Marion Cotillard
Age: 39
Film: Two Days, One Night
Role: Sandra, a Belgian wife and mother of two who has recently recovered from an episode of clinical depression and plans to return to her job when she learns that her co-workers have voted to eliminate her position in exchange for a sizable bonus for each of them. A sympathetic co-worker convinces the boss to let the workers vote a second time on Monday because one person may have influenced the outcome. Now Sandra has one weekend to approach each co-worker individually and convince them to vote for her to keep her job, though it means sacrificing money that most of them need. If she can’t convince the majority to vote for her on Monday morning, she will lose her job, and her family will have to move back into state housing. To make matters worse, she still needs quite a bit of Xanax to make it through each day.
Nomination History:
Won Best Actress Oscar in 2008 for La Vie En Rose (2007).
Why She Should Win
I would be stunned if Marion Cotillard wins. It seems to me she’s only nominated in the first place because the Academy couldn’t bear to stoop to acknowledge Jennifer Aniston, whose star rose with a TV sitcom. (To be fair, I haven’t seen Cake, but I’m quite familiar with Academy snobbery. No matter what bloggers and critics said, I had trouble believing the Academy would go for Aniston, and sure enough they didn’t.)
Don’t misunderstand. I’m in no way implying that Marion Cotillard is not a deserving nominee. (I’m a huge fan. I think she’s a phenomenal actress, and the gracious and ethereally ebullient acceptance speech she gave when she managed that surprise win for La Vie en Rose is one of my favorite Oscar moments ever.)
Also now that I’ve finally seen Cotillard’s performance, I think it’s the second strongest nominated this year (after that of way-out-in-frontrunner Julianne Moore).
All I mean is, when you go all the way to a quiet corner of Belgium to fill that fifth slot instead of choosing the actress nominated by both the Globes and the SAG, then you really must have it in for Jennifer Aniston.
Of course, maybe I’m being unfair to the Academy. After all, the Dardenne brothers are long-time, internationally acclaimed filmmakers, and Marion Cotillard has been circling that elusive second Oscar nomination for quite a while now. There are plenty of non-Aniston-related reasons to nominate her, not the least of which that she gives a great performance. (And let’s not forget how radiant and personable she is off camera. What a charmer!).
Sandra is not in an enviable position in this film. Imagine if you had to ambush each of your co-workers in turn (people who had already voted 14-2 to fire you) at their homes on the weekend and beg them to vote again, to vote to retain you as a co-worker at the expense of the $1000 bonus they have coming if you’re let go. How humiliating! Not only must she disregard her own pride, her dignity, but she must stare into the faces of her co-workers and shamelessly beg them to give up money they actually need (many of them at least as badly as she does), so that she can have financial security (instead of them). That a company would create such an uncomfortable situation is deeply unjust (and completely believable) (which is, I’m sure the point of the film).
We spend most of the movie watching Cotillard’s expressive face as Sandra engages in an exhausting series of quiet, depressing one-on-one conversations with co-workers who are genuinely tormented by the awkwardness of the encounter.
Obviously this film would not work without engaging performances by the actors, and Cotillard (as the one star in the cast) is riveting to watch.
My favorite scene is the ice cream cone/bird moment, simply because her face conveys so much to us, even when she’s silent. (The moment is also a nice change of pace between grueling begging sessions.) Also excellent is the depiction of Sandra’s evolving relationship with co-worker Anne (Christelle Cornil).
Why She Might Not Win
When people call this a weak year for Actress, for once, they’re not overreacting. I’ve given the issue a lot of thought, and honestly, remove Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore from the equation, and any of the other four from last year would easily beat all of this year’s remaining nominees. Of the non-Moore contenders, I think Cotillard probably gives the strongest performance, but not so strong that last year’s Sandra Bullock, Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, or Amy Adams wouldn’t have beaten her. Now obviously, Cotillard is not up against those four, but she is in competition with Julianne Moore, and Moore is going to beat her, too.
If Cotillard wins, it will be a huge surprise. Julianne Moore seems to have this Oscar in the bag. (Of course, a lot of people swore that Jennifer Aniston had that fifth nomination all sewn up, too. The Oscars are determined by secret ballot, so maybe Cotillard took a page from Sandra and has spent the last few weeks going from member to member, shamelessly begging for each person’s vote. I mean, isn’t how they all do it these days? It’s called campaigning, right?)
In all seriousness, though, while Cotillard gives an excellent performance start to finish, the performance is not so astonishing that it would prompt people planning to vote for Moore to choose Cotillard instead. She’s very good, but she’s not going to win. It’s good to see her get a second nomination, though.
Felicity Jones
Age: 31
Film: The Theory of Everything
Role: Jane Hawking, first wife of famed scientist Stephen Hawking who loves him so much that she remains determined to marry him even after he reveals his diagnosis of ALS, a degenerative disease that his doctors predict will kill him within two years. Jane devotes herself to Stephen and makes caring for him and their three young children the focus of her life. But Stephen far outlives his initial prognosis and becomes increasingly physically dependent on his wife over the course of decades. Finally Jane becomes so worn down and exhausted that she feels almost unable to go on. Isn’t love enough?
Nomination History:
This is Jones’s first nomination.
Why She Should Win
As I may have mentioned on this blog (I don’t know, say 80,000 times), I did not particularly enjoy this performance because I had trouble connecting with the character.
I have nothing at all against Felicity Jones personally. She seems like a perfectly charming young woman. And it’s not that her performance is bad. I just don’t see why it’s Oscar worthy.
But it does have its merits, so I’ll try to be as fair as I can here.
Once Jonathan enters the story, Jane becomes an infinitely more interesting (and believable) character. Suddenly, buoyed by the support of Jonathan, Jane is able to blossom into her true self, no longer confined by Stephen’s shadow nor demoralized and exhausted by caring for him with no help.
Her scenes opposite Jonathan are surprisingly powerful because they show the awakening of a character who has long suppressed her own wants and needs out of love for and a sense of duty to her disabled husband.
This blossoming of Jane is fascinating to watch, and Jones commendably makes it all look very gradual, natural, even inevitable.
In the scene at Stephen’s parents’ house—where Jane’s mother-in-law subjects her to an unpardonably rude interrogation—Jones really shines. This part of the story is about Jane herself, not merely about Stephen’s wife and caregiver. It’s a very refreshing change, and Jones is at her absolute best during this portion of the film.
Why She Might Not Win
Why does Jane marry Stephen? Why is she so determined to bind herself to him, to have his children when they’ve dated for such a short time, and he’s revealed to her the truth about his ravaging illness?
I understand that people fall in love and that it’s not always a rational thing. In fact, sometimes difficult, against-the-odds relationships are the most compelling. I’ve been in love myself. I get it.
But I guess I just don’t buy that Jane is in love with Stephen. When I watch her in early scenes, I can’t help seeing a young woman who hopes to accomplish something important and noble. She doesn’t have any clear ideas about her academic future, so she makes a career of a sacrificial marriage to a brilliant scientist who is surely going to die soon.
That’s cynical of me, I’ll admit, and perhaps I’m being unfair, but nothing in Jones’s performance suggests to me that Jane is actually in love with Stephen. On the other hand, I do believe that Stephen loves Jane. His behavior through the whole Jonathan debacle ably demonstrates that.
Now I know that actions speak louder than words. Some people might be screaming at me, “For Pete’s sake, the woman devotes her entire life to caring for his every physical and emotional need for decades. What more do you need to see?”
Well, I need to see some indication that she’s doing all that because she loves him. And I don’t see that. I get the impression instead that she loves the idea of nobly sacrificing her own ambitions to enable a great scientist to continue his important work.
I think she gets caught up in this idea of what their marriage could mean, but in reality, it doesn’t work out that way at all, and by the time she actually realizes what she’s gotten herself into, it’s too late. She’s trapped. (I’m not suggesting this is true of the real Jane Hawking, incidentally. I’m just saying that the story comes across to me that way in the film.)
If I’m supposed to believe that Jane truly loves Stephen, then Jones needs to show me that, to sell me on that love. And she never does. (Frankly, I see more evidence that Joan Clarke loves Alan Turing in The Imitation Game, and she knows he’s gay and admits that she’s marrying him for the opportunity to continue her professional work. But I see more genuine passion, affection, camaraderie, and concern in their relationship than I do in what Stephen and Jane share. Maybe it’s because Joan is more likely to articulate her thoughts, while Jane internalizes. Others may see more merit in Jones’s performance than I do. I readily acknowledge that.)
Now, granted, these are failures of the film and not the actress. (And, of course, those who disagree with me probably see them as failures of the critic.) But I just can’t help finding the depiction of Jane Hawking in this film woefully inadequate, and if Felicity Jones somehow wins an Academy Award for it, I am not going to be thrilled.
That said, Julianne Moore is probably going to win, anyway, so I’m not sure that all my ravings about the inadequacies of The Theory of Everything really even matter.
Julianne Moore
Age: 54
Film: Still Alice
Role: Alice Howland, distinguished, tenured professor of linguistics at Columbia University who wrote the seminal textbook on her subject while maintaining a happy marriage with her chemistry professor husband and raising three children. The youngest, new adult Lydia, is a bit of a handful, but the family is happy enough—until a shock hits. Immediately after her fiftieth birthday, Alice begins noticing some disturbing changes and consults a neurologist who eventually diagnoses her with early onset Alzheimer’s disease. Her condition advances rapidly, and the course of her life is irreparably altered, causing intense distress not only for Alice, but for her husband and children, as well.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actress for The End of the Affair (1999) and Far From Heaven (2002).
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Boogie Nights (1997) and The Hours (2002).
Why She Should Win
It’s a good thing this film didn’t come out in 2013, or Moore would have lost the Oscar to Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine, and that wouldn’t have been entirely fair. I love Cate Blanchett as an actress. I think she has amazing talent and that her participation makes any movie watchable. (Stop and think about it. That’s a high compliment.) But I love Julianne Moore, too. I’m always glad to see her. She’s got a great smile, an open, friendly, accessible, sympathetic manner. She’s easy to like.
The two have incredibly different screen personas. There’s something eerily, seductively, terrifyingly cerebral about Blanchett, a flickering of intelligence dancing behind her eyes (eyes that are always watching you. She’s kind of like a cross between the real life Elizabeth I and a velociraptor from Jurassic Park.) Moore, on the other hand, is a creature of almost pure emotion. Forget showing empathy. Half the time, Julianne Moore is empathy itself.
So we watch Blanchett’s character having a breakdown, and we think, That strange creature is so complicated, so damaged, so dangerous, so fragile! And we watch, and we wait, and we gasp, and we fret.
But when we witness Moore’s character in similar crisis, we respond by bursting into tears and exclaiming, Oh no! Poor thing! That poor, poor woman! And we cry and cry and cry…and cry. We really just want to reach out and give her a hug. (We’re sure she’d do the same for us.) We wish we could do something to ease her suffering. That poor, poor, poor, poor woman. It’s so sad. We feel for her. We really do.
When it comes to examining great performances side by side, Blanchett and Moore are apples and oranges. They’re both terrific, but they’re so different that it seems unfair to pit them against each other. So I’m truly relieved that they’re not in direct competition because now they both get to take home Best Actress Oscars, and everybody’s a winner.
In Still Alice, Julianne Moore does what she always does best. She makes us feel for her. She helps us to cry for a character who deserves our sympathy. But she’s never manipulative. She’s open and authentic and earns our heartfelt tears. She never relies on hollow gimmicks or cheap, manipulative tricks to steal them from us.
Early onset Alzheimer’s is a devastating disease that destroys lives and tears families apart, an entirely appropriate reason for tears. Of course, the world is full of hardship, affliction, and suffering, but we’re not always invested in it personally. If we were, we’d go insane. We’d all spend our lives wandering about pathetically, lost in a daze of non-stop weeping. Still, on occasion, it never hurts to reaffirm the notion that you’re not a sociopath, that you can, in fact, cry for somebody else, a stranger who deserves your compassion.
So despite the fact that Still Alice is a bit depressing (or to put it bluntly, the most relentless tear-jerker ever!), watching Moore’s performance still manages to leave us feeling curiously uplifted because we’ve participated in a fellow human being’s journey of suffering and responded to it appropriately, confirming our contention that we do have feelings and are not heartless, selfish automatons incapable of caring about people who aren’t us.
In a situation like this, an actor’s performance must be pure and convincing. Audiences hate feeling manipulated. And Moore makes the movie work by bringing complete emotional vulnerability to the part. At the same time, she’s careful to present Alice as a real person, warts and all. The woman is suffering, but she’s not a martyr. Her suffering stirs our sympathy but it negates neither her character flaws nor her personality. Alice isn’t some ideal victim. She’s just a human being in an unfortunate situation, and her very humanity makes her easier to embrace.
If Moore’s performance were inadequate, this movie would be insufferable. Thankfully, she’s great. She has fantastic onscreen chemistry with Kristen Stewart who very convincingly plays her still maturing youngest child, Lydia. Most of Alice’s best scenes are with Lydia, including a hugely powerful moment at the very end of the film. But the whole movie belongs to Julianne Moore from scene one. She’s excellent in every moment, totally committed to the role, and almost certain to win the Oscar on February 22.
Why She Might Not Win
I’ll level with you. At this point, she’s winning. I can’t see it going down any other way. There’s still some uncertainty in Best Actor. Picture is similarly a toss up. And even Supporting Actress just might have a surprise upset (though I highly doubt it, so breathe easy, Patricia Arquette). But Best Actress is going to Julianne Moore this year. For sure. That’s it.
This is perhaps too blunt, but I’ll say it, anyway. (Why not?) This is a weak year for Actress. Sometimes people say that in spite of the fact that it’s not really true. But this year it is true. I’m a pretty generous, appreciative viewer, and I promise you, it is true. This is a weaker than average field, and the one advantage of that depressing situation is that it clears the way for Julianne Moore to win.
Let’s face it, the woman deserves an Oscar. She should have won for something a long, long time ago. She consistently chooses good projects. She works constantly. She never gives a bad performance. She deserves some recognition for an exceptional career.
So a win for Moore feels right, and I’m essentially positive that it is (for sure) going to happen. What else can I say?
Congratulations, Julianne Moore!
Rosamund Pike
Age: 36
Film: Gone Girl
Role: Amy Elliot Dunne, inspiration for her parents’ best-selling series of Amazing Amy children’s novels. Once a successful magazine writer in New York City, Amy has recently moved with her husband Nick Dunne to a small town in Missouri where she has not adjusted particularly well. Now—as of the morning of her fifth anniversary—she is missing. Gone. And her husband Nick has quickly become the number one suspect in her disappearance. It seems like an open and shut case of domestic homicide by a brutish spouse. But has the public been misled? Is everything actually as it appears?
Nomination History:
This is Pike’s first nomination.
Why She Should Win
Pike shows eye-catching versatility in this role. She plays a complex and captivating character, Amazing Amy, a woman of many faces. She also does an accent (two if you consider that she’s actually British), gains and loses weight, adopts a number of physical disguises, adjusts her mannerisms accordingly. (Personally, I think the accent and weight changes are the least impressive aspects of her performance—because any competent actor can do that much—but I don’t get to vote, and the people who do are often swayed by these showy factors.)
I think Pike excels most in the second half of the movie. The further we progress into the story, the better and more compelling she gets. By the end—in the moment just before the interview—she’s absolutely brilliant. The late “slamming” scene when she curtly explains her own appeal to her husband is fantastic. And she’s also particularly good in the robbery scene. Her palpable shock at her own unexpected vulnerability is a strange surprise to Amy and to us, and as a result, it’s kind of exciting as we suddenly realize that we have no idea who this woman is (because even she doesn’t know), what she’s actually capable of, and what in the world will happen next.
What truly helps Pike shine, though, is the material she’s given. Amy actually is an unexpected and cerebrally exciting character. Everyone always complains that there aren’t enough meaty roles for lead actresses. Well here’s one. (Thanks, Reese Witherspoon! Job well done!) Gone Girl takes up issues like sexism and the inner workings of a woman’s mind, but not in a patronizing, tokenish way. The film actually has something substantial to say and a compelling way of expressing these ideas to a general audience. Pike perfectly captures both the insolence and the surprise vulnerability of Amy. I think she’s always been a fantastic, highly appealing actress, and I’m happy she finally seems to have captured Hollywood’s attention.
Why She Might Not Win
I’ve liked Rosamund Pike ever since I first saw her in that ludicrously implausible James Bond movie (Die Another Day). I think she has tremendous appeal, so much charisma and talent. And I loved Gone Girl. I enjoyed the movie so much that afterwards I quickly devoured all three of Gillian Flynn’s books. I’m happy to see Pike nominated here because she’s representing the film, which was excellent (if off-kilter, shamelessly contrived, and brazenly designed to shock and spellbind the audience) and got shut out of most categories. (The Academy really seems to have a grudge against entertaining movies, particularly if they’re unabashedly fictional. I have no idea how The Grand Budapest Hotel managed to sneak in this year.) But yeah, I love Pike, and I loved Gone Girl.
To be perfectly honest, though, I’m not sure that I love Pike’s performance as Amy. I’ve seen the movie twice now, and both times, the same issue has jumped out at me.
The way Pike plays Amy in the early flashback scenes makes it entirely too easy for the audience to anticipate more than we ought to know about the nature of her character. The first time I watched the film in the theater, I anticipated the first major plot twist very, very quickly. I think Pike’s performance has something to do with that. Reading the book confirmed this impression for me. Book Amy goes out of her way to be warm and charming to so many people, and she exudes a certain vulnerability at moments that I really never got from Pike (until a more genuine version was scared out of her). Now I will grant that reading a diary that someone has written about herself will probably leave you with a different impression of that person than interacting with her. Maybe the person lacks a degree of self-awareness and doesn’t notice a gulf between how she intends for others to view her and how they actually do. So obviously watching the movie will be a different experience than reading the book.
But for me, the early part of Pike’s performance is not as great as it might be. (I don’t have any complaints about her nomination, though. Honestly, I wouldn’t complain too much even if she wins. As I said, I really like her, and I loved the film. I’m just trying to be honest, though. As much as I rant about The Theory of Everything, I feel I ought to acknowledge and attempt to compensate for a similar prejudice in favor of this film.)
Now the second half of Gone Girl is a different story. Pike is marvelous in those scenes, and gets particularly captivating near the end of the film.
But I think something is just slightly off in her early scenes. (I’m not saying it’s her fault necessarily. The script and the direction surely have a lot to do with it.) Still, if you ask me, the strongest overall performance in this movie comes from snubbed supporting actress Carrie Coon. (Supporting Actress was actually stronger than average this year. Too bad the Academy couldn’t nominate all the woman who deserved the honor.)
Beyond that, I think Pike’s chances of winning are pretty slim just because Julianne Moore is incredibly likely to take home the award. Compared to the other women in this category, Pike has a relatively small part in her film. Yes, she’s the lead actress, but she’s not the only lead in the movie. Ben Affleck is either the co-protagonist or the only protagonist depending on how you look at it. (And I actually think his performance is just as strong. Great casting at work there. He’s the ideal Nick, a guy who accidentally comes across as a smug, privileged jerk.)
Julianne Moore is most likely winning this year, but I am happy to see Pike getting some recognition. It should give her quite a career boost.
Reese Witherspoon
Age: 38
Film: Wild
Role: Cheryl Strayed, a young woman whose life has recently fallen apart. Following the heart-breaking death of her troubled mother, Cheryl goes into a downward spiral, distancing herself from her husband, having sex with strangers, shooting up heroin. To get her life back on track, she decides to hike the Pacific Coast Trail, hoping to rediscover her true self, a confident capable woman who made her mother proud.
Nomination History:
Won Best Actress Oscar in 2006 for Walk the Line (2005).
Why She Should Win
Witherspoon deserves a lot of credit for getting this film made. She produced both Gone Girl and Wild, two films which legitimately do feature strong, captivating leading roles for women, the kinds of movies everyone insists Hollywood conspicuously lacks and sorely needs. Everybody talks about this problem constantly, but Witherspoon is actually doing something about it, and, if these first two films from her new production company are any indication, I’d say she’s well on her way to becoming a smashing success as a producer.
It’s a really weak year for actress, and last time it was a really weak year for actress, Reese Witherspoon won. By that logic, she ought to win again this year for her work in Wild.
She’s actually much better here than she was in Walk the Line. I mean her performance as June Carter Cash was okay, but I’ve never considered it great or even Witherspoon’s best work.
But she’s better than I expected in Wild. She basically carries the whole movie, and to her credit, even though I didn’t always love the character, I engaged with movie from start to finish because of the strength of Witherspoon’s performance. She really sells it. She’s basically in every scene and carries the entire film. Without her central performance, in fact, there wouldn’t even be a film.
Yes, as I said in my Supporting Actress write up, Laura Dern’s lovely performance is my favorite aspect of Wild, but Witherspoon is the one who showcases Dern’s work. She does the heavy lifting and then Dern glides in with a charming, wistful smile.
I love almost all of the scenes pairing Cheryl and her mother Bobbi, but I actually think Witherspoon’s own best scene is Cheryl’s heart-to-heart with her brother as the cuddle in bed together and contemplate how to cope with the coming loss of their mother. Cheryl seems more sympathetic than usual in this scene.
The opening scene, the bit with the toenail, is also very captivating, as is the nightmare during the thunderstorm.
Why She Might Not Win
Reese Witherspoon already has one Oscar, and it’s for Best Actress, so it’s not like her work hasn’t been acknowledged. Witherspoon is a good actress, yes, but I honestly think there are even better working actresses out there who still have yet to win. (Take Amy Adams, for example, or…I don’t know…Julianne Moore?)
Witherspoon’s excellent performance in Wild is the best I’ve ever seen her give, and she gets props from me for producing Wild and Gone Girl and getting those films made, but she’s already won once. I would be very surprised if they decide to give her two Oscars when the highly prolific Julianne Moore still has yet to get her hands on even one.
The bottom line is, I’m pretty sure Julianne Moore will win. She’s certainly waited long enough for the honor. I remember a time when Moore got nominated every ten seconds, but she never won, and then after a while, the nominations started drying up, too. This is definitely Moore’s time, and though Witherspoon is perhaps the most likely to steal the award from her, I doubt that she’ll actually pull it off. Looks like she’s got a brilliant future as a highly successful producer of films about women, though. I look forward to her future projects.