscreamingcrying Oscar scenes, in THE crowdpleaser of the season AND with Harvey Weinstein in her corner, now looking back the most surprising realization is that she didn’t pull off a clean sweep (Critics Choice, Bafta), ESPECIALLY because her biggest ‘rivals’ were
– Jessica Chastain who played a remarkably NOT Oscar-friendly role (a tough, unlikable, no-nonsense, emotionally crippled female who has to convey emotions with silence and only a look or a muscle in her face) in a genre film that received unprecedented criticism and controversy
– at the time 85 year old Emmanuelle Riva who played a role that barely allowed her to speak or move, so she basically had to deliver her performance from the neck up without words…and all that in a foreign language film
– and last but definitely not least, Naomi Watts who was in a genre film and if the fact that the Academy NEVER recognizes performances in disaster films wouldn’t be enough of a damaging factor (not even when the film in question is an Academy-fave (Titanic)), like Riva, she had to play her character from the neck up, as well.
Bottom line : Beautiful and likable Jennifer Lawrence was in a Weinstein-crowdpleaser playing a beautiful and likable role, meanwhile Chastain was in a controversial genre film, Watts was in a disaster movie and Riva in a foreign language film, all three playing remarkably unconventional (=NOT textbook-flashy) performances, so as I said, the fact that Best Actress wasn’t a clean sweep, is a miracle.
Nevermind that Jennifer Lawrence won the Golden Globe, SAG, Satellite, and Independent Spirit award for best actress as well.
JoJoDancer, if you’re planning to harass me much longer, pretty soon you’ll realize it was a bad idea to use your employer’s email domain.
jojodancer
bonanza
back off
I didn’t insult a beautiful woman, I insulted Helen Hunt.
I’m devastated by my ban. Wait. Stop. Please. Don’t ban. With my iPad and Kindle and Nook and IPhone, how will I EVER post here again? LOL Fucking idiot.
I didn’t insult a beautiful woman, I insulted Helen Hunt.
I’m devastated by my ban.Wait. Stop. Please. Don’t ban. With my iPad and Kindle and Nook and IPhone, how will I EVER post here again? LOL Fucking idiot.
you think i don’t know how to play whack-a-troll? how many iPhones do you have? 50?
jojodancer
Fine, throw a little fit. Nice way to introduce yourself. So you’re really proud to broadcast your crude despicable insult about a beautiful talented woman?
oh, I see now. You’re one of THOSE kind of gay men — the kind that hates women, the kind that trolls around looking for opportunities to make dumb remarks about a woman’s appearance, the kind of gay man who thinks it’s cute to sneer at a woman with contempt.
We don’t like that kind of gay man around here so you’re gone. Friendo.
I’ve screen captured your stupid reply, you homophobe.
I’m gay too.
What are you going to do with that screen cap? beat off to it?
In what fucking world is Helen Hunt hot? In the words of my uncle, “God couldn’t decide to make a man or woman so he made Helen Hunt.” I don’t know ONE man who thinks she is hot, now or ever. How strange to include her in the list.
“In the words of my uncle, ‘God couldn’t decide to make a man or woman so he made Helen Hunt.’ I don’t know ONE man who thinks she is hot, now or ever.”
don’t be alarmed but you and your uncle might be gay.
I think a lot of this talk is unfair to Jennifer Lawrence. Yes, it’s true, they rewrote the role. Yes, it was a highly conventional role compared to those played by the other nominees. But even so, she carried Silver Linings Playbook, dominating the screen over and over. There’s nothing embarrassing about the performance and none of the scorn should go her way … the scorn belongs to David O. Russell, who thought the movie needed a bipolar, bisexual with hypersexuality because, you know, borderline personality disorder is so 1995.
I’m not angry. I’m a little vexed that you want to come at ME saying that it’s ME who demeans women and saying how vulgar I am. Using reductive terms to oversimplify what I said and then saying it’s ME who’s reductive. I’m not angry. I’m refusing stand by and let myself get kicked around and misrepresented. I’m replying in the same tone that I’m getting hit with.
I like your style CB. But it’s no fun sitting here watching you wag your finger at me. If I didn’t like you it wouldn’t bother me so much.
That’s fair – I can be a bit of a schoolmarm, especially online, which is weird because in real life I shoot off at the mouth way too much.
I once got into a huge argument with someone about race – I thought something was racist for one reason, and they thought my feeling itself was racist and it went back and forth all day. It was about art – and right now we’re (at least I was) construing your words as coming from a good place but being warped into a bad one, but the fact is, with a little distance, I understand what you’re saying. And I know you’re not a misogynist, and I also know that your opinions are valid – even if I don’t share them.
I apologize for being sanctimonious – and I also apologize for things I’ve written that were not fair.
Thanks CB, but you don’t have to apologize.
Sasha and I take a beating the week after Oscar night and a lot of readers seem to think we ought to sit back and act meek and sheepish when readers scold us and tell us how ugly and angry and bitter we are. People come out of the woodwork posting comments calling us cunt and faggot (and worse) and then all the other truly wonderful readers who have no idea about the vicious things we see are bewildered and offended when we need to put the whole site into comment-moderation for a few hours while we catch a few hours sleep or step away from the desk to get some fresh air.
The concept of “fuckable” Oscar nominee is a durable meme that was created on this site many years ago and it’s hard to pretend that it’s not a thing when we look at 90% of the immensely talented women who have been nominated for Best Actress, both lead and supporting. Granted, that’s a result of — lo, and behold! — some of the prettiest women in the world who rise so fast in the ranks in the Hollywood star machine. (sorry, Ann Dowd! tough luck!)
Just seems so obvious (to me) that there are probably half a million struggling actresses in America who will never ever even get the chance to be in a movie because they don’t have that certain something that Jennifer or Angelina or Penelope or Rooney have — (what’s the word?) — so it strikes me as significant that all these Oscar-nominated girls were born with beauty genes and Oscar-worthy genes BOTH at the same time.
I mean, let’s have the Human Genome Project look into that Beauty-Oscar DNA linkage, right? Because what a pity for all the genetically deficient actresses who have the Acting Gene in spades but lack that really quite essential Beauty Gene. There are millions of them who have lived and died and nobody ever knew who they were because they failed to be … what’s the word? (some other word besides fuckable) …. caressable? delectable? lickable? …see? none of those terms are vulgar enough to really express the essence of what I mean.
Why are you so angry about it? I don’t get it. That’s the thing. There is one instance in my life where I was outraged by the Oscars and that was Crash beating Brokeback because it was clearly homophobia, and Brokeback was a crucial moment in pop culture history, not to mention a masterpiece, and every gay friend I knew was punched in the face by that.
Other than that moment, this isn’t such a big deal, and not worth the amount of vitriol this website spews. I came upon this site 3 years ago, and really liked it. But this year has gotten ugly – and the ugliness comes from you and Sasha. None of my fellow readers and commenters ever uses the language, the discourtesy, and the intractability of you. Why do we keep coming here? 2 reasons: each other, and because we hope the Ryan and Sasha of the past will return. Maybe the next season you will, because I think you’re both very intelligent and I think we all agree on everything about 99% except for movies – which is why we ‘know’ each other. And when it’s something I love, like movies, it’s great having people to spar with amicably. And in that spirit, I ask you to please temper yourself just a little – not your passion, but your anger. Because it’s reading more like the latter than the former.
I’m not angry. I’m a little vexed that you want to come at ME saying that it’s ME who demeans women and saying how vulgar I am. Using reductive terms to oversimplify what I said and then saying it’s ME who’s reductive. I’m not angry. I’m refusing stand by and let myself get kicked around and misrepresented. I’m replying in the same tone that I’m getting hit with.
I like your style CB. But it’s no fun sitting here watching you wag your finger at me. If I didn’t like you it wouldn’t bother me so much.
ok sorry CB nobody in Hollywood wants to fuck jennifer lawrence and the role of tiffany wasn’t deliberately rewritten to make her far more salacious and sexually promiscuous bicurious fucktoy than she was in the novel because when has hollywood ever shown any interest in reducing women to boobalicious babes in order to get men to buy tickets to a movie and the only reason jennifer lawrence gets cast in any movie is because of her intelligence ok you’re right I’m wrong.
All right, you have your opinion, and you’re not above vulgar, reductive blanket statements. A sexually hyperactive female character played by an attractive young actress is just another Hollywood piece of meat – got it. I never found her attractive once watching that movie – her character was too messed up, and so wonderfully so. Just like women who may find Bradley Cooper attractive would be turned off by his character. I loved them as characters, but I saw them as fantastically flawed people.
Whatever – she won because she’s hot and that’s all there was to it. And what a feminist you are for knowing that.
Whatever – she won because she’s hot and that’s all there was to it.
That’s not all there was too it. I’d be an idiot to argue that’s all there was to it, and you’d be an idiot to think hotness had nothing to do with it.
But thanks. Now I see you’re as good at reductive statements as you seem to think I am.
and you’re not above vulgar
oh my goodness! and nobody ever won an Oscar being vulgar. not since Sunday night anyway.
Tell me how you feel about pretty young ladies when you’re 55 years old.
If they’re talented, interesting actresses, artists, politicians, and people, I’ll feel very warmly towards them. If they’re uninteresting I won’t care. Same goes for people of all ages, genders, and sexualities.
You talk about perpetuating social-sexual norms and the like – isn’t this exactly what you’re doing here?
by throwing SCORN on the norms I find repellant you think I’m perpetuating those norms? That’s pretty twisted. So in short, NO.
am I perpetuating gun culture when I say, “wow, look at how 50% of people in Utah own a gun. How sick is that?”
We know statistically that 50% of people in Utah own a gun (I’m assuming you’re using a fact. We DO NOT KNOW that Jennifer Lawrence won because people wanted to ‘fuck’ her – to use your language, which was what I thought was disgusting, and do. And I think you write passionately, and well, but that you are so furious at the results of this contest that you’re demeaning a young woman’s well-earned win, a young woman who has demonstrated a real intelligence and a lack of affectation (I wish I could say the same of ‘It came true…’ Hathaway, an actress you and Sasha seem to love).
I’m in no mood to argue, but I think trying to use real world political facts to prove empirical assumptions is a logical fallacy.
ok sorry CB nobody in Hollywood wants to fuck jennifer lawrence and the role of tiffany wasn’t deliberately rewritten to make her a far more salacious and sexually promiscuous bicurious fucktoy than she was in the novel because when has hollywood ever shown any interest in reducing women to boobalicious babes in order to get men to buy tickets to movies and the only reason jennifer lawrence gets cast in any movie is because of her intelligence ok you’re right I’m wrong.
Why do you think Obama lost Alabama? No voters in Alabama at all just wanted to vote for the white guy? Are you kidding me? Everybody in Alabama just looked at Romney’s performance and Obama’s performance and 200,000 more voters just all thought Romney was the smarter man for the job?
If Obama’s blackness was factor in influencing 200,000 voters, then that’s enough to swing a state to Romney, right? Nobody is ever trying to say that the ONLY reason Obama lost Texas is because he’s black.. But it’s just naive to think it wasn’t a factor.
Sure, there’s racism in Alabama, as there is in every town in every state in the country, but it’s also one of the most republican states in the union, being one of only 5 states that went for Goldwater in 64 and George Wallace in 68. But Obama’s margin of loss in both 2008 and 2012 was lower than Kerry’s in 2004. I’m a Northeast liberal, but I think a lot of those 200,000 Romney voters you cite would be pissed to think their vote was because of racism. And I know – you’re not saying all of them were race-based, but you’re also ignoring Alabama’s historical arch-conservatism. Now if Pennsylvania had gone red, I’d agree with you.
So Charlize Theron won for Monster because she played a “hot babe”?
Sandra Bullock won because she played a “hot babe”?
If I remember correctly, she played a strong female lead in The Blind Side.
It’s not about who they play. It’s about who they are offscreen. Nobody wants to fuck 80-yr-old Edith Piaf, but they all wanted to fuck the actress who played her who they saw on the FYC circuit. (I guaranfackintee you more Academy members saw Marion Cotillard on talk shows than ever saw her in La Vie En Rose).
Does anybody else find this disgustingly crude, even in the context its given in? For God’s sake … and by the way, as a young straight male, it’s nice to know that this is the way I apparently think.
You talk about perpetuating social-sexual norms and the like – isn’t this exactly what you’re doing here?
You talk about perpetuating social-sexual norms and the like – isn’t this exactly what you’re doing here?
by throwing SCORN on the norms I find repellant you think I’m perpetuating those norms? That’s pretty twisted. So in short, NO.
am I perpetuating gun culture when I say, “wow, look at how 50% of people in Utah own a gun. How sick is that?”
as a young straight male, it’s nice to know that this is the way I apparently think
If you think men in the Academy are young, please get another clue.
Want to know how many men in the Academy are younger than 50 years old? 14%
Tell me how you feel about pretty young ladies when you’re 55 years old.
Stop taking my observations about the Academy so personally unless you’re a member of the Academy.
I think most Lawrence-fans here misunderstood what this piece was about. It’s not that Lawrence won solely because she is a young babe, it’s more like based on precedent, it is a fair assumption, that Riva lost because she isn’t.
Anyway, even though I couldn’t disagree about her victory more, I still can’t wait for ‘Serena’, a role that definitely has the potential to be her best and most challenging to date, Oscar be damned.
Please don’t mistake my respect for the Academy’s decisions as support for George Bush. Good lord!
It’s been a pleasure! I have much respect for you and the site. Have a lovely day.
If you no longer respect the Academy’s decisions, you don’t have to. So many people don’t care and take it as a grain of salt. But as a blogger specifically about the Oscars, obviously it is important to you. I guess it’s fair to be disappointed in their decisions. But it’s kind of like disagreeing that someone from Twilight had the performance of the year at the Teen Choice awards. This is the award show you’re watching. These are the voters that rule the show. The academy awards are the academy’s decisions, it doesn’t mean the universal best movie of the year. Or the absolute, this should be your favourite, best performance of the year. It’s the academy’s pick. It doesn’t have to be the deciding factor in good and bad for the year, but obviously those of us who care so much have elevated it to that. If it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. But we care, so it matters.
This is the award show you’re watching. These are the voters that rule the show.
I found it hard to shut up about George being elected twice too. Doesn’t mean I thought America was irrelevant for 8 years, but sure didn’t mean I had to bow down and respect for the broken system that caused our national nightmare for a decade.
Interesting thing is that best actress went to the most controversial Actress of the year (hot, fuckable, Harvey-backed, chick flick lead). Yes she is hot, fuckable but performance-wise she is at the bottom of the list. People could easily accept a Wallis, Watts or Chastain win. But Lawrence. No. I would not buy that scenario.
“ACADEMY” awards should be based on true performance. This is not Golden Globes where popularity also counts.
Of course, I’m not saying you need to agree that Jennifer Lawrence gave the best performance of the year. But to argue that someone else should have gotten the Oscar isn’t relevant. We are not the academy, our opinions don’t matter. It’s art, it’s subjective. The “best” is not innate or scientific. There is no cheating, it’s the award the academy chooses to give to whichever person or film they decide. If they collectively decide to give it to Jen, it isn’t a mistake or a travesty, it’s hundreds of independent people deciding who they deem worthy. We can’t say it’s wrong, only that we maybe disagree. That doesn’t make our opinion right. If we want the awards to go exactly as we think they should every time, it wouldn’t be as much fun. And there wouldn’t be a place for a blog like this or discussion like this. Cheers Ryan, it’s a pleasure to meet you!
I see what you’re saying, Leni. I really do. I need to stop trying to urge people to rephrase the way they want to express their feelings. The wording you choose still bugs me, but I respect what you mean. Welcome to the Dollhouse.
@Sammy, Riva and Amour were not snubbed by the Academy. The fact that a foreign film got into the big categories, especially best actress since it was a tight race, is huge. Why nominate someone who is 85 (86 on Oscar day) if she had absolutely zero shot? If they wanted a “babe” factor they would’ve thrown Marion Cotillard in there instead. Why not Rachel Weisz? Hell, whatever happened to Elizabeth Olsen last year? Maybe it’s possible that Lawrence won because a lot of the members just loved the performance. I loved it a lot. Do I believe she should’ve won? Hard to say since I have yet to see Amour, but I can feel I’ll love Riva’s performance much more than Lawrence’s.
@Sammy, Riva and Amour were not snubbed by the Academy. The fact that a foreign film got into the big categories, especially best actress since it was a tight race, is huge.
thank you, Kane.
one of the most disheartening things we deal with this time of year is a bunch of simpletons who want to label masterpieces as “losers” just because they were unlucky in this whole scavenger hunt drag queen pageant.
had someone comment last night : “clearly the BAFTA didn’t like Lincoln” —
— right. they didn’t like Lincoln so much that they only nominated Lincoln for more BAFTA’s than any other film. Choosing to nominate Lincoln in 10 categories out of 300+ eligible movies is BAFTAs way of telling us how much they really didn’t like Lincoln very much.
(Sammy, this mini-rant has nothing to do with you. I’m not aiming this at anyone. Just the whole dumb charade of “Best” and “Losers” gets pretty sickening when you look at the actual “best” picks and then see how magnificent the “losers” are in comparison.
I also can’t tolerate talk of how we have to just get over it and just accept what the Academy tells us, because gosh, just look at all the 4000 masterpieces Hollywood has produced in the past 10 years, so they’re EXPERTS on quality, right? Christ on a pogo-stick.
Academy of Fast Food Arts and Sciences electing Best Hamburger of the Year
Totally agree, the “babe factor” has clearly been ruling for years and it still does, since Meryl Streep is so much more than just a fine actress in her sixties. She’s Meryl Streep, being exactly the exception that proves the rule.
Jennifer Lawrence’s win was a travesty. An entirely predictable one, but a travesty indeed. She’s a very talented actress and a lovely young lady, but there was no need whatsoever to give her such an important award so early for such an underwhelming role. She already has a strong position in the business, so she didn’t need any springboard to success, let alone an untimely ‘glorification’. Hadn’t it been for her hype, she would have never been the front-runner in the race. The Academy voted for her because they loved and love HER, as Miss Lawrence, but the Oscars shouldn’t be a popularity contest. A best actress performance/role should be MEMORABLE. How on earth was Tiffany’s role memorable? Being the best of an ensemble and even carrying the movie you star in is not enough, especially since she starred in the most overrated movie of the season. She won because she’s J-Law and Harvey Weinstein had her back. Last but not least, after 8 nominations SLP just could not come home empty-handed and a best actress nod was the one people would complain less about.
Giving a solid performance in a movie like Amour and shining in a movie like SLP are like chalk and cheese. Chastain herself deserved the Oscar much more than Lawrence. Skimming through the posts above, I find it laughable that people think she didn’t deserve to win based on the argument that her character was dull and boring. Seriously? Have you even understood ZD30 at all? Her character simply wasn’t Academy-friendly, her being the lead in the least Oscar-baity movie nominated this year.
Having said this, Jennifer Lawrence has no fault and deserves no personal attack. Listen to her acceptance speech, she didn’t even know what to say. The problem lies in the business. Rewarding her now for such a character in such a movie is a shame considering that, being as talented and well-known as she is, she’ll definitely get better roles in the future. Shame on the Academy for putting her along the same line as Bullock and Whiterspoon since, when years from now we’ll look back to those who won in this category, she’ll arguably be remembered as an example of underwhelming win.
@JP I’m not saying that anyone is “superior”, and the Blind Side is a tough one to make a case for, I’m saying that simply giving the Oscar to the oldest person, or even the person who has earned it by making several great movies over the past few years isn’t fair. It’s about that year. The performance that people liked best, for whatever reason, of that year. It shouldn’t be a cumulative effort, and it shouldn’t be an age award, just in case they don’t get another shot. Whether we think it’s the best is irrelevant, because the academy is the one with the power.
Whether we think it’s the best is irrelevant, because the academy is the one with the power.
Er, OR: The Academy is irrelevant because we each possess the capacity to decide for ourselves what we like Best.
Lawrence’s win is clearly one of the lowest points in Oscar history. No one will remember her performance in a chick flick like SLP. Riva and Amour are clearly snubbed by the Academy members.
What people failed to mention is Lawrence is charming as hell! I remembered she was being attacked as too “fat” in “The Hunger Games”, so I always think her charm outshines her babe factor. (even though I sometimes find her “charm” a little too manufactured).
When the older actress wins the Oscar, it’s usually they are the overwhelming favorite, or they have a competitor who is not too young (e.g. Mirren, or Streep last year vs Viola). I WANT Riva to win, but I was practical enough to see that it was Lawrence to lose the whole time. So I wasn’t particularly upset when she won. I think people who said Lawrence was the best, it’s just a personal opinion of them. Acting is a craft, you need to study, experience, and improve. I hope this Oscar will not stop Lawrence’s growth as an actress because she is definitely a huge talent. But it would be silly to think she gave the best performance this year and that’s why she won the Oscar (there’s also a lot of other factors).
It’s an absolute trend. Give them Viagra, though, and they’re likely to want the young women even more.
“If Chastain wins then the Academy leans towards the “babes”. If she loses then the Academy can’t seem to honor a strong woman. In either case the Academy loses right?”
Well, you know, commenting on the choices on a group of “white, racist, sexist, homophobes who beat their wives soap bars wrapped in towels and want to stick their dicks in anything that is a hot teen below the age of 25” is very convenient. If they make a decision you don’t like and award “the wrong” person you can just call them any/all of the above. That’s what they are anyway, right? However sometimes the Academy does something weird, like give the award to someone you actually want to win. What to do then? There are two choices:
a) just elaborate how great the awarded artist is and simply don’t mention it’s these homophobe/sexist/racist pricks giving them this award
b) say that the winner won DESPITE all the obsticles and prejudices in the academy (who cares it’s these people giving them this award, they don’t really want to give him/her this award ’cause they’re homophobe/sexist/racist pricks)
So keep that in mind that for example Dustin Lance Black was awarded despite the Academy hates homosexuals.
So keep in mind that Halle Berry, Dustin Lance Black
There is only an outcry because Riva didn’t win. I think if Jessica won there may still be this article since she can be seen as a “hot babe.”
Honestly, lets drop this now. It’s done, she won and may win again.
Agree completely. But for what it’s worth, I’d rather f’ck Naomi Watts or Jessica Chastain than Jennifer Lawrence. Just saying …
If Chastain won this year would there be an outcry because she was much younger than Riva? Because the way that I see it is people championed her for a long time because her role was unlike any other. If Chastain wins then the Academy leans towards the “babes”. If she loses then the Academy can’t seem to honor a strong woman. In either case the Academy loses right?
1994: Jessica Lange (45) – Winona Ryder (23) and Jodie Foster (31)
1995: Susan Sarandon (49) – Elisabeth Shue (32) and Sharon Stone (37)
1996: Frances McDormand (39) – Emily Watson (29) and Kristin Scott Thomas (36)
1997: Helen Hunt (34) – Kate Winslet (22) and Helena Bohnam Carter (31)
2001: Halle Berry (35) – Renée Zellweger (32) and Nicole Kidman (34)
2002: Nicole Kidman (35) – Renée Zellweger (33)
2003: Charlize Theron (28) – Samantha Morton (26)
2004: Hilary Swank (30) – Kate Winslet (29) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (23)
2005: Reese Witherspoon (29) – Keira Knightley (20)
2006: Helen Mirren (61) – Penelope Cruz (32) and Kate Winslet (31)
2007: Marion Cotillard (32) – Ellen Page (20)
2008: Kate Winslet (33) – Anne Hathaway (26)
2009: Sandra Bullock (45) – Carrey Mulligan (24)
2010: Natalie Portman (29) – Jennifer Lawrence (20)
… just saying
I don’t know, but sexism can not only be put entirely on the male side alone.
Women sometimes can be even worse. Just saying.
Like secretaries in an office:
“Did you hear? She only got the job because she’s young and sexy and slept with the boss.”
If it’s not the role but the actress Oscar voters likes to….. Did they really wanted to….. Kathy Bates or Jessica Tandy? Or in recent terms Helen or Meryl?
So simply Viola wasn’t attractive enough.
And yikes! What would have happened if Wallis had won???? Better NOT think about this…
Shirley MacLaine and Susan Sarandon were 49 when they won. Both classy ladies and really attractive when they were younger. A rare case, but it did happen.
Meryl was young when she won her first Oscars, but she’s not a beauty of Hollywood standards. And Bullock was more the money-maker and America’s sweetheart when she won, hardly “the babe”. She looks good nevertheless.
And there’s somehow another thing when it comes to Oscar roles-> the bigger/louder, the better.
Riva’s performance was great, but very quiet. So was Davis last year. Portman and Lawrence played crazy young women (babes). Portman’s advance was also that she was in EVERY frame of Black Swan. There was not a single scene without her.
Meryl dominated her movie and though Weinstein actually had the ultimate Hollywood bombshell Marylin Monroe played by young sexy Michelle Williams (she even got naked in the movie!), he “screwed” her in the favor of the (old) british “hag”.
He wanted to get Meryl that damn third Oscar and he got it for her.
He just bought Kidman’s Grace of Monaco biopic. He could get the same for her. Can Kidman be still considered a babe at 45? Or just attractive?
Add Fernanda Montenegro to 1998 – she was 70 then.
It was quite obvious that Riva’s chances in winning the Oscar are quite few compared to Lawrence . Academy voters didn’t had so much ,if not few of Riva’s profile, despite her long acting carrier. On the other hand there was Lawrence who a rising star, and a breakthrough(got her second Oscar nomination in 3 years) beside her role in Hunger Games in early 2012 which was impressive .I believe those factors enhanced her chances in winning . Chastain played an impressive role but ZDT was not received well as an overall which limited her chances despite her strong performance and persona in the movie.
“I know you can grasp the concept of “many factors influence voters” so you should also have no trouble understanding that the difference between Oscar win and Oscar loss can be a few hundred or even a few dozen votes, right?”
Absolutely. There is no denying that when voters cast their votes that there are innumberable factors that are influencing their decisions and in effect cloud their decisions of what we may consider as “best”…
“Factors add up. Hot? check. Charming? Check. Sweet disposition? Check? Bit of smartass? Made a gaffe? Points taken off.
It all adds up. And hotness is part of the equation.”
Sure. Perhaps to some of the men who comprise the Academy membership, attractiveness and likeability are a major factor in how they decide to vote. Ditto the women in the Academy, too (they are not exempt from being persuaded). But surely we are not too indulgent to think that members such as Martin Scorsese, John Hawkes, Sidney Poitier, Pedro Almodovar, etc., etc., can actually vote on merit and not sex appeal? But I do know you are saying that some and not all are persuaded by an actress’s beauty.
However, my problem lies with the chart and the article that precedes it. It’s just so reductive to go back the last fifteen years–pick the winner and a runner-up that was older–and claim it’s a result of ageism and conclude that these women won solely on looks and sex appeal. It’s a bit degrading and completely arbitrary. I totally agree with you in that other factors come into play. That’s obvious. Sandra won largely because of her respect in the industry and her staple as a bonafide screen star for nearly 20 years. Plus, she had a killer year and made Hollywood money. Oscar for her. I believe actors like Hilary Swank (first Oscar), Charlize Theron, and Marion Cotillard largely won on performance. Those were once-in-a-lifetime roles, and voters just couldn’t ignore. Reese and Gwyneth were Hollywood princesses (and frankly, I thought Reese was the best out of her category. Weak slate of nominees. If they really had wanted to go “young ‘n hot, they would’ve voted for Keira Knightley, who was the new “it” girl and raking in the money with Pirates of the Carribbean). Hilary’s second Oscar, I think, largely came to her because she was starring in the best picture winner. Plus, she was great in the role and it didn’t help Annette Bening that her movie was horrible (sorry!). And Kate Winslet was DUE that year (or at least the media kept on telling us she was). A plethora of reasons why these women won, other than they were HOT.
I understand why some people are upset why Jennifer Lawrence won. I really think this was one of the strongest best actress slates we’ve had in a long time, and when there are so many strong contenders in one category, people are bound to get riled up when their favorite doesn’t win. I was rooting for Riva, although I would have been delighted to see Watts win as well. But Lawrence gave a strong performance (she was easily the highlight of the film for me, which I didn’t care for). There have been many more undeserving winners, in my opinion.
Aaron, I’m not really arguing with much of what you say. I see a fishy pattern but I see times when respectability overrides the pattern. Just trying to finesse the issue a little bit so we don’t have to go from one extreme to the other.
Over it.
Performances and quality aside, I think what Sasha is trying to say with this post:
1998:
(HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESS) Cate Blanchett frontrunner. Fernanda Montenegro (VETERAN ACTRESS) and (HOT, YOUNGER AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Gwyneth Paltrow get buzz. Paltrow wins.
1999:
(MIDDLE-AGE ACTRESS) Annette Benning frontrunner. (YOUNGER ACTRESS) Hilary Swank wins.
2000:
(HOT AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Julia Roberts frontrunner. Wins.
2001:
(VETERAN ACTRESSES) Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench frontrunners. (HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESSES) Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry get buzz. Berry wins.
2002:
(HOT ACTRESS) Julianne Moore frontrunner. (HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESS) Renée Zelwegger and (HOT, YOUNGER AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Nicole Kidman get buzz. Kidman wins.
2003:
(HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESS) Charlize Theron frontrunner. (VETERAN ACTRESS) Diane Keaton gets buzz. Theron wins.
2004:
(YOUNG ACTRESS) Hilary Swank and (VETERAN ACTRESS) Imelda Staunton frontrunners. (MIDDLE-AGE ACTRESS) Annette Benning gets buzz. Swank wins.
2005:
(MIDDLE-AGE ACTRESS) Felicity Huffman frontrunner. (HOT, YOUNGER AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Reese Witherspoon wins.
2006:
(HOT AND VETERAN ACTRESS) Helen Mirren frontrunner. (VETERAN AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Meryl Streep get buzz. Mirren Wins. (Don’t believe me Mirren is hot for her age? Take a look at this: http://www.truthinaging.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/helen-mirren-bikini.jpg)
2008:
(VETERAN ACTRESS) Julie Christie frontrunner. (HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESS) Marion Cotillard wins.
2009:
(NOT CONVENTIONALLY ATRACTIVE ACTRESS) Sally Hawkins frontrunner. (HOT AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Kate Winslet wins.
2010:
(HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESS) Carey Mulligan, (YOUNGER ACTRESS) Gabourey Sidibe and (VETERAN AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Meryl Streep frontrunners. (HOT AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Sandra Bullock get buzz. Bullock wins.
2011:
(VETERAN ACTRESS) Annette Bening frontrunner. (HOT, YOUNGER AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Natalie Portman wins.
2012:
(VETERAN AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Meryl Streep frontrunner. (MIDDLE-AGE ACTRESS) Viola Davis gets buzz. Streep wins.
2013:
(HOT AND YOUNGER ACTRESS) Jessica Chastain and (HOT, YOUNGER AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Jennifer Lawrence frontrunners. (VETERAN ACTRESS) Emmanuelle Riva gets buzz. Lawrence wins.
I do agree with some of their choices (Swank in 1999, Cotillard in 2007 and Streep in 2012) or I think they should’ve awarded at some other point (Winslet in 2004 instead of 2009 and Kidman in 2011 instead of 2002) which is actually a lot for a personal opinion in this short amount of time, but I doubt very much most of the voters picked their choices based on merit. Basically, even those I consider the right winners won because of the wrong reasons.
(NOT CONVENTIONALLY ATRACTIVE ACTRESS) Sally Hawkins frontrunner. (HOT AND POPULAR ACTRESS) Kate Winslet wins.
another factor:
* show us yer tits! *
Don’t forget the Best Supporting Actress race too! There are many instances of “hot young babes” winning there, though not as consistently as we’ve seen for Best Actress. 1997 with Gloria Stewart losing to Kim Basinger is a perfect example–Stewart was 87 at the time, even older than Emmanuelle Riva. She was the heart of Titanic and gave the strongest performance in the film, particularly the scene ending with “He exists now….only in my memory.” It was a wonderful story, Cameron getting her to go back to work, coming full circle years after being a silent/talkie star in the 1930s. And this was in the HUGE Best Picture frontrunner behemoth Titanic, which pretty much swept the board. An English language film, too, which everyone saw!!–another factor which one has to consider this year. Kim Basinger, in my opinion, was not the standout in LA Confidential and played a typical Oscar-bait role for an actress, sad but true: a prostitute. If ever there was an example of the babe factor at play in the supporting race this would be it.
—–
I’m a strong supporter of Kathryn Bigelow, and I kept seeing her appear on the sides of my TV screen. At this year’s Oscars she was never in the spotlight, and was pretty much ignored the whole night–unlike The Hurt Locker year. And every time I got a glimpse of her, I could tell she was not enjoying herself. She did not look happy at all during McFarlane’s opening segment. And when Lawrence was announced, rewatch the tape…she doesn’t give an expression. The happiest I saw her all night was when ZDT took Sound Editing and Ang Lee won Best Director, when she extended her hand to Lee as he passed. This is someone who has had to fight against the rampant Hollywood sexism her entire career, who only at age 60 has finally gotten projects worthy of her talents as a director. Look at the Hollywood Reporter article published on her and Boal, reducing her role to the point of being insignificant in the final authorship of Zero Dark Thirty. Did anyone read that?? What utter bullshit! The article criticized her for avoiding the “advances” toward her by Hollywood bigshots, for refusing to cast a big box office star in her film….it was absolutely egregious. Who was the one who truly belonged in the Best Director lineup, who showed up all the male directors this year? Kathryn Bigelow should have been celebrated last night. Benh Zeitlin should have been celebrated–NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION of the wonderful story of Beasts of the Southern Wild, from Sundance to the Academy Awards. This was a wonderful year for movies, and it’s sad that that was completely overshadowed last night by not only the final winner for Best Actress but also by the overall tone of the evening, which in a weird way made Jennifer Lawrence the natural outcome.
“It’s not about who they play. It’s about who they are offscreen. Nobody wants to fuck 80-yr-old Edith Piaf, but they all wanted to fuck the actress who played her who they saw on the FYC circuit. (I guaranfackintee you more Academy members saw Marion Cotillard on talk shows than ever saw her in La Vie En Rose).”
Ryan, I’m curious who you wanted to win then? Personally, I thought Cotillard’s performance was leaps and bounds above the competition that year. I remember during that time Hollywood A-listers like Clooney and Cate Blanchett raved about her performance (do you remember seeing Cate’s escatic face when Cotillard’s name was announced?) And many consider her win to be one of the best upsets at the Oscars. It’s a fucking great performance. But her win should be discredited because everyone just wanted to fuck her? I just think this whole argument is vile, petty, misogynist, and just totally discredits the actress’s work, as well as the artistic taste and preferences of the film industry vets who vote on these awards.
P.s., it’s curious then, that the sexiest woman in the world–Angelina Jolie–was snubbed for best actress that year.
Ryan, I’m curious who you wanted to win then? Personally, I thought Cotillard’s performance was leaps and bounds above the competition that year.
in 2007, I was posting anything I could find about Marion Cotillard.
Nobody ever said that pretty girls can’t act. Nobody ever that some years the hottest actress can’t also have the best performance.
The things we point about “poor Ben” or “hot Natalie” — surely you can see these are FACTORS. Nobody is saying it’s the whole reason they win.
I know you can grasp the concept of “many factors influence voters” so you should also have no trouble understanding that the difference between Oscar win and Oscar loss can be a few hundred or even a few dozen votes, right?
Last night we saw a TIE in one category. What if the news broke a month ago that the sound team on Skyfall got arrested at a coke orgy? granted, a lot of people in Hollywood would hear that and say: “coke orgy!? why wasn’t I invited!” but maybe 3 people in the Academy don’t approve of coke orgies. So 3 voters change their minds about Skyfall and therefore Skyfall doesn’t tie and Skyfall loses.
Because 3 voters were influenced by a factor.
Anybody who doesn’t think any of the 5000 men in the Academy are influenced by an actress’s hotness doesn’t know much about men.
Anybody who doesn’t think 600 people can swing an election for dumb reasons wasn’t paying attention to Florida when Gore lost to Bush.
Why do you think studios mount FYC campaigns, and send out individual screeners? It’s to influence one voter at a time.
Why do you think Obama lost Alabama? No voters in Alabama at all just wanted to vote for the white guy? Are you kidding me? Everybody in Alabama just looked at Romney’s performance and Obama’s performance and 200,000 more voters just all thought Romney was the smarter man for the job?
If Obama’s blackness was factor in influencing 200,000 voters, then that’s enough to swing a state to Romney, right? Nobody is ever trying to say that the ONLY reason Obama lost Texas is because he’s black.. But it’s just naive to think it wasn’t a factor.
Factors add up. Hot? check. Charming? Check. Sweet disposition? Check? Bit of smartass? Made a gaffe? Points taken off.
It all adds up. And hotness is part of the equation.
Heck, why do you think Jennifer Lawrence even got the job to play Tiffany in the first place?
Casting Jennifer Lawrence had nothing to do with her hotness all all? Nobody thought about how sexy she would look in black tights? Didn’t occur to anyone? Just worked out by accident that she happened to be sexy?
Wow, what a lucky coincidence. Sure woulda been a different movie if Naomi Watts had played Tiffany. Why? Is the role beyond Naomi Watt’s talent? Just too complex for Naomi to pull off?
Because in the novel Tiffany is 44. Noami Watts is 44. Would Naomi Watts have won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook? dude, get real. I doubt she would even have be nominated.
Why? Is it because Jennifer Lawrence is just such a way more fabulous actress than Naomi Watts? again, get real.
Comments are currently turned on for moderation – when the rabid Jennifer Lawrence fans stop acting like Tumblr users we’ll turn them back on.
There was no way Emanuelle Riva was going to win. The Academy and Screen Actors Guild Awards are voted by your peers within the industry. No one really knew Riva. She didn’t show up at any award shows and didn’t do any campaigning. Like the Vulture said, if an actor doesn’t do any campaigning, he/she is bound to not win. No one in the industry was rooting for Riva and no one was voting for her. Jennifer Lawrence on the other hand is loved by everyone in the industry. Everyone knew her and everyone respected her. While it may not be her best performance it was heck of a better peformance than Jessica Chastain’s in Zero Dark Thirty. What a boring boring character and I don’t blame her. I think Chastain is one of the best actresses out there but she should win for a better role. I’m saying this as a woman but I didn’t find her role to be some sort of feminist stand. Her character was just boring, end of story. I also hope Naommi Watts wins next year since she’s past over due.
@RobinTMP
THANK YOU! This is the kind of impassioned, yet reasonable critiques that are needed.
Doesn’t anyone find it at all suspicious and telling that out of ALL the categories (with the exception of, perhaps, best picture), best actress is ALWAYS the category that inspires the most scrutiny, vitriol, and judgment.
Did anyone make THIS big a deal last year when Jean Dujardin beat out industry vets and DUE actors like Brad Pitt and Gary Oldman, in arguably stronger performances? Maybe a little bit, but not nearly as much as the time spent divulging and ripping apart Jennifer Lawrence vs. the world. And don’t even get me started on the shit show that was Meryl Streep vs. Viola Davis last year (which was particularly spurred on by this here site). It’s always the actresses that everyone has an opinion on…and often a very strong one.
Continuing where I left off:
Is ageism and sexism a problem in show business? Oh, HELL YES; while it could be said that Hollywood is merely a microcosm of society as a whole, it’s also true that the pressure on women who work in it are far more intense than they are out in the civilian world, and I would never, ever say otherwise. It’s certainly not the only factor when someone wins an award that others feel should have gone to a different performer, especially if the winner is young and cute and the losers, even if still cute, are no longer quite as young–the considerations I mentioned above also factor in–but it is significant enough to be problematic. (Society at large would seem to be changing over time; hopefully the Academy will, too, although I daresay we may have to wait longer for that.)
Did Jennifer Lawrence deserve to win last night? Some say yes, while others say it should have been Emmanuelle Riva, or Jessica Chastain; I’m not personally taking a stand on the issue either way, because, like so many things, it all comes down to each person’s opinion, and opinions, as we all know, are completely subjective. What really bothers me, though, and what prompted me to finally speak up and ramble on at length here, is seeing the sheer volume and quantity of venom being spewed around here, with way too much of it being dumped on Lawrence herself–and that’s just not right. It’s one thing to say “I disagree with the Academy’s voters; I think _______ should have won and here’s why; this is a longstanding pattern that needs changing;” it’s another thing to spew all kinds of bile at the official winner simply because she did win, when it’s NOT HER FAULT SHE WON. As someone with a previous nomination, odds are decent that she’s an Academy member now, so she certainly could vote for herself, but that one vote alone didn’t make anything happen. (Just for the record, the Academy calls a tie when the vote difference is 3 or less.)
(…Pardon me for a moment while I put on my Mama Hen armor…)
Look, I’m old enough to be Jennifer’s mom, and I have to admit to feeling somewhat protective of her; from what I’ve seen of her, she seems to be a good kid and a decent actress who’ll hopefully have a long and successful career ahead of her. Does she deserve the award? That’s a matter of opinion; in some ways, winning at such a young age, whether or not it’s deserved, could prove to be a liability; for her sake, I hope that doesn’t prove to be the case. Just don’t direct your rage at her, OK? Point it at those who would deserve the approbation–the Academy members who voted for her, and the sexist showbiz culture as a whole; hell, go after Harvey Weinstein if you want and you have gonads of solid titanium–he played as big of a role as anyone else in making it happen, possibly the biggest. That’s who you should all be taking to task/raking over the coals/(your metaphor here), not Lawrence. Calling her names and insulting her (“a total dingbat this awards season: uneducated, unrefined and totally disrespectful of the craft of acting;” “has no class…If that’s a role model for our children, God help us all;” IIRC in other threads “hick” and worse were thrown around) makes you look like sore losers picking on a young woman who doesn’t deserve it, and actually allows the main argument–that the Academy is sexist, ageist, and hidebound, and needs to have a fire lit under its collective ass to blast it into the 21st century–to be dismissed as the hysterical, whiny, and spiteful ravings of a bunch of aging pisssants (aka the “your just jellus” argument).
Is that what you really want?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
Remember, opinions are like assholes: almost everyone’s got one–just don’t act like one. If you disagree strongly with the Academy’s choice, don’t dilute your message by engaging in cheap shots and personal attacks on those who don’t deserve it, but focus on those who do. Yes, it’s a lot easier to go after an individual target as opposed to attitudes and/or established patterns of doing business, but it’s not right, and it won’t get you anywhere you really want to go. Fight the real power…which, I think it’s safe to say, was not wearing a pink Dior Couture gown last night.
*climbs off soapbox*
I can’t believe how sexist and stupid this article is. It hasn’t even been 24 hours since Jennfier Lawrence won and you guys are lashing out at her for winning.
PaulH, hope to hear from you again somewhere. I think you might have gone under the name PaulHan or something like that on Gold Derby back in the day. I haven’t been there in ages. 🙂 Happy trails
So Charlize Theron won for Monster because she played a “hot babe”?
Sandra Bullock won because she played a “hot babe”?
If I remember correctly, she played a strong female lead in The Blind Side.
It’s not about who they play. It’s about who they are offscreen. Nobody wants to fuck 80-yr-old Edith Piaf, but they all wanted to fuck the actress who played her who they saw on the FYC circuit. (I guaranfackintee you more Academy members saw Marion Cotillard on talk shows than ever saw her in La Vie En Rose).
Meryl Streep keeps winning becuase she’s a “young hot babe”?
gosh, wow, The Hot Babe Phenomenon is not a Law of Physics. It’s just something that happens a lot. Not a universal constant.
you’re going to doubt that “rain” is a real thing just because it doesn’t rain every day?
Ah well I’m so happy that Jessica Chastain didn’t win for that dull and boring performance in ZDT. Feminist movie my ass. She did nothing in those interrogation, torture, or hunt scenes. In fact she had her bodyguard hit the suspect for her in one of the interrogation scenes which was hilarious. And that scene they showed at the Oscars was so embarassing because Chastain was overracting. Emanuelle was amazing but Hollywood has awarded many French actors before. Jennifer Lawrence won because she was really good and because she’s very popular among her peers.
What an offensive article. I’ve never seen Hollywood so happy over an actress’ win before. Celebrities all over twitter couldn’t stop gushing over Jennifer Lawrence winning. Even Adele yelled out for Jennifer in the press room backstage of the Oscars. And then there was Hugh Jackman openly applauding for her and Bradley Cooper looking so happy for her. She won because she was good and people LOVE her. That is what the Oscars is about. Not just your performance but also popularity because how else would you get votes from everyone in Hollywood?
If you’re a woman, being young and attractive definitely helps when going for an acting award, but it’s not the only factor, as many people have pointed out. Sometimes someone gives The Performance Of A Lifetime, and it’s sufficiently obvious that not awarding them for it would seem churlish. Off the top of my head, more men come to mind in that category than women: Ben Kingsley, F. Murray Abraham, and, yes, Adrien Brody, who I feel did deserve that Oscar and won it fair and square; crimony, Nicholson was telling people he’d voted for Brody, and he was a nominee himself! For the women, Charlize Theron could definitely qualify–didn’t Roger Ebert say her performance in Monster was one of the best by an actress that he’d ever seen? I’d also be inclined to put Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry in that category as well, and probably Marion Cotillard, too. (BTW, the terms for someone undergoing a gender transition is “transgendered”, not “transsexual”, OK? Hilary, Felicity Huffman, and a whole slew of “civilians”–read: not actors–will be very grateful.)
Another situation that pops up pretty regularly is the whole “you didn’t win for the movie you deserved it for/your body of work kicks ass, so we’re giving it to you now”; again, that’s an equal opportunity situation. It could be argued that Kate Winslet shouldn’t have won for The Reader, but clearly enough people decided that damn it, she deserved an Oscar, and so she won; the same could be said for Meryl Streep’s win last year. IMNSHO, Robert Downey, Jr. was robbed of an Oscar for Chaplin when Al Pacino won for Scent of a Woman (while we’re talking about possibly undeserving wins…), but Al had so many fine performances in his past that people wanted him to win, irregardless of the quality of the movie and/or his performance in it. I still think Jeremy Renner should have won for The Hurt Locker, but clearly more people thought Jeff Bridges deserved what was basically a career award. (Yes, I’m quite aware that both of these cases involve younger actors vs. older ones; it could be argued that being a younger actor is, in its own way, almost as much of a handicap as being an older actress is, although society is definitely far crueler to women getting older than to young men.)
More in a new post…
I love how we aren’t mentioning Helen Mirren’s win for The Queen. And the fact that Riva almost wasn’t even up for discussion and we all focused on Weisz and Cottilard.
What if Riva wasn’t nominated and Jen still won!? Then what huh? Cause it probably would have happened. Cottilard had won recently, so had Weisz (though supporting), and if Mirren got in, so had she.
My question was why did Chastain lose? Because she played a leading role and she was playing a career woman? Lawrence played a supporting role as a girl living with her parents and in love with a jobless man. Looks like that is the role model Hollywood likes to see….
The only thing the comments from this post made me realize is how much I loved Hilary Swank’s two wins. Not a few disliked her 2nd win, but in retrospect she really deserved both Oscars.
Winning an Oscar is all about great timing and luck. All the Best Actor nominees this year (even Bradley Cooper IMO) could have easily won the trophy in other weaker years. It’s just bad luck the other four went up against the DDL juggernaut.
“Old White Guys Prefer Hot Young Babes”
I think even this title denigrates women and adds to the fire of why women are consistently held to a different standard and why their accomplishments are always held in dispute and constant public suspicion.
And this is coming from someone who was rooting for Emmanuelle Riva.
Yes, Hollywood has rampant sexist tendencies…and they’re obviously very ageist (thank god for the UK and France who consistently employ their elder actresses in complex leading roles). But to imply that Jennifer Lawrence won simply because of her attractiveness and sex appeal to older men bashes her accomplishments and undeniable acting talent. Yes, she’s the “it” girl at the moment. But frankly, I think one of the main reasons she won is because out of all of her competition, she had the rangiest performance. She had a difficult character to play–one who frequently oscillated from cooly calculating, manic depressiveness, and unbridled rage. She had a plum role where she got to explore a wide range of emotional states. Oscar likes showy (and they obviously loved the movie as well with 8 nominations). So that, coupled with her film accomplishments and previous nomination, got her the Oscar. Personality always plays a part in distributing awards (how else would Sandra Bullock become a frontrunner), but that shouldn’t take away from her accomplishment.
Charlize Theron is gorgeous, but she was in another league than the other nominees the year she triumphed. She won fair and square. Ditto Marion Cotillard (plus, Julie Christie was a previous winner. I think that had more to do with her loss than her age). And Natalie Portman was superb in Black Swan, and let’s be honest, she’s just as much a veteran in the film industry as Annette Bening (my god, she started working in the early ’90s, right when Bening started to hit her stride).
Women are constantly criticized and scrutinized in the public sphere and in private lives, and I just hate the “logicality” that “oh they’re successful” or “oh they won…” because of how they look. It’s a slippery slope.
I actually agree with a lot of BD said. There are many holes in this theory. I too was scratching my head and wondering “Since when has Hilary Swank been considered a babe?” Not even when she was younger was this true. She’s been berated a quite a bit for not being feminine and girly enough which I think we can all agree is required to be a babe in Hollywood.
BD also forgot to mention that Natalie Portman was engaged and pregnant at the time of her win. I mention this because I keep thinking about an interview Olivia Wilde did years ago talking about her agent wanted her to be mum about the fact that she was married at that point for several years. And yeah Olivia Wilde will not be winning Oscars anytime soon but clearly the agent’s point was that her being so firmly attached to someone reduced her sex appeal. So I guess to be fuckable one needs to be single as well to foster the illusion of having a chance to nail them.
And wasn’t Michelle Williams nominated for her role in “My Week with Marilyn?” She played the ultimate sex symbol, got the Oscar nom, but had to take a backseat to two older women in Viola and Meryl. If this theory was true, she should have had it in the bag.
It’s not to say that Hollywood isn’t ageist and sexist. Oh that’s definitely true. But there are holes in using the Best Actress winner of the past 15 years to prove it.
This is ridiculous. Charlize Theron won because she was a babe and Diane Keaton was just a horrible old wicked witch that no men wanted to vote for? Or maybe she won because she was incredible in Monster and no matter how great Keaton was, she just wasn’t as good?
Was Natalie Portman a winner just because she was a babe (and had a sex scene with Kunis, I’m sure that’s another reason you’ll be happy to list) and Annette Benning (who apparently isn’t a babe anymore!!!) deserved it more? When it was Julianne Moore who should’ve won anything for that movie instead of Benning? Was Benning actually better than Portman? Of course, and Portman won because she was just a babe and kissed Kunis.
It’s also funny how Hilary Swank, the woman who gets mocked every single time for being very masculine and butch in everything she does is now the babe just to fit this stupid theory TWICE! But nobody mentions that in 2004 she beat a younger woman (Moreno) and somebody who’s listed as a babe elsewhere on the list (Winslet).
Also funny how the only reason why Sandra Bullock is, according to this, a babe at 45 is becuase the other possible winner was older than her!!!!.
And hilarious how according to this, at 45 Sandra Bullock is a babe, but at 44 Naomi Watts isn’t (or Chastain at 35) just because there’s somebody younger than her (and in what world is Jennifer Lawrence more of a babe than Naomi Watts? Please…)
People think they’re defending older women when they talk about this “theory” when all they’re doing is insulting the so called babes and their efforts, the older ladies AND women in general.
(and in what world is Jennifer Lawrence more of a babe than Naomi Watts? Please…)
The world of nearly every typical horndog man who’s the same age as Naomi Watts or older — which describes about 2/3rds of Academy voters. The world many of us know as Planet Earth.
The two worse wins in the last twenty years: Kidmann over Moore in Far From Heaven and Swank over Staunton in Vera Drake. Both women won the majority of major critics awards, even if they didn’t get the Globe or the SAG. One wonders what would have happened had Clint not decided to pull MDB a couple of months back at the last minute. From what I can see, it was looking like a Staunton win.
I find it interesting that someone commented that it was a weak year when Swank won her 2nd Oscar. Really, you didn’t like Winslet, or Staunton that year or were you just talking about the Americans? Eternal Sunshine was great work from Kate and Vera Drake was certainly great work from Staunton. Noting weak there.
The utter disrespect being shown Jennifer Lawrence is revolting (one commentator above even calls her the “c” word – so much for Sasha caring about sexism on this site).
The temper tantrums and caterwauling in this entire thread is a sight to see. There are preschoolers who are more mature than most of the posters in this thread.
If Riva had won I would have stood up and applauded because I thought she was excellent in Amour (which I saw the day before the Oscars). I was rooting for Lawrence, but I would have been thrilled for Riva and certainly would not be acting like a spoiled child. Riva would have been an excellent choice for Best Actress, just like Lawrence was an excellent choice for Best Actress.
I don’t throw temper tantrums or spew obscenities or names at people whose wins I disagree with. Maybe that’s because I’m an actual adult and behave that way.
And the opposite happens for men. Just shows the industry is still VERY manipulated by the men. Let’s give Best Actor to the one with more experience, the MAN, the well-respected. Hey, let’s give Best Actress to the hottie who is sweet and who was in a movie where the woman is the trophee and nothing more. 🙂
And the opposite happens for men. Just shows the industry is still VERY manipulated by the men.
In the wild, the elder males of any species mostly try to kill the young bucks who dare encroach on the territory of the old goats.
The ‘babe theory’ is insulting (to the Academy members) and disrespectful (to the actresses).
If the Academy voted on who was ‘most beautiful’ to win then why wasn’t Charlize Theron nominated for ‘Young Adult’ or Marion Cotillard for ‘Rust and Bone’?
Jennifer Lawrence won because ‘Silver Linings’ was a very popular film within the Academy (claiming acting nominations in all four categories) and her acting nomination was really the only realistic one that could win and, after earning four acting noms, it had to win in one of those categories.
Lawrence won over Riva because ‘Silver Linings’ was more widely seen and beloved by Academy members and Lawrence was able to campaign heavily. Clearly many more people were able to connect with Lawrence’s performance than with an 85 year old french woman deteriorating from Dementia (not exactly a feel good movie).
than with an 85 year old french woman deteriorating from Dementia
Riva’s character didn’t have dementia. She had two strokes.
But everybody knows what kind of cereal Pat ordered in Silver Linings.
I gave up on the show when Jennifer Lawrence won. That is not a performance that deserves to be in the history books. She definitely delivered in the role, but it’ll be one of those Oscar moments where, in a few years’ time, we’ll all be thinking that it was an embarrassment she won for that film. Riva’s performance will be studied in film schools, for its subtlety and impact. Followed closely by Naomi Watts. Add Lawrence’s award to the overall “roasting” tone of the show….the Academy should be ashamed of itself. The Rex Reed-Adele joke by McFarlane was a lowpoint.
I think this is similar to why few minorities get nominated, there are few good roles being written for that demographic. For this to change Hollywood needs to start casting older actresses. Which with how many talented actresses there are out there and how many audience members can relate.
“And then for another young fertile beauty to win Best Supporting as well?” 🙂 Yeah, they should only give these awards posthumously. If she has some meat left on her bones – get out of the Oscars and go to work!
Ellen Burstyn did not win because it was q supporting performance. It was amazing, but Julia carried her film. Sandra Bullock owned the Blind Side. Without her subtle yet strong performance, the movie would have been a lifetime movie. She elevated that film in every scene, every moment, every thought and every line.
I cant believe this. A young and talented actress won a big award ( by the way she also won GG and SAG for the same performance) and in less than 24 hours later there is this article just to taint her win…really? Coldnt you wait until at least tomorrow to share your anger? You think you know it alll and when your favorite doesnt win you just try to tarnish that victory …at least for one day couldnt you try to be happy for her before you use all your old tricks of racism, sexism and all…?
And to those idiots that call every not negative comment about J.Lawrence a fanboy or weinstein Publicist. I am neither. And i was rooting for Marion Cotillard and then E.Riva but J.Lawrence won! And outside this site everyone seems to be happy for her. A young, bright and talented girl won a big award. Didnt you see her eyes? Her hapiness? Just try to be happy for her for one day!
CB
“HH was better – an inspired choice. Is HH considered a ‘young hot babe’?”
I think Judi Dench (Mrs. Brown) was MUCH better, but that’s just me. And yes, back in 1997 sitcom star Helen Hunt was considered one of the hottest ‘babes’.
“Gwyneth was America’s sweetheart, an elegant and wonderful performance full of nuance.”
Agreed, to me it was a coin toss between her and Cate Blanchett whose performance in ‘Elizabeth’ I also admired.
“An entire episode of ‘The Office’ is about how HS is not a young hot babe at all. She won playing a transsexual. Next!”
Well if an an entire episode of ‘The Office’ revolves around it…but seriously, she might not have been considered a great beauty, but her ‘I am a YOUNG fighter who fought hard to get out of the trailer park’ narrative definitely helped her a great deal, plus she was the fresh new face and boy, does the Academy loves those ?!
“Seriously – the performance of the decade vs. Something’s Gotta Give?”
Point taken, but to be fair the list was about top2s and even if she was a VERY distant runner-up, Diane Keaton WAS widely considered the runner-up that year.
“Again – HS didn’t win for being young. She won for being amazing.”
She was amazing…in my opinion Bening was simply MORE amazing that year. I had no problem with Swank beating her in 99, but 04 should have belonged to Bening.
Based upon some comments here, it seems transparent to me the Weinstein/Lawrence PR team is writing in commentary to continue to shape public opinion to justify Lawrence’s win. From my perspective, no amount of PR will work this time, this ‘win,’ if one can call it as such, was undeserved.
The power of the rationale – i am the rationale queen or king. We can all argue why something did or didn;t happen. But never definitively. It is why my eyes roll when the H word gets rolled out for Crash over BBM. It is never just one element that explains a win over a loss. If that would be so, it would be like tumbleweed town here at AD, and Sasha and Ryan would be in a zen state for most of the year.
The Academy likes movie stars. Duh! The Academy likes Sexy. Duh! The Academy is fallible. Duh! The Academy makes mistakes. Duh! The Academy likes make up sex. Duh! The Academy suffers guilt (oy veh!) penis envy, breast envy. They are size queens, they love boobs but not dicks. They love art but not too meaningfully. ‘I don’t know art, but i know what i like’.
They love money. Reece made money (before Walk the Line), Julia made money, Sandy made money. Meryl made money. Fancy that.
Felicity Huffman didn’t make money. She played a transexual in a low budget indie flick road movie. She is an acclaimed stage, television and film actor. She is married to an Academy nominee. She was only 14 years older than Reece.
Julia Roberts made a lot of money with her films in the decade leading up to Erin. Ellen Burstyn already won an Oscar, and had been nominated again a couple of times before Requiem.
My point in this stream of consciousness? It is not just the babe factor.
A myriad of factors that can be dissected and analysed ad infinitum.
But yeah, sex sells!
1997 – Helen Hunt (34) vs. Judi Dench (63)
HH was better – an inspired choice. Is HH considered a ‘young hot babe’?
1998 – Gwyneth Paltrow (26) vs. Cate Blanchett (29) (twentysomething top2)
Gwyneth was America’s sweetheart, an elegant and wonderful performance full of nuance.
1999 – Hilary Swank (25) vs. Annette Bening (41)
An entire episode of ‘The Office’ is about how HS is not a young hot babe at all. She won playing a transsexual. Next!
2000 – Julia Roberts (33) vs. Ellen Burstyn (68)
This was a popularity contest, not agism. EB won for Alice and should’ve won for Requiem – but this wasn’t about age or even attractiveness (JR is not really considered a sexpot) – it was about giving her an Oscar.
2001 – Halle Berry (35) vs. Sissy Spacek (52) vs. Judi Dench (67)
A loud give-me-an-Oscar performance. Not about age. (I think Sissy Spacek should’ve won.)
2003 – Charlize Theron (28) vs. Diane Keaton (58)
Seriously – the performance of the decade vs. Something’s Gotta Give? You are blinded by your anger.
2004 – Hilary Swank (30) vs. Annette Bening (46)
Again – HS didn’t win for being young. She won for being amazing.
2005 – Reese Witherspoon (29) vs. Felicity Huffman (43)
Not agism but America’s Sweetheartism.
2007 – Marion Cotillard (32) vs. Julie Christie (66)
Not sure why JC didn’t win – but there were plenty of young attractive women that year.
2008 – Kate Winslet (33) vs. Meryl Streep (59)
Meryl Streep doesn’t deserve every Oscar she’s nominated for. Neither does Daniel Day-Lewis. It was a weak year for leads, and Kate was due.
2009 – Sandra Bullock (45) vs. Meryl Streep (60)
We all know what this year was about.
2010 – Natalie Portman (29) vs. Annette Bening (52)
Natalie Portman gave one of the finest performances I’ve ever seen. Annette Bening was great, but didn’t take anyone’s breath away. Julianne Moore was better anyway.
2012 — Jennifer Lawrence (22) vs. Emmanuelle Riva (86), Naomi Watts (44), Jessica Chastain (35) and Lil’ Q (9)
You don’t agree, and that’s your call, but many of us were absolutely captivated by Jennifer Lawrence’s manic, aggressive, subtle, bewitching, and unsettling performance. Emmanuelle Riva was great – but, you know, dying is different from living, and Lawrence did the former. Living is harder.
m1
Limit a word I only used once in this comment section ? How do you suggest I could possibly do that ? Of course that word won’t turn my opinion into fact THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I USE IT, to make sure it is obvious for the likes of you that I do not consider my highly ARGUABLE personal opinion a fact. So now the only question remains : what’s your problem ?
Sasha, please note. Regarding chicks versus old dames.
In 1999 Oscars, for the 1998 films, Gwyneth (Shakespeare in Love) won over Fernanda Montenegro (Central Station; Brazil). The latter won the Los Angeles Critics and the National Board of Review. Born in October 1929, she was 69 at the Oscars.
Foreign ladies do win but they’re usually in their prime (by straight men’s definition of what’s prime).
Portman, Lawrence, Cotillard, and Winslet were fantastic in their films and deserved their wins.
And I have to laugh at the idea that Chastain’s performance was not “showy.” The scene where she was yelling at Kyle Chandler was not showy? The final shot of ZDT was not showy? Come on, people.
And phantom, you can limit your use of the word “arguably” in your comments. Writing that word does not turn your opinions into facts.
Phantom that’s an old group of stats. I’ve posted it here before and I wasn’t the first. Maybe you were, I dunno.
OTOH, some of the kneejerk, and just jerk, reactions around here show that the truth takes a while to sink in. Part of that truth is that when 50ish or 60ish women behave as Theron or Portman did in those Oscar winning roles, people get flashes of Mommie Dearest or Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. In our culture, old women going to extremes is ghoulish. So older women nominees tend to be playing somewhat dignified women (e.g. Spacek, Montenegro) and lose to flashier, nuttier performances. A true story of a late 20th century lady leader of Britain, victim of tabloids, only comes along once in a lifetime. Ok twice – Mirren and Streep.
Here’s the graph I’d rather you do – and it would be more original – correlation of SNL hosting during awards season with wins. I don’t think anyone reading this was betting against DDL or Hathaway last night. But Actress and Sup. Actor were in doubt, and is it just a coincidence that the recent SNL hosts won? This only looks obvious in retrospect – a week ago Lawrence was only guessed as winner by about 40% of AD readers.
Maybe next year we’ll start taking SNL more seriously – uh, depending on your chart.
Ben wrote: “Oh come on! This is ridiculous. To be quite honest this comes off a bit like sour grapes and it’s a bit of a low blow. I’m sure if you look at nominees and winners from any angle you can come up with a story explaining an outcome. Do I always agree with the winners? No. But to whittle it down to this is an insult to the actresses who were nominated and won. Hilary Swank’s performance was stunning. So were Natalie Portman, Marion Cottilliard, and Charlize Theron. Can’t we just congratulate the winner, commiserate with the runners-up and leave it at that?”
And the devaluing of Jennifer Lawrence’s Oscar continues…
To the ones already speculating about the next Best Actress race :
http://awardscorner.blogspot.hu/2013/02/2013-leading-ladies.html
@Jason Travis. Bravo! Well said!
chris, imo it’s all over past 25, they all look the same…
@Christophe Ouch. Glenn Close is not “70+” … she’s 65.
“Isn’t thinking that the oldest person should get the award because they might never have another chance to win, and saying the younger person will be back probably totally unfair? It shouldn’t be based on age, experience, anything but performance. It should be based on the best performance of the year. Period. Should we always give it to the oldest person, just in case?”
Do you really sincerely believe all this is based on the performance? So Glenn Close and Julianne Moore are probably inferior actresses to Gwyneth Paltrow and Sandra Bullock.
Isn’t thinking that the oldest person should get the award because they might never have another chance to win, and saying the younger person will be back probably totally unfair? It shouldn’t be based on age, experience, anything but performance. It should be based on the best performance of the year. Period. Should we always give it to the oldest person, just in case?
Lawrence won because she fit the mold of the SHOWIER and FLAMBOYANT role that often goes to the Lead Actress. I wanted Riva to win too, but her performance (like Chastain’s) was more understated and not as loud.
2000- Julia Roberts SHOWIER then her competition; it was HER movie, HER moment
2001- Halle Berry was SHOWIER- had more crazy moments, cried; Spacek was still too subtle
2002- Nicole Kidman had the most reflection and scene chewing to do (yes even more then Lane, who I personally loved and Moore)
2003- Charlize Theron was all about the show here
2004- Hilary Swank, in a very weak category, had all the makings of Best Actress in a Best Picture winner
2005- Reese Witherspoon got to sing, emote and romance it up; Huffman was a TV ACTRESS and Hollywood does not go for those if you’re up against a Hollywood sweetheart
2006- Helen Mirren was a rare exception in that her role was not as meaty as, say, Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal or Cruz in Volver; BUT she was playing the Queen- go figure.
2007- Marion Cotillard was WAY more flashy and rich then Christie’s supporting role that really didn’t do much for me, I never got to know who she was.
2008- Kate Winslet- She had everything going for her that year and was helped by the God-awful Revolutionary Road; Role is against type and plenty of Speech moments
2009- Sandra Bullock, as much as I despised her win, was truly in a movie that revolved around HER. It was her character we came to know. Streep was stuck in a split film with Amy Adams.
2010- Natalie Portman had tons of money scenes and when you cry, they love you more. Bening, my personal choice, was again to restrained for the academy’s taste here.
2011- Meryl Streep had SCENE CHEWING galore; Viola Davis was in an ensemble piece and didn’t do much as far as expressing herself verbally. Academy voters like women who display fiery layers of rage and self-examination.
2012- Jennifer Lawrence had speeches, dancing and changing a man’s life; all the ingredients of a juicy best actress. Riva was stuck with little dialogue and her husband actually outshines her sometimes.
Chalk it up to taste, this is why these women won.
Sandra Bullock for Gravity
Julia Roberts for August: Osage County
Meryl Streep for August: Osage County
Nicole Kidman for Grace of Monaco
Naomi Watts for Diana
Kate Winslet for Labor Day
(if lead… likely supporting just like Sally Field) Emma Thompson for Saving Mr. Banks
And the Oscar goes to…
Naomi Watts in Diana (come on, Harvey, buy this film!)
I think this is all a bit of a reach. Perhaps the roles being written for younger actresses are stronger? Maybe the “younger ones” put more energy into campaigning? (Not saying either of these things are good). And there are certainly actresses in the academy, and they vote for this too, so to blame it all on old white guys isn’t entirely fair.
jorge, add to that emma thompson for Saving Mr Banks!
Some folks may be in denial, but there is active age discrimination going on in the Best Actress race, and the reversal is occuring in the Best Actor race. It’s right there people.
I’m not hating on Jennifer Lawrence, but cripe almighty, she’s 22, she’ll have many, many more chances – this was her second nomination to boot. And Ms. Riva, when will she be nominated again for an Oscar? Try never. And then for another young fertile beauty to win Best Supporting as well?
With 77% of AMPAS voters being male, more is going into the voting process than just the actress’ performance, much more.
I would LOVE to see a break down of the Best Actor age lineup of the past 20 years featuring the winner’s age, and the age of the youngest strongest contender. I guarantee we would see the complete opposite of what we see of the Best Actress competion years age line up.
Just to further my point. Here’s how I rate the films that yielded the last 10 “Best Actresses”
2012 – SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (4/5)
2011 – THE IRON LADY (2/5)
2010 – BLACK SWAN (5/5)
2009 – THE BLIND SIDE (2/5)
2008 – THE READER (3/5)
2007 – LA VIE EN ROSE (3/5)
2006 – THE QUEEN (4/5)
2005 – WALK THE LINE (3/5)
2004 – MILLION DOLLAR BABY (5/5)
2003 – MONSTER (3/5)
firstable!!
the other guy named jorge please put ur lastname because the first jorge here was me so pls
secondable!!
theron , portman , cotillard , swank were way better than her competition, if they are hot lucky them!
julia roberts win was just because she was so damn likeable … ditto for sandra bullock but do you really think meryl should have won for that crap of movie named julie and julia??? please no, she is meryl she can do better, so im happy for sandra because i love her but i need to see her in more substancial roles and better performances like gravity who i have my faith shell get a nomination…
kate winslet win was awful, her campaign was needy, the academy gave her just because they were tired to see her lose everytime, i think the best performance was angelina in changeling and then meryl
this win is as much as disastrous when palthrow won, lucky jennifer will have a way better career than her and its true we dont need to worry about her in the next 10 years, but that really piss me off that she will be back for a better role and performance and she wont win, because she won once and its too early…
i just hope to see emmanuelle living 145 years i really want to see her win an oscar… she is great
my predictions for next year:
sandra bullock gravity
naomi watts diana
nicole kidman grace of monaco
meryl streep for something
someone unknown or not a big star
naomi will win because she gave 2 great performances in a row, nicole will definetely get a second oscar before her 50´s…
jennifer lawrence will be snubbed for serena, wich will be a shame because it will a juicy role for her…
Weird tangent, why do all these posts turn to Lawrence being “a hick”?
Thank God I’m over this. I hope next year it’s again business as usual and the 5 Best Actress nominees are from mediocre to right down bad films, that way I won’t have to care again. This year I only cared because AMOUR was in it. This is by far the most vitriolic race every year, and it’s mostly “male” commentators who make it that way.
Please Academy, do not nominate Sandra Bullock because if Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY is as awesome as I expect I don’t want to have to defend her against this bunch.
Watermelons: I believe Annette Bening had won a Golden Globe that year as best actress in a comedy or musical for “Being Julia”, which made her in a way the top contender against Hillary Swank, who had won both the Globe for best actress in a drama and the SAG. Imelda Stanton won the Bafta though for “Vera Drake” , which maybe now carries more weight than the Globe, but was a less influential award back in 2004/2005.
talie, audiences might get tired of her if she does too much, i know i already am…
Lawrence definitely has an Angelina/Gwyneth vibe of being the IT Girl of the moment, but unlike them–at the time they won–she has two franchises plus lots more prestige work lined up for at least the next six years. I think she’ll live up to her title…I’m looking forward to seeing what she does with Serena, a very intense character, perhaps her toughest to date–a real villain.
Watermelons
Touche, then it was Hilary Swank (30) vs. Annette Bening (46) vs. Imelda Staunton (49). Unfortunely it only proves the point furthermore.
2001 – Halle Berry (35) vs. Sissy Spacek (52) vs. Judi Dench (67)
And what would you be saying if Halle Berry lost to one of those two?
2004 – Hilary Swank (30) vs. Annette Bening (46)
Maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention that year, but wasn’t Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake) a major contender as well??
Methinks Riva will be back soon enough, she’s got a long and bright career in the US ahead of her. It’s time for her to ditch Paris and move to the hills. She could share a condo with Jlaw while she’s looking for her own place 🙂
The good thing about last night: Jennifer Lawrence now won’t be a factor for years.
The bad thing: Riva deserved it and it was her only shot. Very sad.
Someone brought up an interesting point. AMPAS gets their cues from the critics awards right and who won those. Chastain and Lawrence, the 2 most undeserved and guess what, they are the attractive new IT girls while Riva captured I think 2 critic awards. The critics all fawned over Bigelows ZD30 another overrated film made by a hot IT female director, ignoring for example, a,film like Amour. It’s also an action thriller, violent, dark and edgy. Very ” masculine” so its safe. And who are most of the critics. White men. And if people are going to now suggest the critics are influenced by Hollywood politics, that also puts a huge black cloud and makes those awards almost worthless also.
This discussion of age, when it comes to Best Actress winners, has occurred here at least once before (Cotillard v. Christie). It’s the Academy’s sexist Babe Rule, pure and simple. Two “old broads” can’t win back to back regardless of the merit of either of the competing performances. That Riva was predicted to win by some and that she (presumably) came close to winning suggests that the Academy may be evolving in the right direction even if that journey may seem too slow.
Annette Bening’s case obviously stands out, although I have to say Hilary Swank and Natalie Portman deserved to win when they beat her for the Oscar. I just hope Mrs. Bening doesn’t end up as one of those old actors who are given an honorary Oscar after they have already de facto retired.
[Second comment]
HOWEVER, for the Shakespeare in Love year, I believe you (Sasha), as well as Phantom, have made a valid point to an extent (not in full though, in my opinion): Palthrow vs (HOWEVER, NOT BLANCHETT) a Brazilian lady.
Just saying.
well honestly, babes win Oscars because babes get parts. when these beauties get old they are over.
I agree, JJ. Jennifer Lawrence has no class. If that’s a role model for our children, God help us all.
“You really think Winslet’s win was about age and attractiveness? Same for Cotillard and Portman. They won because they were the best of the year.”
If actresses only won the lead category because ‘they were the best of the year’, Winslet wouldn’t have won for The Reader, (she had considerably more accomplished performances, one even in the same year!), and the Academy wouldn’t have dreamed of making the likes of Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett settle with supporting actress trophies.
Hot chick or Not.
Totally agree with Sasha
Best performance always wins (it hardly ever does, right?)
You just don’t win Oscars on Performance. The best most talented ones never even won an Oscar. All I could think now is Bening, Red head Moore and who else? I know there’s a ton of them.
I say next year is Nicole most likely a second gold or per se a nom is a lock. She’s got Harvey’s back.
CTLF = c___ they like to fuck
Looking at that list, all those hot babes won a handful of precursors and maybe, just maybe, AMPAS took the cue from them. The out-of-nowhere wins might provide a better insight. Like Marcia Gay Harden beating hot-to-trot Kate Hudson.
Best Actress should’ve been a tie between Naomi Watts and Emmanuelle Riva! JLaw’s performance was annoying and lacked subtlety. I guess the problem with the Acad is not just ageism, but they only notice flashy performances with a lot of yelling, crying, fighting or physical transformation, but a smart and understated performance like that of Riva’s seems too “natural” to stand out.
Lawrence has revealed herself to be a total dingbat this awards season: uneducated, unrefined and totally disrespectful of the craft of acting.
She’s just very lucky that her performance in Silver Linings works so damn well. It really does. It will stand the test of time. She may not.
I’m just saying this is such a nothing issue. For me personally, Rive shouldn’t have even been nominated. Amour was the worst Best Picture nominee. Lawrence will continue to do great work and I believe will establish herself as an acting great. The Silver Linings Playbook script would have been average at best in the hands of actors other than Lawrence, Cooper, DeNiro, and Weaver. It is largely their performances that made the film so great. On paper, it is easily common romantic comedy fare. That’s not what wee get though. People preferred Lawrence because she gave the strongest performance and she’s a major talent.
“CTLF”
Now that Sasha has begun to talk like a secret agent, CIA, you know, Maya-like figure, and all that jazz, I therefore venture to guess that CTLF should stand for Contenders They Like to Fall for? xD Or, Contenders They Like to Fancy…. : )
—
Anyway, before I get myself monitored for redundantly being smartaxx : ), I’d like to focus on SWANK VS BENING here.
I saw all four films in question. Actually, I also own two of them on DVD except, unfortunately, AB and BDC. I love Annette Bening and I recently made my point in a few of my AD comments here being upset in process, about her Oscars score remaining zero despite, let’s say, Hunt and Bullock’s one-mark gain, each for Best Actress.
Unfortunately, it was mainly bad timing for Ms. Benning in part (vs Ms. Swank). And to be honest, Swank, on both occasions, gave wonderful performances. Bening, too, was amazing in both of her own films. It could have gone either way. (So, it’s got nothing to do with libido; plus for good measures, that elegant four-letter French F-word might even be too hard for them to spell as well. lol)
And to be fair to both Swank and Bening re the […] title, the latter, at 41, during the AB period of time still looked gorgeous. Let me be blunt, Ms. Bening at 41, to me, was more of a “contender-they-like-to-foster” [ah….finally, I’ve had it right… XD] than Ms. Swank at 25.
At least, the OWGPHYB case should be untrue when it comes to Swank vs Benning, in my humble opinion.
—
Thanks to Phantom for the data.
People can say: “Oh, it’s not true, is not age-ism because I liked so and so’s performance so much” all they want and until they’re blue in the face but it doesn’t refute Sasha’s argument in any way.
Let’s look at it differently: Would we ever have this debate with respect to the Best Actor award? I’m not saying all are deserved. Ugh, Adrien Brody. But, “did the hot young guy beat out the better performance by the older guy?” is simply NEVER a discussion that we have when it comes to the Oscars.
To me, that proves, irrefutably, that there is something amiss.
It’s called sexism, and ageism too.
It’s -very- disturbing.
Personally, I would have placed Emmanuelle Riva in 4th. Naomi Watts delivered a great performance and has an overdue factor to her – she was the one I wanted to win. Otherwise, I would have picked Jessica Chastain. I didn’t want Jennifer Lawrence to win for this role but I’m not upset that she did. Q is an easy 5th place.
Besides, Riva didn’t do much for me in Amour, Jean-Louis Trintignant delivered the performance that really got to me. I would have preferred Marion Cotillard getting Riva’s nom.
Also, this has NOTHING to do with their looks or ages.
You really think Winslet’s win was about age and attractiveness? Same for Cotillard and Portman. They won because they were the best of the year.
Thomas
I agree about Theron, Portman, Cotillard and the first time Swank won, but do you honestly think that
– Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich) was even in the same league as Ellen Burstyn (Requiem for a Dream) ?
– Halle Berry (Monster’s Ball) gave a performance as accomplished and layered as Sissy Spacek (In the Bedroom) or Judi Dench (Iris) ?
– Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby) came even close to Annette Bening’s career-best work in Being Julia ?
– Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line) deserved a lead Oscar for an expertly executed supporting turn with VERY limited screentime instead of Felicity Huffman’s revelatory work in Transamerica ?
– Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) deserved to win for an arguably supporting role ‘blessed’ with Oscar-friendly (=calculated) writing and direction that among others, gave her the luxury of flashy (Oscar-baity) acting opportunities like simply losing it big time in a diner or with teary eyes fall into the arms of her big strong male love interest ? IMO, her strongest ‘rivals’ had to nail much more difficult roles (Riva and Watts from the neck up, Chastain without flashy emotions) playing strong female characters and delivered expertly executed, truly memorable performances (Riva, Chastain, Watts).
I respect your opinion if you think these were good choices from the Academy, I just simply disagree with you then. Not about Theron, Portman and Cotillard, though, they were close to untouchable in their respective years, and though Swank had tough competition in 1999, in retrospect I’m glad she won for the role that was in a film all about her character, that’s how I rationalized her win over Bening whose film was all about ANOTHER character (Spacey’s)…that’s why it annoys me to this day that when 5 years later the roles were reversed (Bening THE lead, Swank the CO-lead), the Academy was just lazy and jumped on the MDB-bandwagon.
No no no no no, objectionable, this is a low blow, it’s ageist, racist, and without proof.
Oh, Sasha, don’t get me even started on that. I was so mad yesterday I turned off my TV when Lawrence name was called out. Hollywood is such a disgusting place. Probably the most sexist workplace you could imagine. When you turn forty and you’re a woman there’s no role for you unless you don’t mind playing thankless mother role of Kirsten Stewart or other young starlet. They don’t care if you give the best performance, they will always vote not with their brains but with their dicks.
Sandra Bullock so lucky to make it at 45. Because this does paint a picture that there’s a range of (young) age for an actress to win lead, unless she becomes a living legend anyway.
^
Except the Oscar is for the best performance not best up and coming performance.
I’m one of the few who is OK with Lawrence winning. I think Riva shined above everyone else, but clearly it was never going to happen. But the challenge really is the fact that once women hit 40, the availability of solid Oscar caliber roles in this day and age dimishes when oddly for men, they seem to be just hitting their stride. Meryl Streep is the only actress over 50 who gets work regularly and she gets all the prime roles. Wouldn’t it be great to see Streep along with her peers, women her age, getting meaty roles regularly.
Oh come on! This is ridiculous. To be quite honest this comes off a bit like sour grapes and it’s a bit of a low blow. I’m sure if you look at nominees and winners from any angle you can come up with a story explaining an outcome. Do I always agree with the winners? No. But to whittle it down to this is an insult to the actresses who were nominated and won. Hilary Swank’s performance was stunning. So were Natalie Portman, Marion Cottilliard, and Charlize Theron. Can’t we just congratulate the winner, commiserate with the runners-up and leave it at that?
I take offense to the title. I think all old guy Oscar voters, whether they’re in the white majority or some other racial minority, prefer hot young babes. 😉 (Unless they prefer hot young dudes)
Diane Keaton is fantastic, but Charlize Theron beat her fair and square.
Zooey
2006 was the rare exception with a veteran top3, and 95/94 isn’t listed because I went by the last 15 Best Actress winners (it’s a week-old list), now Lawrence being the 16th. Also, Winona Ryder was considered a surprise nominee and wasn’t nowhere near the top2 that year which is a shame because Jo March is probably still her most iconic leading role.
With exception to your 1997, 1998 and 2008the examples all other young female winners were the more deserving. Hilary Swanks two wins, Theron’s and Portman’s performances were by far the best of their respective year. These three younger actresses did deserve being called Best Actress if the year and I do not think age should be held too much as a factor. Another reason why younger women seem to win is because the voting members additionally like to award those with potential for improvement over the years and careers that will more than likely have some kind of longevity.
must you make everything a public service announcement about gender and race, i.e white guys & young babes.
if you look at the years individually, in most cases the best performance won. and when someone else one it was usually sentiment (sandra bullock) that was the reason,not age or race.
i guess the only way to settle this debate would be to check each and every year and compare the average winner age with the average nominee age. Plus check how many times the youngest, second youngest, middle, second oldest and oldest won…
CW
You don’t seem to get the whole point of this article.
Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep and to a lesser extent Sandra Bullock are the EXCEPTIONS in Best Actress since they are the only winners in the last 16 years over 36 (!) and Bullock – 45 at the time of her victory – was a youthful movie star, meanwhile the Mirren-Streep duo were in their VERY early sixties when they won recently.
Long story short, in the last 15 years it has NEVER happened that from the supposedly top2 Best Actress contenders, the ‘babe’ lost to the veteran actress. When Mirren won, Streep (Prada) seemed to be her runner-up, when Streep won, 45 year old acting vet Viola Davis was the obvious second choice and when 45 year old youthful movie star Sandra Bullock won, she beat 60 year old acting giant Meryl Streep.
Precedent was tragically against Emmanuelle Riva, just think about it, the age gap between her (86) and the oldest Best Actress winner of the last 15 years (Streep at 62) is more (24 years) than Jennifer Lawrence’s age.
With the exceptions of two widely acclaimed acting giants and the biggest female movie star of that time, no actress over 36 won Best Actress in the last 15 years, so nobody else in their forties, definitely none in their fifties or sixties (and even the sixtysomething-exceptions were in their EARLY sixties (61,62)…so imagine what 86 year old Emmanuelle Riva had to face here AND with a foreign language performance nonetheless.
Bottom line : As sad and frustrating is, age IS a factor when it comes to the Academy’s Best Actress picks and being THE ‘babe’ of the category almost always pays off. That’s why it was so incredibly annoying when Lawrence-fans kept saying that the sole reason she can lose is because they will discriminate against her youth, when based on precedent, it is is obvious that if the Academy is ageist, the under 36 demo is the not the one who will suffer.
@ Sasha,
what about 2006?
Mirren (in her early 60’s), Dench (i her late 60’s), Meryl (late 50’s) and they were the top contenders.
What about 1995?
Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep and even Emma Thompson. Susan defeated Shue.
What about 1994?
Ryder must have been really the hot new chick back then?
You can’t make a case for Frances McDormand being the babe!
Come on!
Sandra Bullock could be younger than Meryl but she’s in no way a babe. She was just everybody’s friend. Last night I got why she won. When she presented Goldenberg with the Oscar and then went with him backstage, she was one of the few presenters who paid attention to the guy next to her and actually talked to him and made him feel at ease. How many do that? I don’t like her acting. She’s mediocre, yes. I hated her win over Meryl. But for once I believe that she really means what she said in he speech that year.
And on DDL and Meryl – I would have loved to see that Lincoln as well.
And on Cotillard and Christie – I’m 23 and I still find Christie wayyyyyy sexier than Cotillard.
There have been a good couple of exceptions like Portman and Cotillard. Those two deserved their wins. Mostly though the voters prescribe to the “We saw your boobs!” Okay Lawrence didn’t show skin, but voters will be expecting it soon.
Shame Theron didn’t win for her work in Young Adult. Beautiful on the outside, but ugly in the inside. She should have at least been nominated. It’s her best work. Yes even over Monster.
Portman’s win is the only one that holds up well in recent memory. I love Winslet, but I wish she didn’t win for that. Bullock is a nice enough individual, but ehhhhhhh no(Mulligan should have won). Streep should win for Julie and Julia 2nd to Mulligan, but not The Iron Lady.
Sasha,
It makes me sad that you didn’t list Fernanda Montenegro close to Cate Blanchett in 1999. Blanchett is not only hotter but a miles better as an actress than Paltrow and would, of course, have made a more deserving winner but the stand out, the most deserving was by far Fernanda.
I know it’s much easier to cheer for an European actress than a Brazilian one but she was 69 at that time and was the critics darling of that year, winning LA/National Board and being runner-up at NY and 3rd in National Society. But as the Academy thought there was only space for one foreign to win, the clown won but not Fernanda.
This discussion of age being a factor in the winners is ridiculous. Many, including myself, though Lawrence was the best performance of last year. Period. Her beauty and humor are secondary to what I find to be the best Best Actress win since Theron.
sorry didn’t read the end of your post as usual… can you pls delete my 2 comments once again? thx
2011: Meryl Streep (60+) vs. Michelle Williams (almost 30?) vs. Rooney Mara (25+) vs. Viola Davis (40+) vs. Glenn close (70+?)
Christoph, you got me. ONE year.