The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2012

2012

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild
This may not be a brilliant performance and probably Quvenzhané doesn't fully understand the technical part of acting yet, but I never felt her inexperience for a moment. On the contrary, she understands the character and makes her much more complex than I expected from her. Quvenzhané is much more conscious than most of the child actors that I've ever seen, never coasting on her charisma and always doing what's best for her character.

4. Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty
I'm just astonished by the beautifully detailed, layered and understated performance of Jessica Chastain. She develops a characters from little bits of scenes and moments and affects without much dialogue, screen time or showy Oscar scenes. She has a lion share in making Zero Dark Thirty the shocking and stunning masterpiece that it really is. But I wish I could forget that shouting...

3. Naomi Watts in The Impossible 
Naomi Watts gives a really effective performance in The Impossible, which may not have blown me away, but I was still impressed by it. She does the best she can with her character and has a lion share in making the movie as dramatic and devastating as it really is. I just feel that besides the physical and dramatic part, there wasn't much going on with the character and that's probably the reason why she's not more of a contender for the actual award.

2. Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook 
Contrary to all the Oscar reviewers and just like everyone else in this world I've totally fallen under the charms of Jennifer Lawrence who gives an unbelievably amazing, beautiful performance and creates a three-dimensional character with such extraordinary passion and depth that it sets the screen on fire and makes you fall in love with her characters despite (or maybe even because of) her flaws.

1. Emmanuelle Riva in Amour
This performance is nothing like I've seen in the Best Actress category and comparing it to other Oscar nominees seems really weird as a result. She may not win the Oscar for this stunning, career-crowning achievement, her performance (and Jean-Louis Trintignant's) will go down in movie history, as it should be. A deeply haunting, disturbing, depressing, mesmerising and amazing performance by an often overlooked, great talent.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Emmanuelle Riva
in
Amour

 Je vous aime, Mademoiselle Riva.

Final thoughts: A truly amazing year. The Academy makes some shitty safe choices in Best Picture, Actor and the rest, but they keep compensating with outstanding Actress line-ups every year so I'm happy at least about that (and also the Directors' gutsy, almost original set of nominees). Initially, choosing between Jennifer Lawrence and Emmanuelle Riva was so damn difficult, my head said Emmanuelle, my heart said Jennifer (for subjective reasons). I feel that eventually, I made the right choice. That being said, I was equally happy for Jennifer and really I hoped this would be a tie (as they will come right after each other in my ranking). Jennifer Lawrence, say what you want, almost rivals Kate Winslet's Clementine in my mind and that's why I'll keep defending her win, even though Emmanuelle Riva is my choice, eventually. But seriously if anyone of my Top 3 had won, I wouldn't have been disappointed at all (I could have accepted a Naomi upset as well). So this year was better than alright, even though Marion Cotillard definitely deserved a nomination.:(  

Omissions: 

• Marion Cotillard in Rust and Bone
• Judi Dench in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
• Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games

About the next year: First, I'll finish 1999 and then... well, I'll let you know.

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Naomi Watts in The Impossible

Naomi Watts received her second Oscar nomination for playing Maria, a mother who's trying to survive the horrible tsunami of 2004 with her son in The Impossible. In this very unlikely Best Actress year, Naomi didn't seem to be more than a long shot for a nomination until the guilds, the Globes and fellow actors (like Reese Witherspoon and Angelina Jolie) expressed their support for her and the movie itself. That being said, I feel that Naomi has the least chance of winning the Oscar this year, because all the other ladies star in Best Picture nominees. Diana could do it for her next year (although I'm not too sure because of Meryl and Jennifer Lawrence's Serena, especially if Jen loses now, which seems more and more probable, it's a matter of time). That being said, I'm hearing about some late buzz for Naomi, but I don't think that will help her win.

Since I'm a fan of disaster flicks in general, I was really looking forward to The Impossible, but I knew it was going to be different from all the other films because it's based on real events. And yes, it is terrifying, even when the director chooses to be overly theatrical. You know that this tragedy indeed took place and being faced with reality is really painful. In my humble opinion, the movie also should have been recognised for the heartbreaking, stunning visual effects, which were in my opinion essential to the film. Same goes for Ewan McGregor's performance: it's better than 80% of the nominated ones, I was especially moved by his breakdown in the telephone scene. I don't know what he has to do to finally be nominated. 

Although I'd say Naomi Watts is leading in this film, she's definitely not the central character, since the story is mostly about the development of the oldest son, while Naomi Watts has to support him, while also trying to have an effect on her own. As you may remember, I wasn't very fond of Naomi's first Oscar nominated performance in 21 Grams, but other than that, I always thought she was a very reliable, talented, beautiful actress who gave a stunning breakthrough performance in Mulholland Drive. I think if she was fighting for great part as much as her good friend Nicole Kidman, she would also receive nominations more often. Instead, she chose a more subtle progress in her career and I'm sure that it was the right decision for her.

As many people said, dramatic intensity is almost a trade mark of Naomi Watts, which is exactly what a great disaster film needs. And the emphasis is really on "great" because we often tend to forget about acting in this genre (or at least we seriously underrate it), but then we should think about the likes of The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno. These movies worked because of how A-list cast was able to keep the tension, even when the story itself is paper thin. After all, disasters bring out the instinct of survival out of a person and you can't really follow the acting style of an Ivory-Merchant movie. You have to be shamelessly emotional, holding nothing back, which is actually a very difficult thing to pull off believably and that's probably why Naomi Watts was the perfect choice for the role of Maria.

The beginning of the movie is incredibly idyllic, with a seemingly alright family with usual problems and Naomi does a great job showing Maria's desire to go back to work and change in her life. It's a sort of typical exposition to the disaster that develops a connection between the main characters and the audience and Naomi is especially effective. She (along with her co-stars) wonderfully builds up the tension to the big tsunami scene. The movie and the actors play one of the easiest and most manipulative games with the viewer: you know what's coming, the characters don't. Therefore, sometimes I was baffled if the effect was because of the performance or the story, but for most of the time I didn't even have doubts that I was affected by the great performances.

After this, Naomi's part is only demanding physically and she doesn't have to care about building up the development of the character. Her only task is to keep up the intensity in every scene, which she solves quite easily, actually. Still, it's impossible not to be moved by her work: Maria is trying her best to survive for the sake of her son is just incredible. She doesn't get obvious Oscar scenes like Ewan McGregor so she had to make do with her own opportunities: desperate looks, screaming and her character floating between life and death. She doesn't follow Emmanuelle Riva's dignified way, Naomi's performance becomes no-holds-barred after the tsunami and yet she was able to solve this much better than she did in 21 Grams (in my opinion).

The problems come when her character is in the background. Unfortunately, her screen time is not enough to completely keep up that intensity throughout the film. Mostly she just lies on a hospital bed and has gruesome physical reactions (the make-up was also amazing) and suffers but after a while she pales a little bit in comparison with other story lines with more active characters and emotional scenes. I was quite sorry about this because with more scenes and a more development in the character, she would have been able to bring the house down and give a truly earth-shattering performance that would make me admire her performance as much as her fellow Hollywood actors.

To sum up, Naomi Watts gives a really effective performance in The Impossible, which may not have blown me away, but I was still impressed by it. She does the best she can with her character and has a lion share in making the movie as dramatic and devastating as it really is. I just feel that besides the physical and dramatic part, there wasn't much going on with the character and that's probably the reason why she's not more of a contender for the actual award. I just wish there was more focus on her character and then she could have been a shoo-in for Oscar's and my own vote. Still, a powerful and intense piece of work that deserves a

What do you think?

The Next Year

2012

So the nominees are:

• Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty
• Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook
• Emmanuelle Riva in Amour
• Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Naomi Watts in The Impossible

Since I have very little time left, I have to interrupt 1999 (which will be finished immediately after 2012, don't worry) so that I can finish 2012 before the ceremony (I'm planning to write a more thorough should win/will win than usual). I can say one thing in advance: what a year! And I tell you, according to my own estimations, it will be a real Sophie's Choice between not two, but three (!) performances (very much like 1996). And I love it that none of these performances are usual Best Actress stuff. 

What do you think? Who's your pick? Who do you think will win the Oscar? And more importantly :P, what's your prediction for my ranking? :) 

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2003

2003

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Samantha Morton in In America

This is a wasted opportunity.2003 offered some really weak Best Actress nominees and Morton was one of them. There were some points where I was minimally impressed but for most of the time I felt really nothing. Too bad, as this could have been something very interesting and moving and yet it became a little dreary and lifeless.

4. Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

3. Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider

Keisha Castle-Hughes, stands out in the awful field of 2003. Although this is not one of the greatest performances, she still turned in a beautiful work, full of substance. The great parts make up for the weaknesses and overall it's a really great job by an extremely young talent.

2. Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give

I ask myself: is this that much from Diane Keaton? Well, probably not. Still, she's extremely funny and entertaining as Erica Barry, she has a wonderful chemistry with Jack Nicholson and she enlightens the screen with her wonderful, radiant personality that I love so much. I might be biased but who cares? I liked her.

1. Charlize Theron in Monster

SURPIRSE! :) This performance is universally praised and for a reason. Charlize Theron gives an unfogettable, astonishing, breathtaking, mindblowing, heart-breaking, angry, bitter, desperate, devastated, devastating, in short brilliant performance as Aileen Wuornos. This might look like another deglam role but it's more than that in my opinion. Charlize really rocks as Aileen, showing the dark sides of human life. Brilliant.

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Charlize Theron

in

Monster

As easily as it gets.

Congratulations to Malcolm! Excellent predictions! Prize: you can pick the year I'm going to do after the next one (available for me: 1933, 1943, 1953, 1956, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1971 1976, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008)

Final thoughts: An awful year. There you go, I said it. I guess that's pretty much what I expected. Charlize was the easiest winner so far. There was so much gap between the first and the second that it almost hurts. Diane and Keisha are pretty solid. However, the other two ladies were not that satisfying (ot put it delicately). Actually, this was the first year when two nominees were fighting for the #4 spot. :) I gave the edge to Naomi because she grew on me a bit.

Omissions: 

• Uma Thurman in Kill Bill Vol. 1. 
• Jamie Lee Curtis in Freaky Friday

About the next year: Oh, I can't wait to do the next year. It offers not one, but two (or even three?) iconic performances. I really want to make my thoughts clear on that year. It's a historic year. This clue says why:

• VIVA ITALIA! :)

What do you think?

Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

Naomi Watts received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Christina Peck, a woman who loses her husband and two daughters in a hit-and-run accident. Some say that Naomi could have been close to Charlize Theron but I wouldn't say so. In fact, I think even Diane Keaton might have got ahead of Watts in that race. Watts didn't get a Globe nomination (that's almost crucial to a leading Oscar) and in my opinion the movie was a bit too much and indepandant for the Academy. Still, I feel that she was at least third.

21 Grams is an incredibly confusing movie. It takes so much time to really get it and this is not a very positive thing. I mean it wants to be so artsy and yet comes off as quite incoherent and complicated. The director made some very stupid decisions, in my opinion. The cinematography wasn't that impressive to me, either. It's just gave a very miserable feeling to the movie and it wasn't in a good way. Sean Penn is quite boring in his role and his achievement is really uneven and the same goes for Benicio del Toro who even got nominated. Melissa Leo (whom I dislike in real life) is the one who's truly outstanding here.

Many people are crazy about Naomi Watts' performance in Mulholland Drive but I'll be very honest with you. Although I've seen Mulholland Drive and I even loved it, I cannot remember Watts' performance at all. She could be brilliant, I just don't remember that's it. Still, I started to watch 21 Grams as open-mindedly as humanly possible. In fact, I expected to love her as her part seemed to be very much like Halle Berry's in Monster's Ball. True, there's some kind of a similarity between the characters and even the performances and yet Watts didn't work with me, at least.

People are mad about this performance. Some are mad in a positive sense and some are mad at it because I hate it. However, once again I just cannot say that I fall into either of those categories. Actually, I'm really in the middle. Or not? Because I don't feel indifferent about it. That's what I felt about Martha Scott in Our Town or Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. I have very complicated feelings about it. I feel a little bit of anger and hate but I'm not furious and I'm not scratching my own head crazily like I did with Ann-Margret. Or do I?

It's so incredily hard for me to talk about this performance. I guess all of the other bloggers/writers know what I mean. I just really don't know what to say about this work. The first reason for that is that it's so... little. It might be unfair that I'm comparing her work to Halle Berry's tour-de-force in Monster's Ball but I expected emotional fireworks from this performance. And I felt that Watts did try to create them and yet she failed and it was a bit ugly fail, at least for me.

Watts' performance is mostly criticised for the things that I liked the most about her. Her Oscar clip ("I'm PARALYYYYYYYYYYYZED!") is certainly her strongest scene in the movie. I actually saw bits and pieces of those much-needed fireworks. The other loud and hysterical scenes are all too much, though. And the thing that really bothered me was what the heck she really wanted to say with this work (or I can ask the same question about the movie). What was the point? I guess it wanted to show the effects of death but I've seen much better movies in the subject. It's all a really failed effort, which may not be a total disaster but it's really like a fly on the wall. It bothers you. Although it's able not to do so, it does once you think about it. That would be OK, if the movie or Watts was disturbing but (for me) they weren't. I constantly see all the goals of Watts and yet they never really materialize on the screen. Too bad. I guess something really midnblowing could have come out of this movie. Or not? In fact (as I said), Christina's part is very little. Not in screentime, in content. I would expect some more depth.

Again, I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

What do you think?

The Next Year

2003

So the nominees were:

• Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider
• Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give
• Samantha Morton in In America
• Charlize Theron in Monster
• Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I surrender. Let's see this year. :)

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions?