Jessica Chastain
Age: 35
Film: Zero Dark Thirty
Role: Maya, the driven CIA operative who after being recruited out of high school spends the better part of a decade (and her entire professional life) actively searching for Osama bin Laden until she finally finds him and convinces her superiors to have him killed.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for The Help (2011).
Why She Should Win
Jessica Chastain carries the movie. She’s not just the female lead. She’s the lead. In most Hollywood blockbusters with a female lead, the girl obsesses about finding a man.
That’s true here, too, but in Maya’s case, that man is Osama bin Laden. She is obsessed with finding and killing the terrorist leader who instigated the 9/11 attacks. She will never give up. She has no personal life and no other professional goals. She must find bin Laden.
Why?
Relatively late in the movie, Maya surprises us by revealing that she was recruited by the CIA right out of high school specifically to do the work she’s doing. Someone asks her why the agency recruited her, and she replies that she doesn’t think she’s allowed to reveal the answer. But that’s okay. I know the answer. It was her Moby Dick essay—probably cutely titled “Call Me Ahab”—in which she totally defended relentless, monomaniacal pursuit of an elusive enemy.
In Moby Dick, Ahab has a whale bone leg because the white whale took his leg. In Zero Dark Thirty, the hunt for bin Laden has taken Maya’s entire self. Like Ahab, her identity is fused and confused with, completely caught up in the enemy she pursues.
Okay now imagine a film version of Moby Dick in which Ahab is basically the only character. The whole story is told entirely from Ahab’s myopic viewpoint. He has absolutely no thoughts, goals, identity, passions, or life outside of the whale—and we never see the whale (except for a flash or two at the end).
Imagine how difficult it would be to play Ahab under those circumstances and make an audience stay engaged in that movie. And Chastain doesn’t even get a whale-bone leg to help her make Maya more exciting!
(Now that I think about it, I’m not sure that Zero Dark Thirty’s nomination for Original Screenplay is exactly fair. How is this film not an adaptation of Moby Dick—I mean, apart from obvious differences in plot, setting, and number of digressions about whiteness, ambergris, and whale phrenology?)
Maya is the hunt for bin Laden. That’s why she exists. She’s not a person. She’s a facilitator of the manhunt. She is human, of course, but she doesn’t seem to want to be. She’s definitely not interested in finding herself or becoming a woman or falling in love or any of those clichés. In fact, she seems to equate having an identity with frivolity.
Carrying a movie while playing such an emotionally impoverished character is quite a trick. Chastain does get a lovely scene of rage, another of grief, another of tears. But she spends most of her performance making us believe that she is a person who would prefer not to be and making us care about the goals of this (elective non) person for over two and a half hours.
The incredibly versatile Jessica Chastain is marvelous in this difficult role and definitely deserves to win.
Why She Might Not Win
Jennifer Lawrence is so darn likable! She’s so plucky and genuine, and when her pants fall off at awards shows, she thinks it’s totally hilarious and just keeps shuffling toward the stage.
Meanwhile, Jessica Chastain’s persona at awards shows seems to scream, “I’m even more serious and intense in person. Compared to the real me, Maya is a whimsical, flaky delight!”
Also Zero Dark Thirty has made a lot of people angry because of the way it presents torture. Not only does the film depict torture (waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are shown on screen), but it depicts torture as being useful and (to a degree) effective. To make matters worse, the film’s protagonists express resentment and frustration when President Obama gives the executive order to drop the enhanced interrogation techniques. Some Academy members—including the very vocal David Clennon and beloved veteran Ed Asner—find the film’s seeming endorsement of torture appalling, unconscionable, and irresponsible.
Naturally these objections have been met by some fans with plenty of eye rolling about “liberal Hollywood.” (I agree that controversies gain momentum ridiculously quickly in Hollywood, but what exactly is to be gained by accusing actors of being dramatic (or liberal, for that matter)?)
But here’s the problem with dismissing the whole issue as a trumped up delusion of “liberal Hollywood.” The CIA (rarely cited for its bleeding heart liberalism) also objects to the way Zero Dark Thirty depicts torture. Ex-operatives keep popping up all over the place pointing out ways in which the film is unrealistic. And the agency’s acting director recently issued a statement saying that contrary to what the film suggests, enhanced interrogation techniques were not essential to finding bin Laden at all. (In fact, the CIA says, torture was used to break detainees not to discover new information.)
Clearly CIA agents don’t understand movies as well as actors. The disgruntled actors can see that Bigelow’s film promotes torture, but those paranoid CIA agents watched the same movie and somehow came away with the crazy idea that Kathryn Bigelow is actually against torture and trying to make them look bad. On the surface, her film appears patriotic, even jingoistic, but the CIA is behaving as if that’s all just a subversive smokescreen because Bigelow is actually attempting to undermine everything the characters stand for by leading the audience to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions. Maybe one day the CIA agents will learn that most of the people who made the movie a box office success saw the same film as the actors incensed about torture. Of
course, it’s not the CIA agents’ fault they’re so bad at understanding how movies work. Not everyone is cut out to be in the entertainment industry.
At any rate, everybody is still upset (or in some cases, pretending to be upset) by the torture controversy—except Jessica Chastain.
As the (insanely inflated) Zero Dark Thirty torture controversy rages on, Kathryn Bigelow keeps making statements like, “I’m a pacifist. Representing something is not the same thing as endorsing it,” and Jessica Chastain keeps saying stuff like, “This woman is a hero, and she can’t get the recognition she deserves.” (Despite the quotation marks, I’m paraphrasing from memory, but if you don’t believe me, google it.)
Jennifer Lawrence shows more versatility on the red carpet and in the movie. The latter is nothing that Chastain could have changed, but it could still hurt her chances. Unlike Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty isn’t about being the best you that you can be. Maya hardly ever focuses on herself. In her own way, Maya is just as disturbed as Tiffany (maybe more so), but Maya isn’t looking for healing. She’s looking for Osama bin Laden. That’s pretty much a full time job.
At one point, Maya defines herself as not being “the girl” who sleeps with everyone at work. Of course not. That’s Tiffany. The woman who defines herself by her professionalism will likely achieve more career success. But when the prize at stake is an Oscar, the unhinged nymphomaniac definitely has a leg up.
Chastain does give a great performance. She deserves to win just as much as Jennifer Lawrence, but because of the torture controversy and Maya’s stoicism, I think that she’ll lose to Lawrence (or possibly Riva) on Oscar night.
Jennifer Lawrence
Age: 22|
Film: Silver Linings Playbook
Role: Tiffany, the (very) young widow who acknowledges that she did crazy things when overwhelmed by grief but is tired of being judged and punished by everyone and just wants a normal life involving a dance competition and the new (also crazy) friend she hopes to have for a partner.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actress for Winter’s Bone (2010).
Why She Should Win
As I watched Silver Linings Playbook, I found Lawrence’s performance solid (as always) but overrated—until the scene in the diner. That amazing moment makes the performance Oscar worthy all by itself. It all happens so fast. But don’t watch all the stuff flying off the table.
Watch Jennifer Lawrence’s face, particularly her eyes. Probably my favorite scene in the movie is Pat’s hunt for his wedding video, and the chaos into which the search devolves. Cooper, De Niro, and Weaver all contribute exactly what’s needed to make that scene work. A troubled but loving family resists falling into dysfunction for as long as possible but ultimately succumbs. There’s a whole lot of love (and a whole lot of crazy) going on up in the Solitanos’ attic. My point is, in the diner scene, the same kind of chaos we saw building in the attic is going on at warp speed inside Tiffany’s brain. In the flicker of Jennifer Lawrence’s expressive eyes, we see the same intensity, the same complexity, the same rising chaos. We can watch her emotions overpowering her ability to reason and cope, yet it all looks completely natural. There’s nothing forced about it.
From the diner scene on, Lawrence’s performance builds, increasing in intensity and intimacy. Even though the character becomes more emotional, more intense, Tiffany paradoxically seems less and less crazy because we’re getting to know her and to love her (or at very least to accept her).
Unlike quite a few characters popping up this Oscar season, Tiffany is not a beacon of virtue, a bright light of goodness that we all aspire to be. For the movie to work, the audience must empathize with Tiffany, and on paper, she’s not all that empathic. An actress (and director) could easily spin the character a different way without even changing the part as written and make Tiffany seem totally despicable, insincere, and scary. Some actors this year were given the challenge of not messing up charismatic and noble characters. Lawrence, meanwhile, is handed the much bigger challenge of making us care for a character who herself admits that she is damaged and broken.
To top it all off, Lawrence has excellent comic timing, so her performance makes us laugh and cry (that old Oscar cliché).
Honestly, I think she’s going to win.
Why She Might Not Win
Jessica Chastain’s role is even more difficult than Jennifer Lawrence’s.
Here’s why I say that. Playing a disturbed person is challenging. If Lawrence had failed, everyone would have said, “Wow, she was really over-the-top! The character is supposed to be crazy, not the actress!” But Chastain is faced with the equally daunting challenge of playing someone reserved and self-denying to the point of vacancy. During most of the movie, Maya’s drive is all there is to Maya, yet Chastain still must carry the movie by making us care about Maya. If she succeeds people will complain (and are complaining), “Why is that performance Oscar worthy? That woman was really boring. The actress didn’t have to do anything!” Maya’s character is working against Chastain’s chances, but the people who have enough experience with movies to realize that—i.e. Academy members—are the ones who get to vote. And despite Zero Dark Thirty’s torture controversy, they might decide to reward Chastain for contending with an even higher degree of difficulty than Lawrence.
Plus let’s not forget that Jennifer Lawrence has a trumped up controversy of her own. She insulted Meryl Streep in her Golden Globes acceptance speech—except she didn’t (of course). She was actually making a (fairly obscure) reference to the movie The First Wives Club which she has explained about thirty thousand times now. Even if she is lying (which seems unlikely since she did quote the movie), saying, “I beat Meryl,” after winning a Golden Globe at twenty-two is clearly a joke, (though perhaps not as funny a joke as Lawrence intended). So this controversy is ridiculous. Jessica Chastain’s got to answer for waterboarding, and Jennifer Lawrence has to deal with idiots who think joking about Meryl Streep at an awards ceremony is just as scandalous as waterboarding. Had Meryl Streep been in the audience, she would have laughed (or play-acted being insulted). I’m sure of it. She would have played along. (Now would she have gotten the reference to The First Wives Club? Who knows? Would she secretly have been annoyed? Possibly. But based on everything I’ve seen, Streep is a grounded person who is usually kind and definitely knows how to behave in public. Maybe Lawrence shouldn’t have made the joke, but if Streep hadn’t been home with the flu, she probably would have helped Lawrence make the joke funnier.)
This whole non-controversy does point out another thing that may work against Jennifer Lawrence, though—her age. Lawrence is only twenty-two.
(Jessica Chastain spent the better part of her Globes acceptance speech driving home the
point that she herself—though new to Hollywood success—has been treading the boards, paying her dues for years and years and years and years and years. It’s hard not to see that as an effort to remind people that her biggest competitor is still just a kid.)
For a leading lady, youth is more of an asset than a liability, so twenty-two itself shouldn’t hurt Lawrence’s chances. But what may hurt her is having the personality and judgment of a twenty-two-year-old. Some may see her as too young and cocky. She’s young enough to say foolish things on impulse and old enough to be held accountable for saying them. (In contrast, nine-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis can say she’s more awesome than unicorns if she feels like it, and everybody will just sigh, “Awww! Isn’t she adorable?” because no (sane) adult sees a nine-year-old as a threat.)
Based on momentum (and the fact that concern about waterboarding is much harder to dismiss than concern about Meryl Streep’s ego), I expect Jennifer Lawrence to win the Oscar. To some, a vote for Chastain may seem like a vote for torture. Hollywood likes movies that are heavy-handed in their condemnation of unjust governments that torture people. Zero Dark Thirty has genuinely upset a lot of Academy members. I don’t think Chastain will be able to pull off a win. That leaves Lawrence who gives a magnificent performance and is already a genuine star.
But don’t count out Emmanuelle Riva (who is even farther from twenty-two than Jessica Chastain). Guess who turns eighty-six on Oscar night?
Emmanuelle Riva
Age: 85 (until her 86th birthday on February 24th!)
Film: Amour
Role: Anne, an octogenarian French music teacher who suffers a series of small strokes that eventually leave her incontinent, partially paralyzed, confused, and bed-ridden in the loving care of her devoted husband Georges who tries to honor her wishes for dignity, privacy, and the right to remain in her own home until she dies.
Nomination History:
This is Riva’s first nomination.
Why She Should Win
Riva has a real shot (albeit kind of a long shot) at winning the Oscar.
For a long time, this year’s Best Actress race was all over the place. Then it settled down into a contest between two clear front runners—Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence.
But what if some people like (or dislike) Chastain’s and Lawrence’s performances equally?
Some voters may think that Jessica Chastain represents a film that promotes crimes against humanity and Jennifer Lawrence is a flippant, overhyped twenty-two-year-old who doesn’t deserve to win an Oscar yet. And if that’s how you feel, it must be very convenient to have the lead actress of the Palme d’Or winning film at Cannes among the Oscar nominees.
“She was so brave!” We hear that all the time. “What a brave performance!” Often this over-used cliché means next-to-nothing (and too often it means “She’s naked! We see her breasts!”)
But in Amour Riva gives one of the bravest performances that I have ever seen on film. How hard must it be as an eighty-five-year-old woman to portray someone of the same age who is rapidly losing her faculties! When you’re eighty-five and healthy do you really want to imagine being incontinent, half-paralyzed, bed ridden, diminished? That’s like being pregnant and playing a character who miscarries. In fact, it’s worse because the pregnant actress (though unnerved) would be statistically unlikely to miscarry (assuming she’s reasonably far along), but the eighty-five-year-old woman is going to die for sure. Everybody dies sooner or later, and eighty-five is already later.
I couldn’t have done this. “What a brave performance!” is not just an empty cliché in this case. Riva really is brave. She offers up for our gazes of scrutiny, pity, and sympathy her very own aging body. The bravery here is about more than just showing her bare breasts (though, incidentally, she does that, too). Playing this part takes courage, talent, and total commitment.
Though Riva is excellent throughout (and the role gets increasingly difficult as the film and Anne’s condition progress), probably my favorite part of Riva’s performance is the scene early on in the kitchen, the one that culminates in the heart-breaking moment when Anne attempts to pour herself a cup of tea. Honestly that sent chills down my spine, and I wanted to cry for her.
We’re led to identify and empathize more with the character of her husband Georges, played hauntingly by Jean-Louis Trintignant. Still, if you ever want to empathize with Anne herself, simply read what the Common Sense Media Guide for Parents has to say about her. The movie receives a low “role model” score, and the guide comments, “The main female character, who’s ill, doesn’t get the chance to become a role model. (She doesn’t handle her sickness well.)” So be warned parents! Your ten-year-old (who is definitely going to try to sneak into this movie because all the kids are dying to sit through Amour) probably shouldn’t watch the film because the next time she’s an eighty-five-year old woman dying of a degenerative condition, she won’t know how to do it properly thanks to Anne’s moral failure as a suitable role model. I know how Alan Arkin’s character in Argo would respond to this.
Anne’s response to her condition (which comes upon her suddenly and unexpectedly) seems pretty realistic to me. Perhaps she’s not as brave as she wants to be, or as positive as others think she should be. But all this is happening in the privacy of her own home, and it’s also worth pointing out that significant brain damage (because of strokes) is the root of her medical problems. How can we judge a woman who is dying? What gives any of us who are not experiencing her decline the right?
Why She Might Not Win
At the Oscars, French actresses and jaw-dropping upsets go hand-in-hand. Nobody expected Juliet Binoche to win for The England Patient, and Marion Cotillard’s stunned acceptance speech is one of my favorite Oscar moments ever. (Though I loved Julie Christie’s performance in Away From Her and wanted her to win (despite a Golden Globes acceptance speech that came off a bit too flippant), Marion Cotillard was ethereally beautiful and astonishingly genuine).
But Juliet Binoche and Marion Cotillard were young and beautiful (especially Marion Cotillard).
Emmanuelle Riva is a healthy octogenarian playing a diminished and dying octogenarian. She doesn’t really have the same kind of exotic sex appeal (though by God does the character Anne inspire love!).
Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain are both young (and beautiful) stars on the rise, and Riva has to get more votes than either of them to win the Oscar (though not necessarily more than both of them put together, which is key).
Amour is a difficult movie to watch. It definitely does not appeal to youth culture and does not have a very American sensibility.
Of course, Riva has had a long career and was young and beautiful once. (I’m not saying that she’s not beautiful now, but she’s certainly not young.) Being handed the Best Actress Oscar by fellow French actor Jean Dujardin (most likely to present the award if he’s there) would be a lovely eighty-sixth birthday present. It could happen.
Quvenzhané Wallis
Age: 9
Film: Beasts of the Southern Wild
Role: Hushpuppy, a courageous child growing up in the Bathtub, a part of New Orleans beyond the protection of the levee that seems strange and wild to outsiders. At a distance, Hushpuppy could be called impoverished, neglected, even abused, but as we’re slowly drawn into her world we begin to understand also the wonder, beauty, and nobility of life in the Bathtub.
Nomination History:
This is Wallis’s first nomination.
Why She Should Win
Best Actress buzz has consistently surrounded one performer since early summer—Quvenzhané Wallis from Beasts of the Southern Wild. And (though other performances from more seasoned actresses threatened to crowd her out at the end of the year) she made it. She’s nominated. She’s nine years old, and she’s already nominated for a Best Actress Oscar.
But if you think that’s impressive, consider this. Wallis was just five years old when she auditioned for the part of Hushpuppy, and only six when the movie was filmed.
All the buzz about Wallis’s precocious lead performance is what prompted me to watch Beasts of the Southern Wild back in September. As soon as I saw it, I understood what all the fuss was about. Wallis brings a fevered, focused intensity to her character and keeps it up through the entire performance. I love the scene when she burns down her house. She plays it perfectly, not only with passion but with the sense and discipline to harness that passion and present it in the most effective way. Clearly, her instincts are good and she takes direction well. Not often does a six-year-old newcomer successfully carry a movie.
The best thing about Beasts of the Southern Wild is that it really is genuinely different from what Hollywood usually offers us. And Wallis is a refreshingly different kind of leading lady.
This year we have both the youngest (Wallis) and oldest (Riva) nominees for Best Actress ever. I hope this isn’t just some token to reassure us that the Academy isn’t ageist, sexist, and racist (as we all know it is). I hope that Wallis does not win an Oscar yet but goes on to have a distinguished career and receive many more nominations. She’s shown that she is a talented actress capable of anchoring a movie. Let’s hope that people keep offering her parts worthy of her talents because I want to see those movies, and I know I’m not the only one.
Why She Might Not Win
Nobody wants to peak at nine. A win by Quvenzhané Wallis would be incredibly shocking.
Personally, I think that her performance, though undeniably strong, was eclipsed by the marvelous supporting work of Dwight Henry (also in his first role) as her troubled father Wink. Henry should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor.
(I will go to my grave repeating that. When I die, they will find “Dwight Henry for Best Supporting Actor” written on my heart. (And I won’t even say where “Leonardo DiCaprio” is written!) Just kidding, but in a perfect world, the Academy wouldn’t have filled every Supporting Actor slot this year with a safe performance by someone who’s already won an Oscar. In a perfect world, a couple of nominations (at least) would be saved for some the following people: Leonardo DiCaprio, Dwight Henry, Ezra Miller, Matthew McConaughey, Samuel L. Jackson, Sam Rockwell, and good grief Andy Serkis!) The point is, Henry’s performance is much stronger than Wallis’s, so why should she get a win when he didn’t even get a nomination?
Really, it’s just not going to happen.
Wallis is an exceptional child actress, but young children rarely win competitive Oscars.
Naomi Watts
Age: 44
Film: The Impossible
Role: Maria, a wife and mother of three boys put in a gripping life-or-death situation while vacationing in Thailand during the tsunami of 2004. Gravely injured and separated from three members of her family, Maria tries to teach her son Lucas how to live as struggles to stay alive to ensure that he won’t have to live without her.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actress for 21 Grams (2003).
Why She Should Win
The Impossible is a beautiful movie. The Common Sense Media Guide people should be proud. Maria knows how to die like a good role model. I’m scared to look at what they’ve said because if Maria doesn’t have their seal of approval, then I don’t know how anyone could ever die to their standards.
Maria has a good reason to die so well. She’s trying to teach her son how to live, knowing that she may not get another chance.
“If it’s the last thing we ever do.”
That line sticks with you. And here’s what makes it so effective. Maria is a real woman. This is a true story. Now granted, it is the story as told by a surviving member of Maria and Lucas’s family, so Maria’s courage may be a bit romanticized in the retelling. Still, what a powerful way to impart the lesson that as human beings we should always help one another! (Some might say “love one another.”)
I’ve heard people complain about the lack of a religious presence in this disaster movie, and I think those people are completely out of their minds. This is one of the most Christian movies I’ve seen in a long time. In extremis, the characters do not make a great show of praying or religion, but still, by their actions, they show themselves to be completely in step with the actual teachings of Christ. The movie definitely has a moral core. As is fitting for a film about a tsunami, the message hits hard and slowly sweeps over the audience. No matter what, we must do what is right, and what is right is to help others, to love others. Empathy is what makes humanity strong.
Now granted, that’s not only a Christian message. It’s a universal message for all people of faith (even if that faith is only in the potential of humankind). The family who survived this disaster wanted to make a film for everyone, and I think that’s why they don’t mention any one particular religion. The idea of focusing on the welfare of others instead of obsessing about yourself is also just good life advice and bound to come in handy for anyone struggling to remain sane in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
Because she uses what may be her last minutes on earth to teach her son to do what is right, no matter the cost, Maria is an enormously compelling and sympathetic character. Honestly, I think the strength of the character is what got Naomi Watts the Oscar nomination. I’m not saying that Watts doesn’t give a good performance, but she’s given an awful lot to work with. Just like with Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln, and Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained, Watts gets a lot of help from the charisma (and morality) of the character she is playing. (And it doesn’t hurt that Maria is suffering from gruesome injuries that she powers through to help her son, so that when she goes out of her way to help others, what the sacrifice costs her comes across vividly on the screen.)
Still, a lesser actress might not do the character justice. There’s a wonderful simplicity in Watts’s performance. If I were cast, I’d play the whole thing very melodramatically and ruin it all I’m sure. Watts brings such a compelling earnestness to the character. Watching her, you don’t think about her performance. First, you see a woman in distress. Then, when you begin to notice how well she handles the situation, you respond by thinking,
“If Maria is willing to act on her convictions even when she is dying, maybe I ought to pay attention to the message she is trying to impart.”
I’m sad The Impossible didn’t get a bit more Oscar attention, to be honest. I loved The Orphange, too, so I’m eager for director Juan Antonio Bayona’s next film. And maybe the second Oscar nomination will help Watts to get higher profile roles.
Why She Might Not Win
Despite a fine performance from young actor Tom Holland, and some lovely supporting work by Ewan McGregor, The Impossible’s only nomination is for Naomi Watts, so the movie doesn’t seem to have much support.
The reason for that seems rooted in yet another controversy.
The real Maria is Spanish. The whole family is Spanish. And their names are Spanish. Henry, for example, is actually Quique. And though the family in the film is meant to be from nowhere in particular, for an American audience, it’s pretty hard not to assume that this fair, blue-eyed family with vaguely British accents are actually from the U.K. So when we see a photograph of the real family (and their Spanish names) at the end, it is jarring for a moment.
Still these changes were made deliberately because the real family wanted to stress that this is a universal story that could have happened to anyone (and did happen to many). Ethnicity is irrelevant. We are all human.
But some people still get annoyed that this “true story” isn’t actually as true as they imagined. The writer feels that superficial, external differences don’t matter, but some people vocally disagree. Bizarrely, the family’s deliberate attempt to remove race from the equation has resulted in people calling the movie racist.
In fairness to those who protest, I will agree that it’s a little weird that these “universal” protagonists are all pale white Westerners who speak English. Maybe the filmmakers should have cast people with pointedly different ethnic backgrounds to play the five members of the core family, one brother from Kenya, one from France, one from Brazil, parents from China and Kansas. That might have worked better because then the audience wouldn’t have felt so tricked.
People are also upset because the movie focuses on the misadventures of a bunch of white European tourists when the Tsunami took the lives and homes of so many more Asian people (of various nationalities since the storms hit several places).
Watts gives a lovely performance, but I don’t think it’s strong enough to overcome the Academy’s overall less than enthusiastic reception of the film.
Right now, I think Jennifer Lawrence is most likely to win on Oscar night. Jessica Chastain, however, is still in the running, and Emmanuelle Riva is the dark horse most likely to upset. I’ll be very surprised if Naomi Watts wins the Oscar for her lovely and moving performance as Maria. Because Quvenzhané Wallis is so young, Watts probably has a slightly better chance of winning than Wallis, but I still think a win for Watts is pretty nearly impossible.
That said, however, I love surprises!