Do you agree with Frances McDormand winning for Nomadland?

I was shook. I went to the bathroom came back late and was like, why is Frances on stage. LMAO.

I think she and Mulligan are pretty dead even in terms of my personal feelings on their performance, and I would've been equally thrilled by a Carey victory as I was for Frances. Andra Day was a distant third out of the nominees but as far as biopic performances go, it was much better than the crap film she had to deal with. Vanessa Kirby was solid but left so little impression on me. I outright hated Viola Davis's performance and I think she actively sets out to ruin what I think is otherwise a pretty good movie.

Frances was fine but I was pulling for Carey.

Davis should have won.

Poll added.

Tommen_Saperstein - 100% agree with your assessment of Nomadland. I profoundly don't understand why people liked that movie so much. All of the performances felt phoned in.

Yarp. Wouldn't have minded Davis winning either.

McDormand's is my favorite performance of the lineup, but I would have voted for Mulligan if I were an Academy member. I just don't think McDormand has had the kind of career that warrants three Best Actress Oscars, especially considering how many brilliant actresses who are far more accomplished and versatile have yet to win one. 

Best performance of the 5 nominees, so yes, of course. Now did she deserves to win a third oscar ? Yes and No. Yes, because every times she won, it was deserved and she was the best of the nominees (second to Emily Watson in 1996 tho). No, because when you compare, when you look around, you see actresses like Glenn Close or Gena Rowlands with 0 oscar but Frances McDormand with 3 ? It's unfair. It's even unfair to Meryl Streep who has 3 oscars too but a body of work that's easily 2 times deeper and stronger than Frances McDormand. And don't get me wrong, FM is one of the best living American actresses and actually the most impressive of them all during the last 10 years or so (and she should have received a "supporting" nod for Macbeth a well).

And I will say the same thing if Cate Blanchett win this year, she doesn't have enough great work to justify a third win (in her case it's because she's too young), she doesn't have these 3 or so performances that many people felt she should have won for but didn't, she didn't struggles enough like Streep did, etc... but like FM, on the performance alone, she will probably deserve it (with the difference that her win for The Aviator is a big meh) but it's way too early, we might get some surprising, tour de force performances this year.

The only poll our board is missing is 'Who shit in a bucket better: Ronan v McDormand'

Nomadland didn't take me anywhere but dreamland zzzz... and I didn't see the others, so I'm not commenting on who I would vote for. Everyone has their own reasoning. However, I personally don't follow the rationale of, "I do think she was the best. But because this actress I respect (who is not even in the category) has never won one, I don't want to vote for her."

For the total body of work argument, I'm going to defend McDormand a bit here. She's a woman of a certain age who is not conventional looking for Hollywood and not Meryl Streep. Her own husband and brother-in-law, as prolific a team as they were, they didn't even put her in many parts that were at once sizable and meaty. The first real one came in 96 - not the ideal starting point for an actress like her. In the movies, she was stuck in the world of supporting parts for a long time (that she made the most of in a great way).

Also, I don't care about Meryl Streep's great body of work when I say she doesn't deserve those 3 Oscars. I wouldn't have taken it into consideration when voting for that third Oscar, so I would keep the same energy. Just a different way of looking at it.

I seriously have no idea why people get caught up in this idea of saying that an actor's career isn't worth a certain amount of awards, especially in comparison to another actor. The whole point of an Academy Award is to recognize the best performance given in that certain year against a certain field. If Frances McDormand gave the best performance nominated in that field three times, she deserves three Oscars. If people are going to piss and moan about her career not being worthy of that acclaim, well, then you should probably reassess your feelings on her career. McDormand gave two all-timer performances for her first two Oscars and her third is a very fine choice and, moreover, a very inspired one considering we never see performances so introspective and subdued win leading prizes.

It just seems like if people are up in arms about people like Glenn Close not having one Oscar against McDormand's three, that's not McDormand's fault. And that's what the honorary Oscar is for: rewarding a career.

I like McDormand fine - as I said above, hers is my favorite lead actress performance from 2020. 

I'm just saying - compare McDormand's career to Ingrid Bergman's and Meryl Streep's, two other actresses who have won three Oscars (one each in Supporting, by the way - so technically McDormand is "ahead" of them by this metric)...  Bergman and Streep are totally logical and worthy choices to have three Oscars based on the careers they've had; McDormand just isn't. I feel like this is just objective. I get that winning an Oscar is basically like catching lightning in a bottle, but it's genuinely shocking to me that McDormand has managed this three times.

And I didn't mention Glenn Close, but since stephen did, yes, I'd rather see Glenn Close, Charlotte Rampling, Michelle Pfeiffer, Debra Winger, Barbara Hershey, Kathleen Turner, Gena Rowlands, Annette Bening, Sigourney Weaver et al (and I'm just limiting this to English language actresses) have one rather than McDormand have three.