Was Jennifer Lawrence the worst Best Actress winner since goop?
Who was worse?
Jennifer. Repulsive personality aside, Goop has talent within a limited range.
Um, no. Halle? Julia? Reese? Sandra?
She's a fuckin' travesty.
Don't forget Helen Hunt!
And Ginger Rogers back in the day.
You people do realize that Jennifer Lawrence was better than De Niro in SLP?
Several bad actresses have one oscars. Slim pickin I guess.
I thought she was great. I thought nearly all the nominees in every category this year were great.
It was a very good year for films. It wasn't the best Oscar presentation, but it's fun. And I'm sick of listening to people whine and critique the day after, on cue. Jeez, go see a movie and cheer up for a bit.
No win is more ridiculous than Bullock's Lifetime performance in "Mouthy White Lady Save a Black Kid"
The thing is, Jennifer Lawrence is quite a good actress, and had she won for "Winter's Bone" I would have applauded. But this was a nothing role. It was like the year Reese won for "Walk the Line": she was essentially playing a forgettable supporting role as the female love interest in a male star vehicle.
You call her "Goop"? What are you guys, still in 7th grade?
She calls herself goop.
Gwynnie's other internet nickname is "fishsticks" for reasons I do not recall. It was an alt.showbiz.gossip newsgroup thing.
Reese Witherspoon has my vote. Her part was a supporting role.
R17, while that's not the best dress, there are many others that are far worse.
R23. Paltrow's 1999 dress (R17) sucked beyond words. For one thing, it didn't fit her. She was far too skinny at the time to carry off the bare chest with spaghetti straps and no cleavage.
Maybe on someone else the dress might have looked better, but on Paltrow, it was a friggin disaster. And I take that back, the dress would have been equally as hideous on anyone. Beyond horrible.
Is the award for the Best Actress even taken seriously anymore? Looking at the list of those who won in the last 15 years or so, there are maybe 3-4 performances that I can even recall as being good, with a couple of actresses who were basically given "better late than never" prizes for better work done in the past (Streep, Mirren.) I like Lawrence and she's done some great stuff (A Winter's Bone) but when I saw SLP I was wondering why all the fuss. It was a good performance in a fairly good movie but nothing I would remember years from now. Also, as long as Sandra Bullock is on that list, Jennifer Lawrence can't be the worst one, not by a long shot.
true r25...you rarely get great female performances anymore...I guess they just don't write the roles anymore. Sad when you look at the kind of stuff Streep and Jessica Lange did in the 80's or even Sally and Sissy Spacek's work.
In recent years I'd say only Marion Cotillard, Frances McDormand, Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry, were really exceptional.
[quote]In recent years I'd say only Marion Cotillard, Frances McDormand, Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry, were really exceptional.
oops sorry Charlize! I forgot about you!
BTW you seem like one cool bitch....I'd like to be one of your gays. Are you accepting applications?
Hilary Swank in Million Dollar Baby convinced you without a doubt that she wasn't just a boxing champion but a knockout boxing champion, aside from all the other qualities required for the role. She was fantastic.
The only deserving winners of the last 15 years have been Streep, Cotillard, Theron, and Swank (the first time).
The Oscars are truly in bad shape.
They picked the two young white 'it' girls, plus fellated Ben, all because they're good-looking, and that's all that matters these days.
Had they gone Ann plus Riva, or Adams plus Lawrence - any combination of one quality and one popular win - things would have been more palatable.
Instead we got awards that had no interest in quality whatsoever, reflecting the Academy's desire to become the new People's Choice Awards.
The Academy truly deserves the downward spiral they're currently on.
Jennifer gave a fine (if forgettable) performance in a fine film (that no one will remember in 2 years).
When they showed the clips of each actress it was never more obvious that Naomi Watts should have won (Riva a close second).
The academy have caved in to popular opinion in recent years, so usually the most deserving person goes home empty-handed while the Reeces and Gwyneths of the world go home thinking they're something special (they're not).
Not worst but certainly one of the most undeserved.
Nothing compares to Judy not winning for A Star is Born.
Why wasn't Naomi a more popular choice this year? Was her film so depressing no one saw it?
I didn't see it for that reason.
r31, I totally agree Naomi Watts had the most impressive clip.
But Riva gave the best performance overall.
I hate it when a clip shows the co-star more than the nominee; in Riva's case we got to see more of JLT than Riva herself.
When Amy Adams' clip was shown, we got to see more of the back of PSH than Adams herself.
The clips, and the whole show, were so poorly produced and executed. Shame.
[quote] Several bad actresses have one oscars. Slim pickin I guess.
I agree completely. This year was absolutely slim pickings. When I saw the nominees for Best Actress, I was appalled. WTF?
The only one who truly belonged in that category was the Austrian lady from Amour. Nobody else.
The Oscars have desperately trying to be "current" for years, thinking that awarding Bullock, Roberts, Witherspoon, Berry, Zellwegger, Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Hudson, etc., and now Lawrence, would somehow make them relevant.
It has, however, made them a complete joke. The award clearly has nothing to do with acting ability. None whatsoever.
And the fact that they rewarded the "I beat Meryl!" retard with an Oscar, is further proof that the award isn't worth shit.
Her fall on the steps, while going to retrieve her award, was a profound metaphor for the entire farce that is called "The Academy Awards."
Totally agree, r36.
But Riva is French, not Austrian.
The film was financed by Austria/Germany, the director is Austrian, but it was filmed in France with French actors. In French.
I'm not a Naomi Watts fanboy, but I swear the academy has fucked up twice now by not giving her the win. She should have won on Sunday and she should have won for Mulholland Drive (yet wasn't even nominated... wtf!)
The OP is just a bitch, Nuff said.
You can't choose who should win from the clips they show, which may or may not evoke the quality of an entire performance.
No, OP is exactly right.
You are the problem, r39.
Well, a flawed clip can show a flawed aspect of an entire performance, r41.
The clips of Chastain, JLaw, Cooper, DeNiro, and even Wallis showed them shouting and over-emoting. Chastain in particular was quite bad.
I don't see why a performance should be nominated as one of the year's five best if even a portion of it is badly acted?
And as for JLaw/Cooper and Alphabet Wallis - shouting, screaming and crying is really easy to pull off. There was no there there.
I agree with r29. Hilary Swank was fantastic in both roles that won her Oscars. She has a limited range for sure, but when cast correctly she always knocks it out of the park. She was superb in a movie called "Conviction" too.
I can't understand all the hate for her here.
Do the schooled actors resent people like J Law? She said she never took an acting class. What other Oscar winners have never studied acting?
Love both of them...so suck it
Because, r43, Julianne Moore deserved the 1999 Oscar and Kate Winslet deserved the 2004 Oscar.
Hilary Skank is NOT a good actress, she has zero charisma and is ugly inside and out.
Her wins piss me off far more than Goop or Julia or Sandra.
You can't possibly watch "Boys Don't Cry" and not think that Swank deserved that Oscar.
I like Lawrence and she was good in SLP, she was impressive mainly due to her youth and who she was acting opposite of. However, Watts should've won. She was gut-wrenching in the Impossible but the Oscar's fall into line with the zeitgeist. If I were JLaw I would be kind of bummed about being so successful so young. She seems solid but I hope she doesn't go off the deep-end. Kentucky girls like to party hard. She seems like a fun girl who isn't too affected by the Hollywood game.
I like Sandra Bullock, but not sure her performance merited an Oscar
Goopy is actually quite talented, definitely more than Reese Witherspoon, Halle Berry, Sandra Bullock, AnnE, Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts.
I love her performance in Hard Eight, PTA's first movie - she was amazing in that one.
I agree, R31. Naomi Watts is an excellent actress and should have won this time. Jennifer Lawrence is a good actress, but she's not great.
Why can't we have more post-menopausal actresses doing Rich Little numbers among the nominated performers?
Lots of makeup and an accent = GREAT ACTING!
I thought her performance in Winter's Bone was one of the best in recent history. Maybe it was a case of giving a "make up" oscar for not giving it to her for Winter's Bone.
Kate Winslet never seizes to amaze me, she is stupendous. Never forget her wonderful whacky character portrait in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind or as the young Iris Murdoch in Iris.
Hillary Swank is always trying so hard that her performances seem forced, just like Jodi Foster they always seem to be so uneasy in front of the camera and you never forget it's them.
Does anyone here have inside information? Like.. do we know how many voted for Jlaw vs how many voted for Naomi? Probably not.. but it would have been fun to see.
I think what's wrong with the oscars is that buzz and politics count more than the actual performances. Jlaw had so much buzz surrounding her, everyone raved about her in the newspapers and she's the epitome of American's sweetheart. They have been selling her image for a while now, you can see her everywhere. I think the people who vote for the awards are too caught up in who's in and who's popular right now. Just because you see Ann and Jennifer everywhere doesn't mean they deserve an Oscar. It's just ridiculous. Naomi Watts paid the price for being a private person, you hardly ever see her in the gossip mags, that way it's also hard to create buzz around her. The movie was also a huge problem, it wasn't exactly promoted a lot. Not many people saw it.
It makes sense in a way that Jennifer Lawrence won, but I still think Naomi deserved it more.
I think after getting her second Oscar nomination at such a young age,the Academy thought it best to give it to her now and get it out if the way. They didn't want another Kate Winslet on their hands...
For one thing, Lawrence was WAY too young for the part. She was supposed to be a cynical divorce? Please! The role should have been cast with an actress in her 30s.
[quote]Naomi Watts paid the price for being a private person, you hardly ever see her in the gossip mags, that way it's also hard to create buzz around her.
Please, I've seen constant 'candid' pictures of her, Liev and the kids. Walking down the street, on vacation, taking the children to school. It was almost as bad as Bennifer 2.0. The only problem is Naomi is essentially boring and nobody saw her movie. But she tried.
I don't think Lawrence qualifies as the worst win. Using a time line of 1997-2012, I would say Hunt, Paltrow, Roberts, Berry, Swank Number Two, Witherspoon and Bullock were all worse than she was. I don't think Lawrence's win will go down as one of the greats like Cotillard's or Theron's win, but it was a solid win, in my opinion.
I eat shit.
The Streep troll (tm)
I just have to say this because I'm assuming not many people saw "the impossible,"
And ill state I've always been a fan of Watts and thought she was fantastic in MD and 21 Grams...
However, The Impossible was shit and she wasn't great either. It was an overblown Lifetime feelgood movie about the Tsunami and the acting was that for television. She cries through the whole thing, but you don't feel anything. I had a feeling throughout that if someone were to really survive such circumstances, they wouldn't be breaking down all the time rather than carrying a ray of hope and looking for a way to live. She should never have been nominated.
The real snub was Cotillard for "rust and bone," as well as the male lead for "amour"
Back in the day, you had to earn an Oscar through longevity with audiences. It's not just about one performance, your nominated role in comparison to other performances really gives the win some historical value. If she was in her 30s, this win would have more substance.
I suppose there are exceptions, sometimes people come out of nowhere to win but Jennifer is hardly comparable to the masterful Glenda Jackson at this point in her career.
I want to see Glenn Close and Michelle Pfeiffer win Lead Oscars. It hurts to see Jennifer get an award, not because she's untalented but because the history is not there, you know?
I only know one Academy voting member. She always goes for cheap sentimentality over substance.
Just an example from last year: Rooney Mara nominated over Tilda Swinton. That tells you everything you need to know about this category.
I think she was very good in SLP and a few years ago amazing in Winter Bones. In short, she is one talented young actress.
The only performances that were truly worthy of the accolade in the past 15 years.
Hilary swank-Boys don't cry
I think Natalie Portman was worse than Goop, Sandra, Reese, and Halle.
I have trouble understanding the hate for Jennifer Lawrence on this board, except that this IS Datalounge and hate is to be expected. But the woma speaks her mind, and I thought DL residents like that?
Besides, she was sensational in "Winter's Bone," was nominated and lost, so perhaps this is a make-up for that.
The BA award is a career killer though. She might be going away now.
"What other Oscar winners have never studied acting?"
Most of them. Very few movie stars have studied acting in any formal capacity. We're talking about the Oscars, not the Tonys. You think Charlize Theron and Halle Berry are Juilliard grads?
"Back in the day, you had to earn an Oscar through longevity with audiences."
Not really. Streisand won an Oscar for her first film, when she was still in her 20s. Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Jennifer Jones, Marlee Matlin, Janet Gaynor, Vivien Leigh were all under 30 when they won. And those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head. Best Actress tends to skew young - more so than the Best Actor award and the supporting awards. It is rare for twentysomething male to win Best Actor, or even just to be nominated for that award. Best Actress often goes to the "it girl" of the moment, whereas Best Actor usually goes to a grizzled acting vet.
[quote] The only performances that were truly worthy of the accolade in the past 15 years.
Hilary swank-Boys don't cry
Reese Witherspoon and Natalie Portman are hands down the worst Best Actress winners.
[quote]The BA award is a career killer though. She might be going away now.
She has 3 new Hunger Games movies coming out. Another X-Men movie. She's playing Christian Bale's wife in the new David O. Russell film. Then she also had The Ends of the Earth with Russell again. So she won't be disappearing for another 4+ years AT LEAST.
Sandra Bullock winning was ridiculous. The end.
I don't the comparison, OP. I'll just take it as one of those DL things where we must hate on what's popular and successful. But from the minute people started seeing this movie she was being talked about for an Oscar. She's excellent in the movie.
I would have given the Oscar to Riva, to be honest, but this really isn't like when Paltrow stole the Oscar from Blanchett. I would have been happy with any of the nominated actresses winning, though maybe less so the little girl.
Jennifer Lawrence is a real talent. Winter's Bone is a brilliant performance. And she was the only good thing about that aforementioned shitty Hunger Games movie.
I doubt we'll see her turn into Goop. Goop (and her potential successor Hathaway), take this all too seriously. I think Lawrence finds the humor in all of this attention, and will be able to remain humble. Whereas we have Hathaway whispering into her Oscar "it came true". Ugh.
[quote] The clips of Chastain, JLaw, Cooper, DeNiro, and even Wallis showed them shouting and over-emoting.
I can understand the typical yahoo at home not understanding it, but shouldn't the people in the industry who vote and also produce the show know that good "acting" isn't necessarily the scenes where the character scream and explode with anger?
What did Naomi Watts do in The Impossible beside lay on a gurney and gurgle?
Naomi Watts did not even deserve a nomination.
Looks like we have a new DL fav.
Her clip alone showed Watts richly deserved her nomination.
Wallis and Chastain didn't deserve a nom, though.
GOOP's performance in SIL was better than what Reese, Julia, Sandra, Halle and Swank in MDB turned in. I don't understand why she always gets shit on for SIL. She is annoying as fuck but the other actresses mentioned truly stank and her performance was charming and more difficult than the others (dying is easy, comedy is hard).
So the answer to your stupid question is no.
Sally Field and Emmanuelle Riva were both robbed last night. It seems they only hand out awards to young, pretty and popular actresses these days, I mean WTF?
[quote]GOOP's performance in SIL was better than what Reese, Julia, Sandra, Halle and Swank in MDB turned in
But it wasn't better than Cate Blanchett's performance in Elizabeth in that same year. I think she gets a lot of shit for beating Cate so she didn't deserve her award.
Exactly R83, a lot of what stings about GOOP is Blanchett was clearly better than that Shakespeare in Love also won best picture which was a travesty.
The most undeserving recent wins are definitely Portman for Black Swan and Sandra Bullock in Blind Side.
Riva deserved it over Lawrence, but Lawrence is a great actress who turned in a very good performance.
Goop is the only one I can think of where ALL the other nominees were better than her. She may have deserved a nom, but that was it. And as much as I dislike her, yes she has some talent.
R4 I couldn't believe how bad Kitty Foyle was. I hoped for better cause Nick's Flick Picks, a great site which I rarely disagree with, ranked her high against other winners.
[quote] Her clip alone showed Watts richly deserved her nomination.
What clip did they show?
She was good in every role so far, but she needs to work on range, instead of her stock morose/poker face character. I'd like to see her stretch into some character roles.
[quote] GOOP's performance in SIL was better than what Reese, Julia, Sandra, Halle and Swank in MDB turned in
Are you shitting me??? Better than Swank?!
They should have given it to Watts for Mulholland Drive
Tilda should have been nominated for We Need to Talk About Kevin, not Michelle Williams for that terrible Marilyn movie. She should have won in 1992 for Orlando.
Isabelle Huppert should have won in 2002 for The Piano Teacher (though I did like Kidman in The Hours. It could have been a tie). She should have also won in 1989 for The Story of Women.
Gena Rowlands should have won in 1977 for Opening Night, though I did like Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, so maybe a tie. In fact, they could have given it to her in 1971 for Minnie and Moskowitz, which in some ways was a pre-Annie Hall. They gave it to Fonda that year for Klute, which everyone thinks she was great in, but I think Fonda was best in They Shoot Horses, Don't They? But that was 1969, and I agree that Maggie Smith was the one to get it that year for Miss Jean Brodie.
Katrin Cartlidge should have won in 1998 for Claire Dolan (which means Fishsticks would not have won for Shakespeare in Love).
I thought her dress was beautiful...she looked good to me.
Why didn't Brad Davis win for Querelle?
She shouldn't have won but she's redeemed herself for me. I felt bad when she tripped, but her speech was a masterclass in getting the balance right - joyous, yet very composed and yes, the perfect dress.
She was the polar opposite of Hathaway, plus most importantly wished Emmanuelle happy birthday after being a bit snotty to her. Also she has a great personality in general and is naturally funny and quick witted - see the video of her post-show with Nicholson and her making fun of Lohan on twitter.
Should've been Riva but I also feel sorry for Naomi who would've taken it had she been in a better film and didn't disappear half way through, like that astute Academy voter said.
He didn't win because he wasn't nominated, and they gave it to Ben Kingsley for Gandhi.
Still not seen Querelle, but Davis was amazing in Midnight Express, one of the classic Oscar snubs I can think of.
They gave it to Jon Voight for Coming Home instead of Davis for Midnight Express. I guess he didn't have a chance with those political feel good movies.
If anything, all five nominees this year were good and there were no WTF moments when they announced the nominations in this category. Yes, Riva should've won but she herself probably didn't even care about an Oscar all that much and found all the fuss amusing. What I find more annoying is that with all the push that was behind her nomination and, ultimately, winning, Lawrence will probably end up doing run-of-the-mill Hollywood schlock (big franchises, quirky romcoms, action movies) instead of things such as Winter's Bone which put her on the map in the first place.
The worst to win were Jennifer Hudson and Portman
Hudson is a bad actress. Bad. Screams a lot when singing too. Portman in BS was of her looking distressed and twirling. Sill wins both of them.
Oh yes, the lowlight of the night was that fat cunt J-Hud caterwauling that overrated tuneless wannabe anthemic song that got her the fradulent Oscar.
Again, I ask why people in the industry don't know what good acting is? I can understand anyone outside the industry not knowing but if you are in the Academy and vote shouldn't you know what good acting is?
[quote] but if you are in the Academy and vote shouldn't you know what good acting is?
Adam Sandler is in the Academy, as is Rob Schneider. There are probably as many shitty actresses who are also members.
If Haley Joel Osment was a young girl he would have a Oscar for The Sixth Sense-as Lead Actor. As it stands,both he and Jude Law were robbed in their supporting category that year. Instead,they gave it to Michael Caine in a performance that no one talks about now...
As has already been pointed out numerous times on this site, the whole category is a sham designed to promote and celebrate commercial success, nothing more. I became a huge Lawrence fan after Winter's Bone but I don't like how she's being shoved down our throats relentlessly at this point. She's becoming really overexposed really quickly, and overexposure is always icky to me no matter how much I like a performer.
There really can never be any such thing as "best actress of the year" anyway. It's all completely subjective. I thought that Tilda Swinton gave THE lead actress performance of 2011 in We Need To Talk About Kevin, and I know I was far from being alone on that, but she wasn't even nominated last year. It's all bullshit and I suggest cultivating apathy towards the whole thing (if you haven't already) and just continuing to enjoy the films and performances that you enjoy.
[quote]Again, I ask why people in the industry don't know what good acting is? I can understand anyone outside the industry not knowing but if you are in the Academy and vote shouldn't you know what good acting is?
Or maybe you're the one who doesn't know. SAG and the Oscars both seemed to agree on this year''s Best Actress.
And while I don't think it was the BEST performance this year, Jennifer Lawrence is certainly a good actress, as anyone who watches SLP and Winter's Bone would know. If they're able to recognize good acting, that is.
She is so fucking overrated. And dumb as a rock. A reporter asked her if she had any concern about peaking too early and she was so clueless that it was embarrassing. She flipped the bird at a catty reporter (someone with brains would have ignored him). She fell on her face walking up a few steps. She's DUMB.
She's getting a free ride now due to her tender age. Her frequently dopey remarks and boorish behavior are accepted as part of her youth, and she's considered charmingly "awkward." But she's really just not very bright and not very well mannered.
Emmauel Riva should have won. The Oscars suck.
r104 sounds like he has lots of friends ...
Oh, R104 is actually the same troll posting in every Jennifer Lawrence thread --- getting angrier and angrier with each post.
Someone please take it out of its misery.
R105 Sounds like JL's PR.
I agree with R104. This bitch is dumb as hell and annoying as hell. She has no manners, no class, and is VERY overrated.
She's extremely talented. She is going to have a long,wonderful career.
she is a good actress, but she really shouldn't do interviews or talk to the press
Awarding Oscars to young undeserving actresses is not a new trend.
Jennifer Jones, Joan Fontaine, Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn all won Oscars while in their twenties and all had stronger competition.
There are probably a few others pre-1990s.
Agree r102. Rooted for her at the start, not anymore.
She's becoming my AnnE
I don't really get the hype about J Lawrence. She is OK but not really great. She lacks range and charisma IMHO. Compare her to Judi Dench, Viola Davis, Cate Winslet and Toni Collette and you see the difference. I don't quite understand why Hollywood pushes some actresses and some work for decades and never receive the recognition they deserve.
Michelle Monaghan is one of those examples. She continuesly gives know-out-of-the-park performances but unfortunately no producer/studio/director hires her for something big.
Hollywood industry likes dummies like Brad Pitt, Channing Tatum, Emma Stone
R103 Hollywood is an industry first and foremost. It's money that matters more than anything.
It's her reward for having gotten such acclaim for Winter's Bone, then doing the huge blockbuster Hunger Games trilogy but coming back to indies with SLP. And she was fantastic in it. I didn't know who she was when I saw it (until the end credits rolled) and was beyond impressed.
[quote]I would have given the Oscar to Riva, to be honest, but this really isn't like when Paltrow stole the Oscar from Blanchett.
Paltrow didn't steal anything from Blanchett. Frankly, I think Blanchett was overrated in "Elizabeth". Not that she wasn't very good, but she wasn't great.
[quote]She is so fucking overrated. And dumb as a rock. A reporter asked her if she had any concern about peaking too early and she was so clueless that it was embarrassing. She flipped the bird at a catty reporter (someone with brains would have ignored him).
I thought she handled the peaking to early question pretty well (He asked are you worried that you peaked too early and she said "well, now I am."----the guy sounded like an asshole trying to kill her buzz anyway.)
What did the person ask that she gave the finger to?
[quote]Paltrow didn't steal anything from Blanchett. Frankly, I think Blanchett was overrated in "Elizabeth". Not that she wasn't very good, but she wasn't great.
The respect for Blanchett in Elizabeth only grew afterwards when it became clear what kind of an actress Blanchett was and what kind Paltrow was. At the time Blanchett was an unknown in a historical drama and Gwyneth was a hot young actress with a string of acclaimed roles. Nobody was really surprised at all when Paltrow won and Blanchett lost and Shakespeare in Love was a VERY popular film and Elizabeth kind of a stylized history piece that not everyone liked.
Meanwhile, Joe Fiennes played the male lead opposite both Gwyneth and Cate in those 2 films and his career went absolutely nowhere.
[quote]Repulsive personality aside
Repulsive? She's freaking hilarious. Please, you aren't one of those freaks that consider actors like royalty and put them on pedestals. She's funny and apparently doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks. You're a bit of an asshole yourself.
"The respect for Blanchett in Elizabeth only grew afterwards when it became clear what kind of an actress Blanchett was and what kind Paltrow was. At the time Blanchett was an unknown in a historical drama and Gwyneth was a hot young actress with a string of acclaimed roles. Nobody was really surprised at all when Paltrow won and Blanchett lost and Shakespeare in Love was a VERY popular film and Elizabeth kind of a stylized history piece that not everyone liked."
No, Blanchett was highly respected for having given a terrific performance for Elizabeth. Paltrow was not very well known at the time either, and her performance in Shakespeare wasn't particularly impressive. And the only reason people weren't all that surprised that Paltrow won was because of the buzz that she was going to win. Shakespeare was a very popular film and Elizabeth a more stylized piece that was less popular, though still popular enough to get a best picture nomination. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Blanchett's performance was universally acclaimed that year, and what made the movie work, whereas Paltrow, for many, was by far the weakest thing in Shakespeare in Love.
Paltrow was very famous by the time she won. She was at her peak.
R120, please shut up. Your attempt at revisionist history is pathetic. And Elizabeth wasn't stylised. It was history-lite.
R102 = Dustin Hoffman.
OK, I've checked my facts. Paltrow had done many more films than I remembered by the time she did Shakespeare in Love.
But the fact remains she still wasn't all that good in it.
Leaving Paltrow aside, what the hell does anyone have against Jennifer Lawrence, who is amazingly talented, and was quite good in Silver Linings Playbook. I'd agree she didn't give the best performance in her category this year. But she was still very good.
Sorry Jenny but how the hell did you convince the academy that your performance is even worthy of a nomination.
I don't get it. She is boring, lacks range and has limited charisma. Tons of actresses could have done a better job.
I don't have anything against Jennifer, but I think she was too young for her role.
[quote] Sorry Jenny but how the hell did you convince the academy that your performance is even worthy of a nomination.
She didn't. Harvey Weinstein did.
It seems in the 1930s, 40s and even 50s that Best Actress was THE most competitive category, filled with five great performances, with many not able to even be recognized. Now, it seems they can barely scrape together five pallid nominees, and the most competitive category easily seems to be for Best Actor!
The Best Actor category generally gets it right. Even if there are some questionable nominations (Bradley Cooper over Trintignant? Really?), the winner is more often than not the best of the bunch.