It’s been
awhile, but it’s time to return to my analysis of the Oscar race so far. I’ve done Best Picture and Best Actor. Now it’s time for the distaffs: Best Actress. I’ll do this in two parts.
This year is
what is known as a “weak year” for performances by women. Now, it’s important to understand what the
phrase means. It doesn’t necessarily
mean there’s an actual dearth of qualified performances by actresses. Even in other years where the term “weak
year” was used in this context, I had little problem coming up with more than
enough candidates for my top five list, with overflow. Of course, I tend to have end of the year
lists made up of films that none of my friends have ever heard of (at least,
that’s what they tell me).
“Weak” here
refers to the type of role that is considered the type that Oscar voters would
consider worthy of a nomination. That’s
very vague. Possibly even a
tautology. But generally speaking,
performances in foreign films from countries that many Academy members never
realized made films (unless the film broke out in some over the top way—or
Cinema Francé as they’re more commonly known); very small indie films (unless
there is a break out of some kind); and unknown names or newcomers (unless
there is…, etc., etc.). And this year, acne
has had a better chance of breaking out than movies with female leads
If this
sounds somewhat misogynistic, you’re wrong.
It’s extremely misogynistic and just goes to show how shabbily actresses
are treated by the filmmaking community ever since the studio system fell and
the summer blockbusters became de rigueur.
Before this, more movies were made with female leads if, for no other
reason, than that they were under contract and the studios couldn’t just let
them sit around doing nothing.
And if you
still don’t believe me, when was the last time you heard that it was a “weak”
year for men.
There are
two signs that suggest that this is a very “weak” year for actresses. The first is that more actresses than usual
are trying to decide whether they can move from pushing for a supporting nomination
to pushing for a lead nomination. These
include Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty); Helen Mirren (Hitchcock); and
Helen Hunt (Sessions). In a strong year,
all (except maybe Mirren) would probably vie in the supporting category where
their large and important roles would have a better chance of getting a
nom. I understand that Chastain has
already broken ranks and decided to go for the gold, which I think (as I will
point out later), is quite possibly a misstep.
Note:
Whether an actor ends up in supporting or lead categories doesn’t always have
anything to do with whether that person is truly lead or supporting. William H. Macy had more screen time than
Frances McDormand in Fargo, but Macy was supporting and McDormand won the Oscar
for Best Actress. This happens more
often than you might think.
Note 2: it
doesn’t always work. Kate Winslet pushed
for lead for Revolutionary Road and supporting for The Reader. The Academy shut out Revolutionary Road and
put Winslet in the lead category for The Reader (though she was really
supporting). It all had a happy ending,
though, as Winslet won that year.
Note 3: the
Golden Globes make the choice of category for you. There Winslet got a nom for Best Actress for Revolutionary
Road and Best Supporting for The Reader.
The second
reason you can tell this is a “weak” year is that an eight year old and two
actresses from foreign language films are very likely to be nominated. This will be the youngest nominee for best
actress and the first time since 1977 (which, I believe, is the only time) when
two people from foreign language films got nominated in the same year in the
same acting category (Marie-Christine Barrault for Cousin cousine and Liv
Ullman for Face to Face).
Next entry:
my list of nominees.
