Well, the voting has ended for the first poll on Word on the Streep, and The Hours is the overwhelming top vote-getter (71%) to decide which performance was the biggest Oscar snub for Meryl. I was one of the few who voted for The Manchurian Candidate. While I absolutely believe Meryl should've been nominated for her performance as Clarissa Vaughan in The Hours, if we take into account the landscape of the films and performances that were up for recognition in both 2002 and 2004 (the release years for The Hours and The Manchurian Candidate, respectively), it's more of a snub that she missed out in 2004.
The Hours happened to be released the same year as Adaptation, a film for which she was nominated for Actress in a Supporting Role. Couple that with the fact that The Hours was a film that essentially had three female leads in Nicole Kidman (ultimate winner that year in lead for her role of Viginia Woolf), Julianne Moore (nominated in supporting) and Meryl, and it gets tough to nominate two or especially all three. If each were on the cusp of being lead or supporting and Kidman's performance was sort of undeniable for a nom, Meryl really had no chance for that film. Keeping in mind that actors cannot be nominated for two roles in the same category.
Two years later, Streep missed out on a nomination for Actress in a Supporting Role for her performance as Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw The Manchurian Candidate. She had no other films that year that were likely to result in nomination, and she had snagged both Globe and BAFTA noms. I won't rehash why I think she should've been recognized, but I'll link my thoughts from the original snub post.
What do readers want as the next poll?!
...a candid blog devoted to the incomparable American actress, Meryl Streep.
Showing posts with label The Hours. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hours. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Academy Awards analysis (2002)
Jeeze it's been almost two years since I've posted in this tag. There has simply been too much other Meryl news since then with four film releases and multiple rumored projects. We return to this section to cover a year which saw what many thought would be Meryl's return to the Oscar stage. This was probably the closest Meryl came to winning the Academy Award since 1982' Sophie's Choice, with the trophy ultimately going to Catherine Zeta-Jones for Chicago. With Streep's 13th overall nom, she had surpassed the great Katharine Hepburn for most-nominated actress.
Coincidentally, it was during this awards season that I became an über fan of Meryl. During winter break of my first year of grad school, I holed up and watched like fifteen Streep films in one weekend. The buzz around her work in both Adaptation and The Hours was a little more special that year because Meryl hadn't been in a feature film at this point for three years. Perhaps the performances, both directed by what some would call "auteur" directors, made her seem somewhat fresh in their eyes. Few had seen Streep in such a challenging, nuanced role as that of a reimagined take on author Susan Orlean.
Early predictions saw Meryl as the favorite, but Zeta-Jones, bolstered by the enormous box office success of Chicago, slowly began snapping at her heels. As Zeta-Jones was in the lead category for Musical/Comedy at the Globes, Meryl ended up taking her first win there in twenty years. An apparent category mix up at the SAGs left her off the nomination list for both of her films, but she eventually made the top five for Supporting Actress at the Oscars, her first in that category since Kramer vs Kramer.
The full list in her category that is as follows:
Kathy Bates (About Schmidt)
Queen Latifah (Chicago)
Julianne Moore (The Hours)
Meryl Streep (Adaptation)
Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago)
I saw Chicago in the the theater four or five times (once actually in the city of Chicago ha) so was thrilled for Catherine, even if I thought Meryl was clearly the best that year. By the time the ceremony rolled around, which some thought may not happen because the United States's invasion of Iraq had happened just a few days prior, it was pretty much expected that Zeta-Jones would take the prize. Alas, the event (sans the typical red carpet hullabaloo) went on as planned and Meryl had now lost nine consecutive times at the Academy Awards.
Coincidentally, it was during this awards season that I became an über fan of Meryl. During winter break of my first year of grad school, I holed up and watched like fifteen Streep films in one weekend. The buzz around her work in both Adaptation and The Hours was a little more special that year because Meryl hadn't been in a feature film at this point for three years. Perhaps the performances, both directed by what some would call "auteur" directors, made her seem somewhat fresh in their eyes. Few had seen Streep in such a challenging, nuanced role as that of a reimagined take on author Susan Orlean.
Early predictions saw Meryl as the favorite, but Zeta-Jones, bolstered by the enormous box office success of Chicago, slowly began snapping at her heels. As Zeta-Jones was in the lead category for Musical/Comedy at the Globes, Meryl ended up taking her first win there in twenty years. An apparent category mix up at the SAGs left her off the nomination list for both of her films, but she eventually made the top five for Supporting Actress at the Oscars, her first in that category since Kramer vs Kramer.
The full list in her category that is as follows:
Kathy Bates (About Schmidt)
Queen Latifah (Chicago)
Julianne Moore (The Hours)
Meryl Streep (Adaptation)
Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago)
I saw Chicago in the the theater four or five times (once actually in the city of Chicago ha) so was thrilled for Catherine, even if I thought Meryl was clearly the best that year. By the time the ceremony rolled around, which some thought may not happen because the United States's invasion of Iraq had happened just a few days prior, it was pretty much expected that Zeta-Jones would take the prize. Alas, the event (sans the typical red carpet hullabaloo) went on as planned and Meryl had now lost nine consecutive times at the Academy Awards.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Snubs #3: "The Hours"
Meryl's performance of Clarissa Vaughan in the 2002 adaptation of Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Hours earned her nominations for a Golden Globe, BAFTA and several critics groups awards...but not for Oscar. The chances at a nomination for lead actress in this role, in this year, were stacked against Meryl. For one, she was nominated in supporting for Adaptation that year (another "snub" for not winning imo), and the Best Actress category was kind of crowded. The nominees were as follows in lead:
Salma Hayek (Frida)
Nicole Kidman (The Hours)
Diane Lane (Unfaithful)
Julianne Moore (Far from Heaven)
Renée Zellweger (Chicago)
Kidman's role was arguably supporting if we look only at screen time, considering it was under 30 minutes if memory serves. But her character of Virginia Woolf is sort of intertwined with the other two main characters (Meryl and Julianne Moore), so it's passable. Moore was nominated in supporting for her role as Laura Brown. So yes, Moore was nominated in both categories that year. For Meryl to be nominated in The Hours it would've happened in lead, which means she too would've been nominated in both categories that year. Adaptation was a slam dunk as far as Oscar noms go, so unfortunately, she was the odd woman out in lead despite moments like this, courtesy of Simply Streep:
Had this film been released in a year where Meryl had no other performances of her own to contend with, her chances at a nomination would've certainly been much better. That, coupled with the fact that there was a more baity lead role in the same film (Kidman) meant it just wasn't going to happen.
So, who should've gotten the axe had Meryl been nominated? This is a really tough one. Despite Moore being nominated in both categories, her performance in Far from Heaven was too good to dump. My choice would unfortunately have to be Diane Lane. I've seen her performance and it is fantastic. But researching pre-season awards and nominations, Lane seemed to have the fewest, despite getting Globe, SAG and Oscar nods. Like I said above, this year was pretty packed and all five honorees were well-deserved. Meryl had to settle for her supporting nomination in Adaptation, eventually losing to Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, whose awards campaign was (stealthily) switched from lead to supporting mid-season. Well played, Harvey.
Salma Hayek (Frida)
Nicole Kidman (The Hours)
Diane Lane (Unfaithful)
Julianne Moore (Far from Heaven)
Renée Zellweger (Chicago)
Kidman's role was arguably supporting if we look only at screen time, considering it was under 30 minutes if memory serves. But her character of Virginia Woolf is sort of intertwined with the other two main characters (Meryl and Julianne Moore), so it's passable. Moore was nominated in supporting for her role as Laura Brown. So yes, Moore was nominated in both categories that year. For Meryl to be nominated in The Hours it would've happened in lead, which means she too would've been nominated in both categories that year. Adaptation was a slam dunk as far as Oscar noms go, so unfortunately, she was the odd woman out in lead despite moments like this, courtesy of Simply Streep:
Had this film been released in a year where Meryl had no other performances of her own to contend with, her chances at a nomination would've certainly been much better. That, coupled with the fact that there was a more baity lead role in the same film (Kidman) meant it just wasn't going to happen.
So, who should've gotten the axe had Meryl been nominated? This is a really tough one. Despite Moore being nominated in both categories, her performance in Far from Heaven was too good to dump. My choice would unfortunately have to be Diane Lane. I've seen her performance and it is fantastic. But researching pre-season awards and nominations, Lane seemed to have the fewest, despite getting Globe, SAG and Oscar nods. Like I said above, this year was pretty packed and all five honorees were well-deserved. Meryl had to settle for her supporting nomination in Adaptation, eventually losing to Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, whose awards campaign was (stealthily) switched from lead to supporting mid-season. Well played, Harvey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)