|
Post by stephen on Dec 31, 2017 1:05:17 GMT
I meant according to some people (fixed it) . Who cares if Oldman's performance is "nothing that transformative" ? So what ? Critics are still loving it so far and say that it's his performance that's elevating the film. Besides , the majority of people are still baffled that a thespian like Oldman is still oscarless . Doesn't matter that he's only been nominated once in the past.Once again , I loved Chalamet's performance but Gary is still winning that oscar. Yet he hasn't swept the critics awards - as previously predicted. Who are the "majority of people"? If you are talking movie audiences and film pundits, they have no say so in who wins. Only the voting members of AMPAS do - the same group that only gave him 1 nod in his 40 year career. Actually, there weren't a lot of people predicting him to sweep the critics' awards. Those that did were thinking that we'd see a "follow the leader" sweep in the vein of Colin Firth in The King's Speech or Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln: where the supposed frontrunner is cemented as such by the critical bodies. People were actually expecting Darkest Hour to get a rather muted critical reception and that Oldman would be an industry favorite in the vein of Streep in The Iron Lady. Then the film was screened (at TIFF or Telluride, can't recall which at the moment) and got surprisingly strong notices. People immediately started penciling it in as a potential Picture/Director contender, and Oldman (who netted almost universally strong reviews) became someone to keep an eye on for potential critical awards. And he has begun to do so; as of tonight, he actually leads the pack with critical prizes in Best Actor, even if they are from second- and third-tier critical bodies. Yes, Oldman has only been nominated once before (and even then, by the skin of his teeth), but he's broken through that particular barrier. Once actors get nominated for the first time, they tend to be more easily recognized afterward. And this is without a doubt the baitiest role of Oldman's career. And when you've got fellow actors (and AMPAS voters) like Hugh Jackman fawning over him like he was here, well, that's just one more notch in his belt. If we're going to be talking trends with AMPAS, Oldman fits the bill of a typical Best Actor winner (an older veteran playing a more accessible role in a film with broader commercial appeal) than Chalamet, a newcomer who is poised to be the youngest Best Actor nominee in almost seven decades, and who is seven years younger than the current title-holder for the youngest Best Actor winner was when he took home the prize. Chalamet has done very well to get this far, but Oldman is still comfortably ahead in terms of historical precedent, trends, and even critical awards. He's almost assuredly winning BAFTA unless he either puts his foot in his mouth or someone gets a late-surge run. As is often the case, SAG will likely determine the winner.
|
|