19 Days Til Oscar (Feat. Julianne Moore)
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 12:00PM Hollywood's High Holy Night is less than three weeks away now. Today also happens to be the 50th birthday of one Sarah Palin but rather than wish one of the worst people alive a Happy Birthday, here's a random 'What If?' question for your discussion pleasure...
Q: Julianne has been nominated for four Oscars (Boogie Nights, The End of the Affair, The Hours, Far From Heaven), famously losing all of them. If her Sarah Palin movie "Game Change" -- which won her the Globe, SAG, and Emmy -- had been a feature film, would she be 5/0 with Oscar or a winner? How would she have affected that Oscar race?
Honestly you could ask the same question of "Behind the Candelabra" in this Oscar race in both the Lead and Supporting Actor categories, courtesy of biopic love and category fraud.
P.S. Here are Julianne's Oscar looks for beauteous fun. The first three years she was a nominee. (If I ran the world she would've won two of those races) though I don't suspect she'll show this year with only Non-Stop to promote and 11 long years without a nomination.
Reader Comments (32)
I so agree about both the Oscars you'd give to her. I mean, Basinger? Really?
And I still think about Nick Davis' line about her performance in "Far From Heaven," that at times it seems like she's acting with just her irises. So true. Her face can be perfectly still and yet convey so much with just her eyes.
But yeah, sometimes on the fashion front...not so much.
I do believe Julianne Moore would have won the Oscar for Game Change would it have been a theatrical release.
She would have everything on her side: extremely overdue + accent + biopic.
That she was better than 4 of the nominees would only make her path to victory easy (the only one better than her was Emmanuelle Riva, who - no matter how much we fantasize/wishful thinking - didnt have a chance).
She would have probably have had the treatment Cate Blanchett had this year: Early favorite that dominates the conversation for so long that gets imprinted in everyones mind as the winner that no one comes even closer.
I'm still bitter that Julianne did not win for Far From Heaven which had a "difficulty factor" of 10 in my opinion. The time travel not just to an earlier era but to an earlier era of acting style would have tripped up lesser actresses.
And just so you know, I'm hardly a gaga Julianne fan, but when someone delivers, it should be noted.
I'm pretty sure she would have won for Game Change. It's a great, flashy performance and she's clearly best in show.
I think she should have already won for Far from Heaven. I also nominated her for supporting in Children of Men and leading in Blindness. Shoot, she came close to my line-ups for The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio and Freedomland, too.
She does have the Liam Neeson film coming up - can't tell from the preview if that will be decent or not.
She would've struggled to get nominated even tbh... Game Change is not good to begin with and I thought she was kinda off for most of it.
I too would've given her those 2 Oscars, given the categories she was nominated in, which were pretty weak. I particularly love her Boogie Nights turn, but that's one of my all time favorite movies so I'm obviously biased. I think she's fantastic in Far From Heaven but a little overpraised for it.
I absolutely think she would've won best actress. Not even close. I think Douglas would be on a glide path to winning best actor this year, too. It's one of the reasons I hate that these movies are being relegated to HBO. on the one hand, yay, they get made and become great actor showcases. on the other hand, they're diminished by being seen has "only" tv movies. remember when HBO was briefly a theatrical distributor too (Elephant was an HBO Films release back in 2002). We can probably revisit this theme next year and substitute Mark Ruffallo and Julia Roberts (in The Normal Heart), among others, for Moore and Douglas.
As for Moore, I thought she deserved to win for Boogie Nights and The End of the Affair, and I sure as hell hope we've not see the last of her as a big screen heavyweight.
Except for "The end of the affair", she would've made a very deserving winner for each of her nominations.
I think all three (Moore, Douglas and Damon) would've been nominated in their respective years, but only Damon had a decent chance of winning. This year had too many "career capstone" performances for Douglas to prevail and, from what I remember, 2012 was a foregone conclusion even before the nominations were announced.
Only Damon had a chance of hitting that sweet spot between industry respect (he was really a 'default' nominee for Invictus) and a relatively weak category (this year's Supp. Actor is populated with leads and defaults).
Douglas may have missed his chance, but surely Moore must be up for one soon? She's still getting plum roles and knocking them out of the park. I think she came *this* close with A Single Man and would've been up for TKAA had Bening not pulled spotlight with her big breakdown scene.
I think she would have been nominated, certainly, though over whom is a great question (Watts makes the most sense on paper, but let's not forget she was probably in third heading into the nominations-maybe Wallis, or even Riva?).
However, the win would have been difficult. Oscar loves his princesses, and Lawrence had Harvey pushing it (I suppose the question becomes who would have distrubted Game Change). Plus, they would have honored two actresses in a row playing conservative icons-a bit much?
That would have meant that three actresses over 40 would have potentially won in a row too (and 4/5 if you go back a few years).
few thing would please me more than seeing Moore win an Oscar. but after Streep won for "The Iron Lady"... did we really need another liberal acting Godness taking home the golden boy for portraying a conservative political nutjob,,,,
She's playing someone suffering from alzheimer's next, maybe that's her next nomination.
ZV: In regards to Game Change: She's playing freaking Sarah Palin, dude. The PERSON comes off as kind of an alien to begin with.
Yeah, I think she would have been nominated for Game Change, and I'm a bigger fan of her in that (I think she's marvelous) than I am of the 4 nominees that year that I've seen (never saw the Watts movie), so I hope she would have won. But I think Lawrence might have been harder to beat than some people in this thread think.
I'm still so disappointed she wasn't nominated for A Single Man. I love her in that so much. And yeah, Monique would still have won - but I wish she would have been nominated.
Over Watts? Sure!
Over Magggie G she sure shoulda been.
@Volvagia: when I said "off" I meant kinda bad? I didn't buy that performance consistently enough to deem award worthy.
I think the Academy is kinda over her at this point, which is a shame. She should've been nominated for The Kids Are All Right alongside Bening and instead of Natalie Portman. That would've been one of the strongest Best Actress fields ever.
Game Change would have flopped at the box office and while Moore might have gotten some early traction, it would have faded much like Thompson did this year if she got that much. For one thing, the subject is still very much alive and one of the most despised figures in US politics. Outside of her rabid, loyal but very small band of supporters (who will happily follow her into hell), no one really wants to know she exists and they wouldn't have supported a film they viewed as negative and would have screamed the house down about how unfair Moore's portrayal was (they did a little of that anyway). The film doesn't really turn over any new scandalous rocks so there isn't much to draw her haters either. Who wants to spend their money watching what we all already know so well? Subscription television was the perfect place for it and we owe HBO for making it. They are the only ones who would and can take that kind of chance.
Candelabra is another story. In a perfect world, it could have made it in theatrical release (as it did in Europe). But here in the States, the studios would have been in so much fear that they would have neutered it beyond reason (neutering any of the actor's chances at the same time) so again, for the US market, cable was the place.
One of the reasons subscription TV is the best place for controversial fare is that there are no advertisers to boycott, no ticket lines to intimidate and no way to shame the producers. There might be a little flack thrown occasionally, but they are about as close to bullet proof as we have.
Moore should have been nomed for A Single Man and should have won for either Boogie Nights or Far from Heaven or both. And she really needs to let a stylist dress her. She can be so beautiful on screen (as she is in person) but her awards choices are pretty blah.
I forgot the best part about subscription TV. No one really knows if you watched something or not. Both Game Change and Candelabra reached far more people than either would had they been theatrical releases. There are a lot of publicly die-hard str8-men who watched Beyond and perhaps a few of them had their minds changed a little than will publicly acknowledge it. And I know a lot of people who are turned off to politics and Palin who watched Game Change. Its a safe way to touch on what are assumed to be non-safe subjects.
@Ryan We do if it gives Moore her Oscar. She should have won for Far From Heaven. That performance devastates me.
The movie that went the way of cable that always gets me is Grey Gardens. We would have Drew Barrymore-Oscar nominee by now had it gone theatrical as was the original plan.
Nat, I wasn't following the blog in 2004, but were you rooting for Kidman or Moore? I can only imagine it was a Sophie's Choice for you. I still wish Moore had won that year, as I think she really does give the better performance, but I can't begrudge Nicole for winning at all.
Unfortunately, I think it would have taken a Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice type of performance to defeat Jennifer Lawrence last year.
I played the "What If?" game once with Julianne Moore, and concluded that if 'Magnolia' had been released in 2000 and not the end of '99 that she would have had a good chance of winning Best Supporting. Also, if she committed category fraud for 'The Kids Are All Right,' I think she could have been a contender. In a Mo'Nique-less 2009, maybe she could have nabbed not only the nom but the win in what would have been a vague field.
Jordan-if I remember my Film Bitch Awards correctly, Moore got the gold and Kidman was nominated but didn't medal I want to say the other nominees were Samantha Morton and Diane Lane and...I hate forgetting a nominee. I distinctly it not being Streep-Nat, who was the fifth?
Mike-I have long thought that about 2009 as well-Moore probably takes the slot without Mo'Nique there, and there just isn't a WINNER! in that field, meaning something else is going to drive the trophy. Farmiga and Kendrick split, Cruz had just won, and Moore is able to best Gyllenhaal. The real question is what happens if someone less established but in the running gets in (Diane Kruger or Melanie Laurent)-does Gyllenhaal pull a Pollock and win?
For some reason I keep picturing Julianne Moore in the Jennifer Lawrence role of AMERICAN HUSTLE. I keep imagining somebody who's older than Bale and which seems more realistic in the part and gawd she'd be so good and the Oscar would be hers without a doubt.
shawkshank, honestly she would've had a great shot at winning too. Mo'Nique probably still would've prevailed (let's be real, they would've put her supporting) but there might've been a little more competition. Makes me sad. And I was super excited to see what she did post-Grey Gardens and she hasn't done shit. And now she's doing a crappy Adam Sandler comedy. Come on, Drew. Disappointed.
Moore's emerald green gown from 2003, which hugs/highlights her curves like magic, is perfection against her hair color and complexion. She wins gold on that standard alone.
She should have arguably 3 statues for "Safe" ('95), "Boogie Nights" ('97), and "Far from Heaven." I say arguably because as deserving as she was for "Safe," Shue and Bridges were just as impeccable that year.
And to answer your question, Nathaniel...No. I don't think she would have won for "Game Change." Moore is just like Pfeiffer. They are the perfect nominees, but too poised to be Oscar winners.
I think she would almost certainly have been nominated for Game Change last year, most likely taking the place of Naomi Watts. I don't think she would have won, though. Silver Linings Playbook had too much going for it, and Jennifer Lawrence was (and still is) the "it" girl. And I don't think Game Change would have gotten any other nominations had it been a theatrical release, so it any sort of Oscar attention would have been solely for Moore's performance. Ed Harris might have gotten some Supporting Actor buzz, but I ultimately don't think he would have gotten in.
Yeah, she's great ... Anyway, doesn't she also have Maps to the Stars out his year? I realize there's no date set so far, but if it's any good I would expect it to be out at the end of the year. Whether that's Oscar material is another matter, but I just want to see a great performance of hers in a worthwhile movie again (haven't see What Maisie Knows, of which I've heard good things, but then again it didn't exactly make a splash either).
Jordan & John -- my nominees in 2002 were kidman, moore, huppert, morton (morvern callar), and lane. The medalists were Moore, Huppert and Lane. I was rooting for Moore all the way in the Oscars. Curiously, though I once wished I had subbed in Streep for Kidman in a patch where I thought Kidman was wildly overrated in that part (after she won the Oscar, natch), I'm now fine with the list because The Hours performances are just great. I'm glad i'm over that patch where I had issues with the movie.
Glenn -- agh. i can picture it too. it's funny how many people can be pictured in that role.