|
>Not a flashy role? Deep bench in "supporting actress" this
>year?
>
>Teach me. I have literally no idea how this works. I just
>thought she was outstanding.
First off, "flash" is a huge reason why I said what I did. These sorts of beautifully acted performances that lack many big showy scenes of screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth tend to get overlooked year in and year out. Not always the case, but I don't think I watched Lady Bird and thought at any point, "There's the scene they'll play at the Oscars." Which I tend to see in most biopics and/or dramas about long-suffering women.
Second off, it rarely has to do with them being outstanding either. So much of it is political, along with name recognition/movie recognition/critical recognition/etc. I saw a category stacked with biopics (Stronger, I, Tonya, The Darkest Hour, Battle of the Sexes, and, slightly different, The Big Sick) and with previous winners (Julianne Moore, Octavia Spencer, Melissa Leo chief among them). I figured Metcalf might be one of those great performances relegated to the Independent Spirit Awards.
However, since that initial comment, Lady Bird is doing phenomenally at the indie box office ($11 mil to date, and it'll almost certainly become a higher grossing indie than anything Gerwig's done in her career to date), which makes a huge difference. In order for Academy members to vote for you, they have to either (a) know your name, (b) like you from having worked with you if you're someone who works a lot, or (c) actually *watch the film.* The more money it makes, the more buzz it generates, the more likely Academy voters are to pop the screener in-- which is insanely important considering its biggest stars, Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf, aren't exactly the biggest name draws at Hollywood parties. (For comparison, look at two performers last year in movies co-starring Gerwig-- Jackie, a biopic starring Natalie Portman about the Kennedys, and 20th Century Women, a quasi-biopic starring Annette Bening about liberals in late-1970s Santa Barbara. Jackie has the bigger name, the higher profile subject matter, and the higher box office. Portman gets a nomination, Bening gets snubbed. People know Bening, and she's worked forever, but not enough Academy voters watched it, I imagine.)
A24 has also very cleverly been publicizing the shit out of the fact that Lady Bird has the highest "tomato rating" in Rotten Tomatoes history. I loathe Rotten Tomatoes for a variety of reasons, but if they successfully put it into the moviegoing ear as something people *have to see*-- and the indie box office suggests they're doing pretty damn well at this so far-- then their odds go up tremendously.
Finally, re: my second initial point, a lot of those options have failed to generate momentum, while Lady Bird is riding high right now. So I think my concerns have been outweighed by a combination of (a) presumed front-runners sagging, (b) A24 promoting the movie wonderfully, and (c) the movie's reception by both critics and box office. (Notice, sadly, that at no point did I mention her being outstanding as a big factor. It plays a role, but every year there are so many outstanding performances that simply won't ever be watched by enough Academy members to make a difference-- and every year there are thick slices of ham served gracelessly that get voraciously lapped up by the same voters. So while she's a lock for *at least* my Top 5, personally, I try not to let my love for a performance influence whether I think someone will win/be nommed or not.)
Anyhow. Way too many words on this. tl;dr: I was wrong. I'm thinking now that she gets nommed-- and if Lady Bird can somehow cross 20/25 mil at the box office and keep this momentum going, she may actually have a chance to win too. (But I'm trying to remain cautious about my optimism for that.) My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
