January 10, 2014 at 12:08 am #130281
That was one of the biggest shocks in recent Oscar years (when the Academy went against the category fraud and put Winslet in the lead where she belonged.)
Could they do that again with Roberts?
How does the balloting work with something like that? What if a person got enough votes to be nominated in two categories?January 10, 2014 at 12:33 am #130283
If an actor receives votes in both categories, he/she is nominated in the category where he/she received more votes.
But I don’t believe that Julia Roberts can do that. It’s a completely different scenario. In 2009 Winslet was considered overdue and she couldn’t stop campaigning for one second. It was clear that she would win an Oscar, but of course a leading Oscar made more sense. And voters hated Revolutionary Road (it’s the better performance and the one I could consider Oscar-worthy, while her Reader performance is a big disappointment to me).
Roberts on the other hand has one enormous obstacle to overcome and this huge obstacle is in the face of somebody who’s the most honored living actress, considered the greatest living actress, winner of 3 Academy Awards and 17 nominations. Even if Meryl doesn’t make the cut (which I doubt), she’ll get more votes than Roberts (in leading the very least).
But I’ve been thinking that Roberts could go the Scarlett Johansson way. And that’s why I’ll drop her from my supporting actress predictions, which could be a stupid move, but I love to go out on a limb every year.
If she gets votes in both supporting and leading, it’s easier for a performance like Roberts’s (that doesn’t have much enthusiasm on its side) to actually get snubbed. She could fail to secure the needed votes in either category.
And by the way, I saw the film two days ago and I hated it. And Roberts got some best in show notices only because her character is the one you are supposed to connect with. To me it’s an unsurprising, undaring, dull performance by the numbers. It’s empty. It’s so sad that the precursors don’t give a damn about the two performances from the film that really DESERVE attention – Chris Cooper and Julianne Nicholson, who’s heartbreaking.
But yes, as a whole A:OC is a huge mess.January 10, 2014 at 12:53 am #130284
At this time of that season Kate Winslet had 2 lead nominations at the BAFTAs and it was strong possibility that she will end up with “The Reader” only, as it eventually happened, whereas everybody ate up this “Julia Roberts in supporting” thing and Oscars will follow.January 10, 2014 at 12:59 am #130285
I suppose there will have to be a considerable consensus from some voters or a group think to pull that off. If there are enough voters jotting Roberts’ name down in Lead Actress, than i guess she could make it. But in a year with such a strong lineup? There is already passion for at least 7 actresses to make it in.
I doubt it. The fact that she has been campaigning like crazy in Supporting and gotten noteworthy award honors in the Supporting category also doesn’t help. And with both her and Meryl Streep in the same movie, that will make it difficult.
Winslet was THE contender in The Reader, so there wasn’t really another actress to consider as an award worthy lead.
But with August Osage County, you have two: Meryl, the veteran and loved actress, and Julia,.
Maybe if the film was better received by critics, there would’ve been passion behind something like that.January 10, 2014 at 1:23 am #130286
In short, no. and I don’t see why they should. There’s not really a passionate support for a second win and there’s no spot in best actress. Who would she replace, really?January 10, 2014 at 2:34 am #130287
Same thing happened to Keisha Castle-Hughes! I wish it happened more often. But they didn’t move Hailee Steinfeld and I don’t think they’re moving Roberts.January 10, 2014 at 2:52 am #130288
No. Members of the academy are sheep who do what they’re told. The Winslet and Keisha Castle-Hughes situations were rare exceptions.
To be honest, Julia’s category fraud is kind of partly the fault of the oscar blogosphere. Everyone (including on here) was predicting Roberts in supporting before we even knew what the campaign was going to be like. The internet doesn’t control Weinstein, but if everyone hadn’t created a sense of default thinking whereby a supporting campaign was seen as the inevitable and ONLY option, and if more Oscar pundits had spoken out about it, then maybe it could have been stopped – or at least challenged.
Honestly, if they were going to separate Roberts and Streep, they could have at least switched categories like originally planned. Roberts is the main lead, not Streep. Rumor has it that Queen Meryl refused to be seen as a supporting actress.January 10, 2014 at 2:55 am #130289
Same thing happened to Keisha Castle-Hughes! I wish it happened more often. But they didn’t move Hailee Steinfeld and I don’t think they’re moving Roberts.
I remember when there was a lot of outrage about Steinfeld’s category fraud (one of the absolute worse cases in Oscar hsitory). The HFPA rejected Steinfeld as “supporting”, but then ended up snubbing the entire film anyway.
A number of Academy members were said to have placed her in lead, but ultimately it wasn’t enough to overcome the sheep.January 10, 2014 at 3:20 am #130290
Can we just get rid of August Osage County? Seriously that movie has been pushed on us all year long and still no one really seems to give a shit about it. Julia’s not gonna win so seriously why cheat?! Let the real supporting actresses of 2013 have their deserved moment. Everything A: OC related feels SO contrived.January 10, 2014 at 3:21 am #130291
Holy shit I’m one of the biggest critics of category fraud and I ALWAYS forget the Hailee Steinfeld one… I absolutely love that movie and she would’ve never been nominated for Best Actress in such a strong year, but, again, it shouldn’t be so arbitrary ffs.January 10, 2014 at 4:38 am #130292
I’ve noticed that actresses are usually the ones discussed when on the topic of category fraud. Is it a sexist thing or are the men just honest with their placements?! There are good examples like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (The Master) and Christoph Waltz (Django) who weren’t moved. Others like Bale (Fighter), Rush (King’s Speech), Casey Affleck (Assassination of…), Jamie Foxx (Collateral), Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback) & Ethan Hawke (Training Day) are among others that weren’t or aren’t talked about as much.
Regarding this year: will the Academy upgrade Abdi, Bruhl or Cooper to Lead? Definitely not!January 10, 2014 at 6:05 am #130293
No it’s not sexist at all. I have complained about Jamie Foxx’s Collateral nomination to be one of the most useless and offensive ever, especially considering he was such a lock to win for Ray. Casey Affleck was pathetic too.
This year I’ve complained just as much about Daniel Bruhl. The thing is I don’t really feel he’s blocking anyone of note. I didn’t care for Cooper or Jonah Hill or whoever’s at #6 right now. But Julia’s category fraud in specific is keeping Sally Hawkins out, a much more deserving contender who should’ve already been at the very least nominated for Best Actress in 2008. That’s what pisses me off the most.January 10, 2014 at 6:42 am #130294
No, I don’t think Julia could somehow manage to find herself in lead actress instead of Meryl, and I doubt we’ll ever see two lead nominees from the same film in the same category again. I think she’ll land a supporting actress nomination instead.January 10, 2014 at 8:29 am #130295
If A:OC was on its way of being as popular with the academy as The Reader, I think could’ve happened. But I don’t think it is, so I don’t think it will happen.January 10, 2014 at 8:37 am #130296
Winslet was going to be nominated for Best Actress that year, so the big surprise came when she was denied being a double nominee. Which in the end probably helped her secure her first victory, as well as give Cruz her win. The leading category was not as competitive as it is this year, both Leo and Jolie could have been bumped. I think the possibility of Roberts being in lead is very slim, especially considering the competition, in a less competitive year it might have been possible.