October 24, 2012 at 12:41 am #540547
I didn’t include Barry Fitzgerald who was nominated in both categories for the SAME performance, winning in supporting. Nobody has even won 2 acting Oscars on the same night. Who would be the most deserving of that honor?October 24, 2012 at 12:58 am #540549
I think Winslet would have won both in 2008.. I think she should have two (1995, 2004).October 24, 2012 at 1:44 am #540550This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.October 24, 2012 at 3:33 am #540551
Easily the best in the supporting category…Catherine Zeta jones..what a laugh!!!
And in the best actress category…I thought Nicole was superb but Julianne
From a possible 2..to zilch and then snubbing her 2 more times with A SINGLE MAN
and THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT..
This woman is so over due…. i think her next best actress nod will be the WINNER..October 24, 2012 at 4:36 am #540552
Most deserving would be Sigourney Weaver. In my personal picks for oscars, I never would give a double nominee both though. Weaver takes my supporting actress, with Streep winning lead that year.
Holly Hunter gave the 2nd best set of these folks. I know a lot of people think her performance in THE FIRM shouldn’t have been nominated. But I think she does soooooooooo much with so little time.
Julianne Moore also gave two very strong performances. Both she and Hunter take my lead actress awards those years. Although sometimes I give Hunter’s to Stockard Channing.October 24, 2012 at 7:29 am #540553
Sigourney Weaver, Cate Blanchett and of course Julianne Moore!
I know people are not really like Blanchett in Elizabeth II. but I think her performance is superb! The film itself is medicore, indeed.
Weaver should have won one Oscar that night – I’m not really sure which one of it, but one of it! Poor girl 🙁
And Moore is just amazing. She should have won BOTH Oscars that night. Really. She was the strongest in both of her categories!
I agree with your mention on Blanchett. Her nomination was well deserved since she really carried that film, and was just as much superior as she was in the previous Elizabeth. I think she would’ve been my third in line for Actress in 2007.October 24, 2012 at 8:45 am #540554
I went with Jessica Lange who should still have 2 Oscars but from that same night instead of getting the 2nd for that boring Blue Sky movie…
Moore plays the depressed mother well but showed no range between roles in 2002. She SHOULD have won only for lead actress that year.
2007 was Blanchett’s weakest year for Oscar nominations. She stood no chance in lead and supporting was evenly split among the 4 adult actors…October 24, 2012 at 9:35 am #540555This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.October 24, 2012 at 10:07 am #540556
Julianne Moore, for freakin’ sure!October 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm #540558
Id say Jamie Foxx. The supporting cateogory was weak that year and he had no competition for the leading actor award.. Julianne Moore would have been great but she was coming no where near Catherine Zeta Jones’s Oscar.October 25, 2012 at 7:19 am #540559
Id say Jamie Foxx. The supporting cateogory was weak that year and he had no competition for the leading actor award…
Do you think so? I find 2004 to be one of the stronger years for Lead Actor, even though the omissions of Jim Carrey and Paul Giammatti disturb me greatly.October 25, 2012 at 7:52 am #540560
I wouldn’t have voted two Oscars in one night for any of these instances, but Jessica Lange comes the closest by far for me. Beautifully understated work in “Tootsie” (though for my personal winner that year, I flip-flop between Lange’s “Frances” co-star Kim Stanley and Lesley Ann Warren), and her performance in “Frances” is one of the great “if it had been ANY other year, (s)he would have won” scenarios of all time, in any acting category.
One of these lineups has always been particularly interesting/frustrating for me. Bainter could do perfectly credible storms of emotional upheaval in addition to the patented displays of beatific, concerned maternalism that she emanates in “White Banners” and “Jezebel,” and she could blend her natural humanism with dashes of subtle comedy and piquancy that made her terribly entertaining to watch. Oddly enough, those qualities that I most admire about her as an actor seem to be somehow absent in her nominated performances from 1938. If you look at the performances she was nominated for in 1938, and her latter-day nominated work in “The Children’s Hour,” you can’t help feeling that her stronger work got neglected. Both “White Banners” and “Jezebel” are performances that strike you (depending on your stance) as “glass half-empty” or “glass half-full” performances, and admittedly, having a more than passing familiarity with Bainter’s filmography, I tend to lump both performances as “half-empty” efforts from a truly marvelous character actress. “White Banners” is such a modest film in every department that one rather wonders how it wound up on the Oscar radar at all, and while Bainter is not bad in the movie, she never has a moment that makes you think, “Oscar.” The role sounds meaty enough: a mild-mannered vagabond woman trying to reconnect with her illegitimate son (think “The Sin of Madelon Claudet” with just a dash of “Mary Poppins”), but Bainter firmly refuses to play anything in the movie for melodrama. It’s a fine show of actorly discipline, but frankly, it’s a little disappointing to see her take this opportunity and fly SO far below the surface. Ditto for her winning work in “Jezebel,” which again, has nothing bad or overdone in it, but one still can’t help feeling that Bainter could have gone still further without stepping one toe into “overdone” territory. Because Bainter holds herself so much in check, one can’t help wondering what she might have done to assert herself in the film a bit more than she does (granted, she has Hurricane Bette, ever ready to steal all the thunder in Clayton County, to deal with- and the fact is, director William Wyler was probably overly invested in Davis at the time himself).
As to the others:
Wright is charm itself in both “Pride” and “Miniver,” though she has a much more interesting character in the latter film (too much of the “Pride” performance rests on being a dipped-and-bronzed “staunch wife,” albeit with the 1942-tasty wrinkle of not being especially simpatico with her mother-in-law, the curiously un-nominated Elsa Janssen). However, I would have ceded Wright’s Supporting Actress win to the woefully never-rewarded Agnes Moorehead, and as to her Best Actress nomination, that is a perennial toss-up for me between Wright’s “Miniver” co-star Greer Garson and “Now Voyager”‘s Bette Davis.
I would have voted for Weaver for Best Supporting Actress of 1988 for “Working Girl,” a role that fit her like a glove, and one of the few performances where Weaver’s “actressy” quality helps her rather than undermines her (in my view). She gives a sturdy account of herself in “Gorillas in the Mist,” but I’m caught in yet another toss-up, between Glenn Close of “Dangerous Liaisons” and Meryl Streep of “A Cry in the Dark.”
I don’t becry the Pacino Best Actor win the way a lot of people do, but there were at least three performances that year that I would have opted for first, and Best Supporting Actor was unusually strong that year, as well… It’s terrific that Pacino has an Oscar…. but…
Hunter’s win for “The Piano” always gets praised to the skies, and I think that she’s fascinating and quite intriguing in the film (certainly, it’s far different from anything else she’s ever done). But I would have voted the Best Actress Oscar to Angela Bassett that year, and would have been quite content to let Hunter’s “Piano” co-star Anna Paquin keep her Oscar. Hunter does make the most of her time in “The Firm,” but if she had missed the nomination for it, I wouldn’t have been too bemused.
Thompson was really knocking them out of the park one after the other in the early nineties, and she does wonderfully well in both of her nominated turns. If anything handicaps those performances, it is that Thompson seems to rather willingly cede the spotlight over to her leading men in both of her turns (Anthony Hopkins in “Day” and Daniel Day-Lewis in “Father”), and thus, you walk away from those movies remembering the men moreso than Thompson.
Ducking for cover: I thought Moore was terrific in “The Hours,” but I simply have never understood the hoopla over her in “Far From Heaven,” although I think my perceived deficiencies in that performance owe much more to her vehicle, which I think tries to be too many things at once, and thus fails at being any of them.
I go back and forth on the merits of Foxx’s Oscar win for Best Actor; the Academy has been guilty of bestowing accolades on far less deserving performances, and still… I think the “Collateral” nomination simply owed to the fact that Foxx was a very hot property at the time; under different circumstances, I think the performance could have easily been bypassed for Oscar attention.
Blanchett’s turn in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” is much more assured and more assertive than her coltish maneuvering through “Elizabeth,” and somehow, is far less interesting for that assurance. As for “I’m Not Here,” the performance employs an interesting gimmick, and I can understand the nomination. In both cases, there were women I infinitely preferred over Blanchett in both her respective categories, but again- the Academy has honored far less worthy pieces of work than what Blanchett had on display in 2007.October 25, 2012 at 8:07 am #540561
I don’t know how many if any deserved both, but I chose Pacino. I know some have a problem with his SOAW win because it’s very broad, but I think it was called for. It’s effect on his later roles though, ugh. And I would actually be fine with him winning for GGR.October 25, 2012 at 10:41 am #540562
@tonorlo….great descriptions. It’s great to see Bainter get mentioned. A very underrated character actress of her time. But I’m interested in knowing what you think are her stronger performances. I didn’t think Jezebel was her best work (hence her Oscar win, LOL), but White Banners was interesting enough for the time. The Children’s Hour, while a bit weak as an overall film, featured some stellar performances, namely from Hepburn and Bainter….Not now
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.