I think we can safely say that Best Actor is now down to a two-man race. Sometimes the race can split between two favorites, leaving a third option to surge in the 11th hour. I’m not sure that is going to happen this year but we’ll take a look back at the years when it did happen.
This race is primarily down to Eddie Redmayne (Globe, SAG) and Michael Keaton (Globe, Critics Choice). Stats-wise, you have to go back to 2003 to find a year when the SAG did not match the Oscar. In 2001, Russell Crowe was winning everything for A Beautiful Mind until there was an incident at the BAFTAs where Crowe cornered a backstage PA. It wasn’t like today’s race because back then there was more time between the rush of the race and the Oscars. They were still being held in March (as they should still be) and thus, there was more contemplation time. That allowed for an historic win for Denzel Washington who won alongside Halle Berry. In 2002, the famous Daniel Day-Lewis vs. Jack Nicholas vs. Adrien Brody allowed for one of the few surprises we’ve ever seen at the Oscars in the later years. But since then and in every other year, Best Actor at the SAG matches Best Actor at the Oscars. It is one of those stats you can take to the bank.
On the other hand, this is a weird, unpredictable year, with not a lot of sure bets so far. We don’t even know what is going to win Best Picture, or Best Director. The other three acting categories do seem sewn up. It’s only Best Actor, the single most competitive category this year (insert unnecessary explanation here) that could really swing either way.
Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking and Michael Keaton as Riggan could not be more different. One is a high achiever, the other a notable failure. One is in a traditional British drama that everyone tends to like, the other is decidedly American, even with its Mexican director, and a highly stylized satire. Both films are loved for different reasons. Both men are loved and pitied. Both men have difficulty with women. One man changes how we think about time, space and the universe — overcoming the obstacle of a disease that left him immobile. The other about a man trying to overcome the obstacle of a culture that has left him behind.
The problem with Keaton winning over Redmayne is that it’s difficult to put the two performance side by side and have the majority choose Keaton. It is a little like last year with Matthew McConaughey alongside Leonardo DiCaprio. One gets votes for physically transforming his body and going as deep as an actor can go – the other gets points for essentially playing themselves but doing it really really well; they succeed mostly on how popular they are with fans and industry voters. If you did not know who Michael Keaton was, what his background was, and you set that performance alongside Redmayne’s it would be a no-brainer.
This was also, incidentally, the dynamic that played out between Jack Nicholson for About Schmidt (he’d already won an Oscar by that point) who mostly played himself very well, and Adrien Brody for The Pianist, which was the more transformative performance. Side by side, it was a no-brainer. There was also Daniel Day-Lewis in the mix for Gangs of New York but not only had he also already won an Oscar but no one liked that movie. Well, except me.
Finally, the potential spoiler in the race is not likely Benedict Cumberbatch, who has been hurt by having to film Sherlock overseas. The charming Englishman might have been able to work it if he’d had the opportunity. Bradley Cooper is actually the one to really fear for being the Adrien Brody that could upset this race.
While I don’t really think it’s possible, both American Sniper and Cooper have been underestimated from day one. No one thought Sniper was a good enough film to make it into the race but so many critics and voters disagreed with that. Some thought Cooper might make it in for Best Actor but he was considered a long shot. Now, you have a situation where he could win if the other two frontrunners split the vote and Sniper has enough support in the Academy to pull it through.
If Cooper did win, that would certainly reward the heartland demographic that will likely tune into the Oscars for the first time with Sniper in the race. Cooper’s was also a transformative performance – he gained a lot of weight and became Chris Kyle, for better or worse.
But I still think it’s down to Redmayne and Keaton.
Why Keaton could win: If Alejandro G. Inarritu wins the DGA and Birdman is headed for a massive Best picture win, that could pull Keaton into the fold. Conversely, if Richard Linklater wins the DGA, there could be more votes going to Keaton to make up for the non-win for Birdman. After all, Birdman is an ensemble piece but it’s really all about Keaton. Voters might decide that Boyhood and Linklater deserve to win Best Picture and Best Director but that they will share the wealth by giving Keaton the big win.
Why Keaton might not win: If voters elect to give Birdman Picture and Director, they won’t feel obligated to pick Keaton and will go with Redmayne instead, as they did at the SAG.
Why Redmayne could win: When you put the performances side by side one is clearly more difficult and accomplished. Not everyone liked Birdman – the characters are all prickly and self-centered. That’s part of the joke, of course, but it’s a subtle shift, not an obvious one like Redmayne as Hawking. Even people voting for Keaton will likely admit that Redmayne’s is the more difficult and therefore the better performance. He’s also working the publicity circuit harder than anyone else. He’s everywhere all of the time.
Why Redmayne might not win: Voters could feel that he’s young yet. He has a bright future ahead of him, where this could be Keaton’s last chance to win. My own sympathies tend to lean in that direction since I don’t hold much value in any of these awards as meaning anything unless they mean something. A Keaton win would, to me, mean something.
Whom do you think will prevail?
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
That time of the month again, huh Antoinette? Silly girl.
I think many on here let there stupid political views get in the way of actual art.
It took this long to figure that out with all those psychic abilities. And everyone else could tell that just be reading.
Had lunch with some Oscar voters on Thursday, and ALL of them are voting for Bradley Cooper. They seemed less enthused about Michael Keaton, whom one snidely remarked “looked foolish in his underwear”. When I mentioned Eddie Redmayne, the wine list arrived so I didn’t get any feedback.
I think it’s safe to say people are seriously underestimating American Sniper because THEY didn’t care for it. I find it odd so many dismiss Cooper’s performance when it’s beyond brilliant. I think many on here let there stupid political views get in the way of actual art.
Oh well, lot’s of egg to wipe off of faces on February 22.
And on “The Pianist” race… http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/awards?ref_=tt_awd
Zooey, the 2002 race made me moderator of my own subforum at Oscarwatch, called “The Race”. My nickname was, back then, “cifra2”. You can ask any mod if I spent the whole 2002 race predicting in Almodovar’s win at Original Screenplay, way before the film was released in the USA. I left Oscarwatch / Awardsdaily years ago, and since then, I only show up here, never in the forums.
Cute, Antoinette.
Yeah, not so overdue. Offers a handy tip on what to do with the leftover pieces, though.
@ Zach,
wrong. The Hours won WGA! Adaptation won BAFTA!
And for a film that’s not the odds-on favorite in any category (and not even second) to win three major Oscars is pretty shocking.
@Jesus Alonso,
You are wrong. It’s easy to write how obvious it was now. Show me proof that you predicted all these wins, can you?
I doubt it. You’re mixing things up. Who expected a Chicago vs The Pianist photo finish??
THE PIANIST had ZERO (count them, zero!) guilds’ awards, zero (count them, zero!) Globes and it was fourth in terms of nominations, It was snubbed by half the guilds. Yes, it turned out to be the big surprise but this and I myself predicted Polanski for the win, but just because it somehow felt right and because I was a kid with no real idea of how the Oscars work. But if you read predictions from back then, and you can find plenty online, you won’t find anybody expecting a close race between Chicago and The Pianist. Most pundits had Chicago first, with The Hours mostly second, followed by either Gangs of New York or The Pianist. Most pundits predicted Scorsese, though Marshall had DGA and many thought he would win.
And by the way Scorsese lost for one reason and it isn’t the minor Scorsese thing. The Robert Wise scandal is the big reason behind the shutout.
@steve50 “Hey Steve!” – Michael Keaton, MULTIPLICITY
Seems the only time that Oscar and I have agreed on Best Actor is when DDL is nominated – with the exception of 2002 when I was in the Brody camp. Most of the time, my picks aren’t even nominated (Isaac/LLewyn, Fassbender/Shame, etc.)
This year is no exception. From what I have seen, I’d put Redmayne behind Hardy, Isaac, and Spall, expecting to knock him down to 5th when I get a shot at Phoenix/Inherent Vice.
I don’t agree that Beetlejuice belongs in the pantheon of performances, but it was fun to watch in a Mrs Doubtfire kind of way. Keaton is not owed anything, however, which should seal it for Redmayne unless Cooper can pick him off at the last minute.
At least this year’s winner, whoever it is, won’t make me cringe very time I see a certain autombile ad.
Jesus — sorry, saying something was “obvious” eleven times in one post doesn’t actually make it obvious.
Maybe you, alone in the world, thought Brody would win, but he was not the “obvious” frontrunner to anyone else. I guess you are just a genius.
Watch the Youtube Clip of Brody winning the Oscar — you can see the genuine surprise in the reaction of the audience and Brody.
And Google “biggest upsets in Oscar history”. EVERY website that has a list of top upsets names Brody’s win as one of the them. Most also list Polanski’s win. The Daily Mirror. Movefone. Crave. Newser. Mental Floss. etc. etc. etc. But you alone say no, it was “obvious” Brody would win, it was the most predictable thing since Gone With the Wind won best picture?
Sorry but I will take all of the hundreds of news reports about these upsets the day after the Oscars, and all the websites identifying it as a huge upset, and the youtube video which speaks volumes, as more OBJECTIVE evidence. I add to that my own recollections of the night, after watching EVERY Oscars show since 1971. I’m afraid these trump your subjective, revisionist history.
The only problem of “The Pianist” was Polanski’s past. Shall we remember the 5 Best Picture contenders?
· Chicago (the winner) was the film that revitalized (acceptably) Musicals in Hollywood (Moulin Rouge! and to a minor extent, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, were not “classic” filmmaking, and too much for the Academy). It was an almost perfect adaptation of one of the greatest stage musicals ever. It was really, really difficult, to deny it.
· The Pianist was next in line. It was an holocaust movie on par with “Schindler’s List”, by a director whose family directly suffered that hell. A truly and painful personal project that even was suffering a smear campaign using the Polanski scandal. It was obviously not to get any other reaction than support to the film, even thought Polanski’s win was in doubt.
– Gangs of New York was unanimously hailed as a minor Scorsese, in comparison to Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and even The Last Temptation of Christ. Some people thought he was selling out, to earn an Oscar. Some people thought Marty was overdue, but the film itself not that masterful enough… when you realize that, after his failure at the Oscars, the man has delivered better films and masterpieces like “The Aviator”, “Shutter Island”, “The Departed”, “Hugo” and “The Wolf of Wall Street”, it’s easier to see Gangs of New York’s perception at the moment, with a better perspective. Thing was, the most likely wins were Marty at directing, Day Lewis for his comeback performance and U2 at song (for just being U2)… some technical (costume?) and that was it. It even failed to have di Caprio and Díaz nom’d, even if they both deserved it and were huge stars at the moment. That was the first sign that the AMPAS was going to overlook it, big time.
· The Hours. It became all around Kidman. It was too depressive film about depressive people (and honestly, not that great). Nom was enough, and even if it had a huge bunch of hardcore supporters, specially those in rage that “Far from Heaven” wasn’t nominated for Best Picture.
· The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers… we all knew that was NOT going to happen and they’ll wait for the third film.
So, with LotR, The Hours and Gangs out of the equation, the fight was obviously aiming for a Chicago vs The Pianist (which had all the key noms: Picture, Director, Lead Performer, Screenplay and Film Editing) photo finish. If they were going to share the wealth, there was the chance of giving Chicago a Supporting Actress (2 nom’d) and give Lead Actor to The Pianist. Director for Polanski, Picture for Chicago. On adapted screenplay it was obviously going to go to The Pianist over Chicago. Film Editing was obviously for the musical. And I know plenty of people didn’t (want to) see this, but it was pretty obvious where the things were headed, once the nominations came out and we saw Gangs of New York underperforming in acting, and the strenght of Chicago in all cathegories while The Pianist appeared strong in the strongest cathegories.
To deny Brody was an obvious frontrunner, is like saying Redmayne hasn’t been the frontrunner since the moment we first heard a Stephen Hawking movie was about to be shot.
“Even more surprising, Mr. Polanski, who cannot travel to the United States because of an outstanding arrest warrant on a charge of statutory rape, was named best director over favorites Rob Marshall (”Chicago”) and Martin Scorsese (”Gangs of New York”).”
Thank you, Scott (the Other One). I rest my case.
Another reason people are predicting Redmayne for actor at BAFTA is because the film received 10 nominations, including a very unexpected director nomination, which suggests Theory has a lot of support from BAFTA. Theory was probably the biggest over-performer with BAFTA (yes, TGBH got one more nomination, but TGBH was expected to do about as well as it did, and Theory wasn’t expected to pop up in places like director). Also, as people have already pointed out, since BAFTA started handing out its awards before Oscar, they have a tendency to make choices that are more in line with Oscar. A big drawback for Fiennes is that he’s not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, and actors who aren’t nominated for an Oscar don’t tend to win the BAFTA, at least nowadays when BAFTA comes before Oscar.
“Why are so many folk predicting that Eddie Redmayne is a slam-dunk to win the BAFTA for Best Actor? One, he lost TWICE at the London Film Critics Circle (Best Actor, to Michael Keaton; Best British Actor, to Timothy Spall).”
I think the critics pick what they believe should win. At the times of London Critics voting, Keaton and Timothy Spall were considered among critics the best performances in their respective categories. Just check out the all the major U.S. critics circle’s choices. BAFTA’s voting body is not made of the same people at all.
“Two, if we assume that the Brits will vote for their own, Redmayne isn’t the only Brit in the Best Actor field. There’s also Benedict Cumberbatch and Ralph Fiennes (whose ”Grand Budapest Hotel” has 11 BAFTA nominations, compared to ”Theory of Everything,” with 10). This is Fiennes’ 6th BAFTA nomination, and he’s only won once: nearly 20 years ago for ”Schindler’s List.””
Since BAFTA moved its date before the Oscars, they probably like to join in the Oscar predictor game. They also feel that they might have some persuasive power with the Oscars voters. Their members must know that after SAG, one of their boys is a true contender. They will rally around the one who has the best chance of making them proud in the world stage, the Oscars.
OT-ish: You guys, this is super funny. Kid theater with Michael Keaton
Hindsight is 20/20. Brody was a nobody when he won and his win was a considerable surprise. Ya can’t rewrite history. THE big news story on the Oscars the next day, the thing that led every piece of coverage, was the surprise of The Pianist winning Director and Actor.
FYI — here is the New York Times article the day after the Oscars:
‘Chicago’ Is Big Oscar Winner, but ‘Pianist’ Surprises; Hollywood Glamour Still Stars at Ceremony, but Security and War Play Supporting Roles
By RICK LYMAN
Published: March 24, 2003
LOS ANGELES, March 23— After days of fretting about how they might be toned down or whether it was even appropriate to hold them, the 75th Annual Academy Awards were pretty much business as usual in Hollywood tonight, with ”Chicago” winning best picture and five other Oscars while losing a few upsets to ”The Pianist.”
In the evening’s biggest surprises, Adrien Brody, the only best actor nominee who had never won an Oscar, won for ”The Pianist,” Roman Polanski’s drama about an unlikely Holocaust survivor. Mr. Brody, a relatively little-known actor, beat out Nicolas Cage, Michael Caine, Daniel Day-Lewis and Jack Nicholson.
Even more surprising, Mr. Polanski, who cannot travel to the United States because of an outstanding arrest warrant on a charge of statutory rape, was named best director over favorites Rob Marshall (”Chicago”) and Martin Scorsese (”Gangs of New York”).
Zooey… I was already playing the Oscar game, that year, I was the one guy pointing out Almodovar’s victory on Original Screenplay since I saw the film, opening weekend, here in Spain (around 8 months before it opened in the USA). The only real doubt, on that race, about “The Pianist”, was if the AMPAS would be able to overlook Polanski was a man on the run from american justice due to underage rape accusations. The only one. That didn’t affect Brody, in the end. When nominations were announced the line up included Brody against Academy Award winner Daniel Day Lewis, (playing a caricaturesque villain, we can agree on that), Academy Award winner Nicholas Cage (who, at the time, was already becoming a joke due to his on screen antics in most films), double Academy Award winner Michael Caine (in a film which got mostly overlooked) and triple Academy Award winner Jack Nicholson (who won only 4 years before). The most Oscar-y role, was Brody’s. The most Oscar-bait film of the 5, was Brody’s. The sense of dueness among his contender was zero. Brody’s film was a Best Picture win huge contender (more than Gangs of New York, which despite the huge number of nominations, didn’t feel as “the right” Marty’s Best Picture), and the only problem AMPAS was having with it, had nothing to do with filmmaking or even the industry itself. When Oscar night came, everybody was expecting a Chicago vs. The Pianist photo finish (which happened) and doubt on Director was if they would throw Marty a bone, there, over Marshall and Polanski (which didn’t happened, Gangs of New York went 9-0).
As I recall, it was the very same situation than with Kathy Bates winning for “Misery”… the only contender of her, that didn’t win the Oscar in advance, was Julia Roberts, and to comfront their movies, performances and roles was quite a landslide for Bates. Nom would feel enough reward for the bride of America, Bates’ Oscar would guarantee that she would be getting roles and that was what happen. When you even read the book, which I did, before the film was made, you knew that Annie Wilkes would be the star-making role for whoever played it (the mistery is, why James Caan wasn’t nominated, too, and that actually fueled Bates’ chances).
If we look at this year’s race, Cumberbatch is basically performing an iteration of his Sherlock (nom is enough, come back with something different), Keaton is making a good performance but is hardly sensed as overdue for anything (as happened with Murphy, Reynolds, Rourke and so many, before them), Carell is just playing against type under a thick make up and is basically expressionless, so the fight becomes a fight into the leads of the supposedly two weakest best picture nominees, Redmayne (his role is the wet dream of Oscar) and Cooper, who’s getting his 3rd nomination in a row, and in the hottest film at the b.o. and internet discussion, while voting time. Right now, I’d say that Redmayne has a minor advantage over Cooper, as Redmayne’s will probably be the only win of “The Theory of Everything”, while they do have plenty of chances to reward “American Sniper” elsewhere. However, I find it extremely difficult that, without a director nom, they can resist the chance to give it Actor, if they’re voting for the film for the win. I guess that whoever votes for Sniper to Best Picture, will vote also for Cooper. And that not everyone voting for Birdman for Best Picture would be voting for Keaton, as they could think Norton or Stone are also deserving… Birdman might be an actors film, but the highlights would be in the screenplay (even if I thought it was a rip-off) and the acting direction (nothing else, to my taste, Iñarritu’s gimmick didn’t really impress me). So, the order for the win, normally should be something like 1. Redmayne 2. Cooper (really close call) 3. Keaton 4. Cumberbatch 5. Carell.
Just to play devil’s advocate: Why are so many folk predicting that Eddie Redmayne is a slam-dunk to win the BAFTA for Best Actor? One, he lost TWICE at the London Film Critics Circle (Best Actor, to Michael Keaton; Best British Actor, to Timothy Spall). Two, if we assume that the Brits will vote for their own, Redmayne isn’t the only Brit in the Best Actor field. There’s also Benedict Cumberbatch and Ralph Fiennes (whose ”Grand Budapest Hotel” has 11 BAFTA nominations, compared to ”Theory of Everything,” with 10). This is Fiennes’ 6th BAFTA nomination, and he’s only won once: nearly 20 years ago for ”Schindler’s List.” Part of me would love to see him get recognized. P.S. Cumberbatch was once nominated for a TV BAFTA for ”Hawking,” but he lost.
You gotta be kidding me when you only saw Keaton’s performance in Birdman as just a comeback story for him. Inarittu choose him for that role because for a reason and Keaton embraced it like no other actor can. I cannot see anyone playing that role so effective but Keaton. Compared to Redmayne, one can argue that his role as Hawking is more challenging, physically yes, but emotionally Riggan has the level of difficulty for it is a fictional character. As much as Redmayne gave a good performance, We’ve seen that same performance a lot of times not just in movies but on international and local TV as well and Redmayne’s is not that special compared to those. Thanks for Jones supporting performance and the music of Johansson.
For me these are the top male performances this year:
1. Michael Keaton in Birdman
2. Ralph Fiennes in The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Oscar Isaac in A Most Violent Year
4. Timothy Spall in Mr. Turner
5. Brendan Gleeson in Calvary
6. Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game
And I can name 5 more actors who gave a better performance than Redmayne. So regardless of the expected BAFTA win, I hope the Academy to see beyond the physical challenge of Redmayne and pick Keaton.
@Robert A.
But Scorsese was dead by Oscar night. Gangs of New York wasn’t winning above-the-line awards except for maybe Day-Lewis. Meanwhile, The Pianist was a big, personal Holocaust drama. Polanski was a controversial figure, but his rape victim went on Larry King excusing his actions, saying he didn’t deserve to still be persecuted and kept out of the U.S. for it, and saying his past shouldn’t be held against him with regard to the movie’s Oscar chances. In fact, I think she said she saw the movie and thought it was really strong.
After Rob Marshall won the DGA, no one was really predicting Polanski to win the Oscar, much less a Picture-Director split with such a strong frontrunner in Chicago. But by Oscar night, Pianist was seen as at least in the #3 position behind The Hours.
Just poking my nose in to comment on the whole 2003–Nicholson/Day-Lewis/Brody business: I remember that year quite clearly, as I was bigtime fangirling for Brody (hey, might as well admit it up front…). It was just before the Internet tidal wave completely crashed over awards season, meaning that you could actually still get right up to Oscar Night and not be quite sure who might actually win that year, and Best Actor was foremost in this regard. A couple of potential factors in play that year: (1) all of the nominees, with the exception of Brody, had won at least once before (Nicolas Cage and Michael Caine were the other two; while Caine’s awards were BSAs, not BA, he did have two of them, FWIW); and (2) supposedly Nicholson was making a point of telling other Academy members that he was voting for Brody that year (probably figuring “The kid’s damn good, so let him have it–I’ve already got mine”). Now, when a current nominee is making it be known that he’s voting for someone else, it tends to make people think “Hey, he’s not voting for himself, so this other guy MUST be good!”, which probably prompted a whole bunch of members to dust off their screeners and have a look, or perhaps a second look. There was also a fair amount of controversy at the time as to whether it was right to honor a convicted sex criminal by giving him an award, and while that was clearly aimed at Polanski himself in the Best Director category, there was also some question as to whether the shunning should extend to the film’s other nominations. It was at about that point that Polanski’s victim (I apologize, I know her first name is Samantha, but I’m blanking on her last name) stepped forward and basically let everyone know that yes, as far as she was concerned it was OK to vote for him/his movie, and one wouldn’t be causing her further grief by so doing, which I suspect may well have made a crucial difference at that point in the voting. (I distinctly remember the comments from a number of people not happy with Polanski’s winning BD that, as far as Hollywood was concerned, clearly the Holocaust/genocide trumped rape as an issue due to the large Jewish contingent in the Academy membership…)
In the end, Brody was the winner–deservedly, in my opinion, both then and now–and I distinctly remember the reactions from his fellow nominees when he won: Nicholson looked genuinely happy for him, maybe even thrilled; Nic Cage seemed slightly disappointed but basically OK with it; Caine had this “Oh, crap, why did I even bother to dress up? I was never going to win anyway…” expression; but what really struck me was that Rebecca Miller, aka Mrs. Day-Lewis, looked PISSED–I can’t really describe it any other way; you just knew that she was convinced her man was going to win that one, and who the fuck was this nobody swooping in at the last damn minute, anyway?!? (DDL himself looked somewhat annoyed at first, but seemed to relax a bit as Brody’s speech went on, and by the end looked as if he didn’t mind losing nearly as much as his wife did…swear to God, I will never forget that poisonous glare as long as I live. Fortunately for her, he’s won two other times since then, so perhaps she’s feeling better now?…) And yes, there did seem to be a palpable sense of excitement in the air as the Pianist stacked up in that last hour; Chicago had been seen as the front-runner for a long time, but now, maybe…? Of course, we all know how that ended, but allegedly the final tally was surprisingly close, to the point that if voting had gone on just a few more days, the end result would have been very different; I remember gossip columnist Ted Casablanca reporting that an Academy member who would know told him that was the case. (The other big question was “How close was the Best Actress voting?” as that category, while not as wide-open as Best Actor, still seemed fairly up in the air; according to Ted’s source, though, it was never even close–Nicole Kidman won it by a mile, in what a lot of people interpreted as a slap at Tom Cruise and Scientology.)
As for this year, who the hell knows? I’m withholding judgment on that one right now, but I have to admit I do miss that sense of anything-can-happen that just doesn’t seem to exist anymore; thanks to media oversaturation, we’re all awards experts. *sigh* Still, in the end you just never know…
*tie, sorry. They should tie.
I do think it’s a shame Keaton will probably lose and never get another shot, but I had my doubts all season long. And Hawking was definitely the biggest acting challenge of the year. I wouldn’t call Redmayne’s performance by the numbers. But the film itself certainly is. I still think it holds him back, by focusing more on Jane’s story as Stephen’s expense. His screentime falls as the film progresses, and we never learn about his work. On the other hand, Birdman, while not technically a powerhouse, is a great star vehicle for Keaton, and he invests it with a lot of richness and personality that are unlike anything he’s ever shown before onscreen or off. “Playing himself” was always going to be a difficult charge to overcome, especially for a comeback performance and with Redmayne’s transformation waiting in the wings. Too bad they can’t just the it, seriously. These two performances and actors are both deserving and totally incomparable.
The late surge for Pianist wasn’t out of nowhere; people were considering it just as, by Oscar weekend, some feared (but most wrote off) that Crash could beat Brokeback Mountain. By Oscar night, Brody was a firm #3 at least, but realistically the clear most deserving; Polanski was second; and the script was third at worst (Adaptation had won the WGA, but many including myself were still picking The Hours).
My bet is still on Keaton.
“The film was close to winning picture BUT the precursors didn’t show that.”
Well, one precursor that did suggest The Pianist was stronger than everyone thought was BAFTA, where The Pianist won BP and Polanski won Best Director. In retrospect, we should have seen that as evidence of a late-breaking surge toward The Pianist, but at the time, we kind of dismissed it all as the Brits just being quirky and European.
In the 20 years of SAG, only ***4*** winners did not go on to win the Oscar. And they were all in a row. Everyone seems to forget that Johnny Depp shockingly won for Pirates over Sean Penn.
@Jesus Alonso, it’s very easy to state that Brody was the front-runner now. And your argument about The Pianist being very close to winning picture doesn’t hold. I was a kid back then BUT I remember the excitement when The Pianist kept winning that night. It wasn’t the odds-on favorite in adapted screenplay. It was third or fourth. It wasn’t the odds-on favorite in actor. Nicholson and Day-Lewis were. It wasn’t the odds-on favorite in directing. Polanski was third at best. The film had NO PGA nomination, Brody lost the only SAG nod the film had. It wasn’t the case of Harwood’s script being ineligible for the WGA. IT WAS ELIGIBLE AND SNUBBED. Polanski received a DGA nomination, the ASC nominated the film. The Cinema Editors Guild didn’t nominate it. The Globes failed to nominate Polanski. The film was close to winning picture BUT the precursors didn’t show that. Now, being in my already mid-20’s (meh), I can clearly see what made THE PIANIST such a beloved film at the time. Just remember the political turmoil at the moment the ballots were due and you’ll see why the film suddenly became relevant.
@ Q Mark,
Definitely agree with “best” being subjective. I thought Keaton’s performance showed a lot more depth than Redmayne’s. To me, Redmayne gave a paint-by-numbers performance in the Oscar bait role of the year. I personally would be happy with a Keaton or Cooper win, but if I could have picked the nominees, Redmayne and Carell would not have made my Top 5.
The same year as Beetlejuice, Keaton gave a great performance in a little-seen indie film called Clean and Sober. I think he should have been Oscar-nominated for that role, and in fact, the National Society of a Film Critics named him Best Actor for it 26 years ago. I recommend that Keaton fans seek out that gem. It also stars Morgan Freeman.
@Q Mark: And imagine the other way around. Imagine awful outcomes, like Crash beating Brokeback Mountain by 1,000 votes. Or The Social Network finishing third or fourth in best picture. I somehow believe that if we get the tallies, we’d be shocked not by the vote totals, but by who came in second in plenty of categories over the years…
On the one hand, everyone wants the Oscar to always go to “the best performance of the year.” On the other hand, this is ultimately a subjective thing — one person can be wowed by a performance, another can find it nothing special. That’s why it’s inevitable that you’ll get cases where you’ll favour one actor because they’re overdue for Academy recognition, especially in cases where all things are generally equal and all five performances are excellent. It shouldn’t matter whether Keaton is a veteran or Redmayne is a newcomer or that Cooper is the biggest star and nominated for the third straight year, yet obviously it does. We don’t have a crystal ball to know whether or not this will be Keaton’s last notable role or if he’ll become a late-career Academy darling like Christopher Plummer or Alan Arkin; we don’t know if Redmayne will fade into obscurity or if TOE is the first of many excellent performances.
Re: Daveinprogress. This is one of many reasons that I would absolutely love to know the actual voting totals of all the Oscar races over the years. It would be wild to know which races were total blowouts or incredibly close…imagine finding out that Best Picture was decided by a single vote one year or something.
Larry, Larry… give us a break. I know you hate Birdman but personal tastes and analysis are two different things. Keaton’s performance is the best of the year, deal with it. Redmayne is just another Oscar cliché.
On the Adrien Brody issue… I find it funny that people call his win – or Kathy Bates’ for the matter – “surprising”. When you remember the competition, it was full of Oscar winners, and Brody carried the film that almost won Best Picture, on his shoulders. He was the frontrunner, even if people refused to see it. They were not going to vote for Daniel Day Lewis being a villain, in front of the Holocaust survivor who also played the piano.
It’s a bit like this year, we’re fooling ourselves that Keaton might have the edge, when Redmayne is playing the grand slam of the Lead Actor winner… disability, extraordinary accent, body transformation plus real life hero. Keaton might very well be “rewarded” with the nom, while Cooper might win, just because the sudden impact of American Sniper, he’s Redmayne’s biggest threat, not Keaton. Keaton is in a similar situation we saw other actors like Alan Alda, Eddie Murphy, Mickey Rourke, Burt Reynolds… first nom after decades of career, then watching a more by the Oscar canon performance, walk away with the victory.
Let me just say something else. All this crap that Keaton never had an Oscar-ish role. Remember when Heath Ledger won for the Joker? That was a given right? Not just because he died but because he made such a great legendary performance in the role. No one cared that it was in a superhero movie. It was just that his performance in the role was so amazing people practically worship it. Well, Michael Keaton has one of those roles, and it’s not Batman it’s Beetlejuice. That movie was huge at the time, and it grew in legend over the years. I’m not trying to get in any of the kids’ faces but I think people of a certain age may not remember how huge Keaton was once and how much people actually were wowed by his acting back then. It’s not like he’s just an older actor who finally got a meaty role. He did RomComs, played psychos, and larger than life and multiple characters all in the span of maybe a decade when more often than not he was the title character. He was and is versatile and a huge presence.
Why are people making such a big deal about Michelle Obama’s comments about American Sniper? Take her comments in context. She was at a function with Bradley Cooper and a Warner’s executive, and I believe they were talking to a group of vets. What was she going to say? “You know what, guys, I don’t think American Sniper is all that…” And weren’t her comments of praise largely about the movie showing PTSD, and she wished that more movies would address that?
True that American Sniper is in the news a lot right now. That works both ways, though, because the movie is also in the news for negative reasons–its portrait of the war; criticism of the movie’s portrayal of Kyle; an Iraq War sniper writing for salon.com who talked about how Kyle’s version of the war via American Sniper was not the war he experienced. I think the AS controversy is going to hurt any chance Cooper has of winning, which I don’t think is that much to begin with. I could be wrong, of course, but then again, how often does that happen, AD? 😉
I am wondering whether the Best Actor race this year will be so close that the winner will not be an emphatic winner, but a close one; ala 24% to 22% to 20% to %18 to 16% just for an example. Assuming Carell is on 16, Cumberbatch on 18, Cooper on 20 – with a potentially small margin of votes between Redmayne and Keaton – what factors will prevail? Sentiment, Transformation, Hero, Biopic.
I’ve often wondered in years where the winner was already crowned weeks before ala Helen Mirren, Daniel Day Lewis (There will be blood), just how emphatic were their wins? Did they score more than half the vote? With the aforementioned Adrien Brody, my sense, and memory of that race was that it was a top heavy field, and so the surprise came as no frontunner presented, and for the least known to win, and for a Polanski movie, made it more surprising. By my own logic, if Bradley Cooper is the candidate sitting on 20% of the vote, he could surge, as others have pointed out, his movie is everywhere and so is he Mr Right Now?
I hope that Michael Keaton wins. For most of the season it was supposed to be his and then at the end now people have been saying Redmayne. Honestly, I can’t speak about that performance since I haven’t seen the movie. I’ve been a Keaton fan for about 30 years. As a kid I grew up on Mr. Mom, Johnny Dangerously, Gung Ho, etc. I have very fond memories of these movies and as I’ve grown into a movie buff, I’ve always considered comedy to be more difficult than drama. Having said that Keaton’s excelled at both in his career and I think that’s what makes his work on BIRDMAN so great. I think he’s the exact right person to balance both sides of the role and the only one who could carry the weight of it believably. Try to think of someone else in that role and I think you’d have a completely different tone to the movie and it wouldn’t be as good. I think that in the case of THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, the nomination almost comes built into a role like that and I’m guessing that plenty of actors who have a ballpark resemblance to Hawking could have given an ‘award worthy’ performance based on the subject matter.
So having a history of loving Michael Keaton, I hope the Academy is like me and will go for him. I’m hoping there is an added bonus that people who don’t have that history and don’t intend to vote for Keaton split their faction and vote for Cooper and Redmayne equally, so we olds can have our guy win.
I meant to do a list like Bryce’s but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. I guess I’ll work on it later and put it on my lj. Keaton would be first though.
I don’t know.
I tend to think like Ryan Adams in these tight situations (concerning vote totals).
Meaning:
Just because Eddie Redmayne won the SAG doesn’t mean that he won by a lot. Tens of thousands vote for the SAG. Maybe Redmayne won by 100 votes.
BAFTA is coming up. Yes, Theory of Everything is popular there and, yes, Redmayne is British.
But Birdman is wildly popular with the BAFTAs, too; a ton of nominations.
Now, if you look at the roughly 1,500 people in the acting branch of AMPAS, maybe Redmayne wins out with the most totals, or maybe it’s Keaton.
Let’s say Redmayne gets 523 votes from the Actors/Actresses in the Acting branch, maybe Keaton has 489. There’s STILL 4,500 other AMPAS members who are going to be voting for Best Actor and … Birdman is a Best Picture favorite with a Best Director nom and 7(!) other noms (including several craft recognitions). The Theory of Everything is lucky to have made the BP line-up and really only has other support from the Writers and Music branch.
So, while I think that Redmayne has a STRONG chance to win (transformative role, he’s been killing the circuit, SAG win), I don’t think it’s a slam dunk when thinking about the actual AMPAS breakdown and possibilities with vote totals. Not to mention the veteran actor status, that Phase 2 voting hasn’t even begun, etc..
This race is such a crazy nailbiter. I’m really 50/50 right now.
Davinprogress I concur. Best actor feels a lot like the Mickey Rourke year where the bloggers are very excited about a comeback tale and then it fizzles on the big night. Intellectually it made more sense to me that Sean Penn would win because amongst other things his character was heroic and a real person. Heroes do factor into this big time. I was bamboozled though that year and assumed Mickey would win because of the internet. This year that will not happen. This year it’s Eddie Redmayne all the way.
In the 20 yrs of SAG only 3 of its Best Actor winners did not go on to win the Oscar. Those odds heavily favors Eddie Redmayne.
Wasn’t Peter Fonda nominated for a best actor? Now that would have been an emotional moment for Oscar history, Jane Fonda and the memory of Henry. Of the acting categories it seems that Lead Actor receives the least sentimentality. There have been several older males who were nominated (some with many previous past noms like Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole) and not enough voting member were overwhelmed to vote for them because it could be their only or last chance. If Michael Keaton was perceived as overdue for the award like Julianne Moore it would be one thing but in his case it’s not.
Eddie Redmayne gives the showier more physical more emotional performance. The character has heart. Like so many other have said it is pure Oscar bait. He deserves to win and hopefully will.
While I think Bradley Cooper still trails Redmayne and Keaton. I think he is a real threat to win as he is peaking at the right time
Michelle Obama just attended a function for a veterans group with Bradley Cooper and an executive from Warners in which she praised American Sniper.
Chris and Taya Kyle are on the cover of this weeks People magazine with a article about their love story. There is an item with that article about American Sniper and how much veterans love the film. The same item also mentions that Bradley Cooper has been working with veterans for eight years.Bradley appears to be the best actor nominee most in the news right now.
I wonder if Michael Keaton’s run will be more like Mickey Rourke’s? He won the BAFTA and the Globe and a whole set of others, before losing SAG and Oscar to Sean Penn. If Rourke couldn’t prevail over a previous Oscar winner, it may be that there is not enough sentiment or recognition of Keaton’s career or degree of diffculty (two integral ingredients it seems for judging oscar), for him to topple Eddie Redmayne. The latter as has been said has been doing the rounds and always comes across charming, accessible and unaffected. Like Mickey Rourke, it feels to me, that Michael Keaton doesn’t have the requisite warm fuzzy glow that a Jeff Bridges or Sandra Bullock has when voters are faced with a veteran.
OK, I sometimes obsess over stats. I usually fuck up every year because I love going with my guts in many categories and it pays off now and then. But stats are stats and the Oscars usually don’t go out for their way unless they really have some issue with the front-runner.
SAG is important and we know that. If Redmayne wins the BAFTA this week (and he’s likely to), he’ll have the very strong combination of Golden Globe, SAG and BAFTA. Only ONE actor ever lost with that combination and this is Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind, but we all know that this has been a very special slap-the-jerk case. And Eddie is nothing like that. He’s gracious and humble and very smart (paying respect not just to the nominees at the SAG Awards and talking about Hawking, etc.). Is there even a scenario of Eddie losing the BAFTA? I doubt it. Yes, he lost the London Film Critics Circle, but Natalie Portman lost there as well (to Annette Bening nevertheless!) and she still won the BAFTA. Eddie is a Brit portraying another Brit (a legendary one!) and he’s suddenly become the surprising front-runner to take home the Oscar, but he still feels like the underdog. Not to mention that he’s in a film BAFTA voters fell in love with (and it even got a directing nomination against all the odds). And what else could the film they really like actually win? Not much. Redmayne is taking the BAFTA. And once he does, he just has that perfect precursors combination. Keaton doesn’t. Keaton has no major critics’ groups and of the big awards on TV he has the Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice. This isn’t a powerful combination. Clooney lost with a similar combination for The Descendants (another surprising SAG victory for Dujardin). Usually precursor-wise you need the BAFTA if you don’t have SAG. Who won with the Globe and the Critics’ Choice and then took home the Oscar without SAG and BAFTA?
Sean Penn for Mystic River. But that’s a different story. In 2004 ballots for the Oscars were due the day after the SAG Awards. Needless to say, the majority of ballots have been turned before the very late SAG Awards date that year and Penn was the SAG favorite. Many assumed he was unbeatable. Then again, Penn lost the SAG to somebody who didn’t have the Golden Globe and didn’t have BAFTA either. And in the case of SAG alone vs. Globe and something else, history favores the Globe victory.
Who else won without SAG? Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady. But she had too much going for her that year, not to mention Harvey. And she had the Golden Globe, the BAFTA and the very prestigious New York Film Critics Circle. She had the Kennedy Center Honor that same year, she won the Honorary Golden Bear in the final week of voting.. She simply was really visible. And precursor-wise she had the combination of Globe and BAFTA.
I’m rooting for Keaton and his mesmerizing performance. I agree with the poster that said actors losing weight, wearing massive make-up or playing diseased and/or real life characters usually have their leeway to the golden statue. I admire Redmayne’s performance a lot, it takes a great deal of craft to pull that off, but watching Keaton breed life from Birdman’s script was amazing: his performance was unnerving, discomforting, it was bottled lightning. He made me believe his character was as real as Stephen Hawking or John DuPont.
I thought the same when DiCaprio and Fassbender lost to McConaughey and Leto last year. The Lead acting categories usually disappoint me and bore the hell out of me.
I’m totally on the Redmayne train. My faith that he will win the Oscar was solidified with the SAG win. Remember, the SAGs are the acting block, they felt Eddie’s performance was the strongest. If Eddie also wins the BAFTA, game over, it’s Redmayne’s to lose.
Also, please remember that Julieanne Moore is already pretty much guaranteed to win her Oscar, and Still Alice isn’t her best performance, it’s not the best among this year’s Best Actress list – I think Felicity Jones or better yet, Rosamund Pike should win. But the point I’m trying to make is that I can’t see AMPAS also giving the Best Actor award to Keaton because he’s a veteran, this may be his only chance, and that it would make them feel good. Screw that, the better performance was with 33 year old Eddie Redmayne. The reason why he’s been ‘everywhere’ and haters referring to him as Eddie Redcarpet is because even though he performed brilliantly as Stephen Hawking, he’s the lesser known actor and he has to have his face everywhere possible. Can you blame him? I certainly don’t. And there’s no guarantee that he’ll ever be nominated again either. Can people honestly say, after watching both performances, that Keaton deserves to beat Redmayne?
This is the mistake that AMPAS often makes – awarding someone the Oscar… just because they’ve been nominated X amount of times and never won, they are “old” and this may be ‘their only chance’. However, I believe that since Theory of Everything will not win best picture, it will win one of the major prizes, and that’s Best Actor for Eddie Redmayne. Yes, Bradley Cooper could win it on his third nomination, and he’ll deserve it, but I believe this is Eddie’s Oscar to lose.
1. Sasha — I personally agree with you that Redmayne was “better” than Keaton, but I think you overstate how clear that is to most viewers. I went to Theory of Everything with three other people. Two of us thought Redmayne was excellent, and two thought that in the second half of the film, all he had to do was sit curled up in a chair and contort his hands and face, and that wasn’t “acting”. I don’t agree with this — just the scene where he and his wife break up is heartbreaking for the look in his eyes. But I think there are lots of people who might see Redmayne’s performance this way. Dunno. (BTW, I generally thought that Theory of E. was a mediocre movie, but the acting all round was good.)
2. Larry — a lot of what people say here about why someone might win — Keaton is a veteran actor, he is “due” etc. etc. — are just observations about HOW the system works and what factors may play into votes. I don’t think anyone thinks it is fair that someone wins an Oscar for any reason other than by giving the best performance, but the reality is that many factors extraneous to the quality of the performance probably influence voters. For example, I think that when Larry says a factor in Keaton winning may be his veteran status, he is not saying Keaton DESERVES to win for that reason, only that many voters may be influenced by it.
3. Q Mark — totally agree with you that Oscar loves to see actors who they would not expect give a great performance give one. This no doubt contributed to Matthew McConaughey’s win last year — not just that he was good in the role, but that this guy who had been a somewhat second rate “actor/hunk/stoner dude” had emerged in 2014 as a very good actor in multiple roles.
4. There’s a lot of speculation about how SAG voters might have voted one way for SAG and will vote another way in the Oscars because they feel sorry for Keaton, or they want to share the love, or whatever. I don’t know, but I don’t think many voters think that way. I think most of them vote exactly the same way in the SAGs and the Oscars. They convince themselves (for legitimate reasons or not) that they are voting for the “best” actor in the SAGs and, having voted that way, they vote the same way in the Oscars. I suspect that very few switch their votes between the two awards.
Robert,
I’m pretty sure 1997 was the last year none of the Oscar winners played a historical figure. So that’s 17 years of precedent the Academy would be bucking.
A more interesting Best Actor race would be:
David Oyelowo – Selma
Jake Gyllenhaal – Nightcrawler
Eddie Redmayne – Theory of Everything
Miles Teller – Whiplash
Michael Keaton – Birdman
Is there significance to the order I listed the names? Did I just Golden Globe my list? 🙂
I am not sorry I won’t buy this “transformative nonsense – hype”. if you want to buy then buy but i won’t.
Michael Keaton deserves this year’s best actor award. I will buy this.
thanks bye!
Disappointing that Keaton could not hold serve at SAG. And with BAFTA liking Theory best, this race is Redmayne’s to lose. 🙁
”Keaton … is getting “false buzz” and momentum because of his comeback story.”
”False buzz”? Until SAG, Keaton won most of the critics’ awards. … At the London Film Critics Circle, Keaton beat Redmayne for Actor of the Year. And Timothy Spall beat Redmayne for British Actor of the Year.
To add my two cents – here are my top 10 performances by a leading actor this year:
(keep in mind I would put Steve Carrell in supporting for Foxcatcher – and he surely would be on my list, but I don’t see him as lead)
1. Jake Gylenhaal – “Nightcrawler” – a SHAME he isn’t nominated after all the precursor love and for his performance being the best
2. Channing Tatum – “Foxcatcher” – Steve is certainly capable of a supporting actor nod, but it’s Channing who has the journey and gives the star making performance
3. Benedict Cumberbatch – “The Imitation Game” – Out of our five I think he’s the runaway best. Fantastic layered and subtle performance.
4. Michael Keaton – “Birdman” – a career comeback performance that really is something special. Since Cumberbatch has no chance I hope Keaton wins.
5. Bill Hader – “The Skeleton Twins” another overlooked performance. This easily should have been nominated if they would have given this indie comedy a chance.
6. Ralph Fiennes – “The Grand Budapest Hotel” – with so much love for the film, its insane that he got basically no love all season.
7. Joaquin Pheonix – “Inherent Vice” – Its as if he’s out to prove he can do it all, here he shines in a comedic role.
8. Mark Duplass – “The One I Love” – a nearly unseen hidden gem of a film. A spectacular “dual” performance.
9. Eddie Redmayne – “The Theory of Everything” – Eddie is great, and the performance is amazing. However I see it more as Felicity’s movie oddly enough.
10. Miles Teller – “Whiplash” – Another WTF was the Academy thinking nominating others over this awesome leading turn.
I just don’t see Keaton winning over Redmayne. I think Redmayne’s performance was more difficult to accomplish in the long run. I think a lot of actors will vote for him and that will push him over the edge. I don’t think there is going to vote splitting in this category.
The real tragedy of the Best Actor race is that performances like Bill Hader (Skeleton Twins), Channing Tatum (Foxcatcher), and Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner) were completely overlooked. My choices would be:
Steve Carrell (Foxcatcher)
Bill Hader (Skeleton Twins)
Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner)
Channing Tatum (Foxcatcher)
Miles Teller (Whiplash)
The “career” wins seem to happen more often in the supporting categories. (If I’m wrong, fine, let us know.) Plus, just last year, seniority and a long resume didn’t help Bruce Dern, so I don’t think Keaton has a big advantage there. (Dern had only one previous nomination, back in 1978.) I do think that actors like stories about actors, though, making Keaton an attractive nominee to many voters for reasons besides the performance itself.
I think that you overstate the presence of Adrien Brody in the race when he won. Adrien Brody had been nominated for almost every award, but only won 2 critics’ prizes. Nicholson won the Globe, Day-Lewis won BAFTA, Critic’s Choice, and SAG, and the two split the rest of the critics’ prizes and were tied for some. In my recollection, everyone was predicting Nicholson or Day-Lewis, and Brody’s win was a total surprise.
robby: “There’s been a great deal of sadness since keaton was passed over…”
Alan of NY: “What sadness? …I don’t see any groundswell of sadness.”
Robert A: “How do you know there’s been a great deal of sadness…?”
leave robby alone. robby is Michael Keaton’s real-life birdman. robby hovers around Michael Keaton and taunts him about his career. do not fucking fuck with robby unless you want Michael Keaton to jump the fuck right off the fucking ledge.
If the Academy couldn’t give Lauren Bacall BSA (over Binoche) long overdue for her extensive history in film, then it is easier to believe that Keaton is not a lock.
Redmayne.
“it’s going to keaton. consider sag an experiment. there’s been a great deal of sadness since keaton was passed over for that, and i think the voting branch doesn’t like the results of their experiment. the same thing happened when penn lost to depp for the sag and beat him for the oscar.”
How do you know there’s been a great deal of sadness since Keaton was passed over at SAG? Maybe from posters on AD, but they’re not the Academy or guild voters. I doubt Redmayne winning at SAG was just an “experiment.” (Did a majority of SAG voters say, “You know what? Let’s see what happens if we give SAG to Redmayne instead of Keaton…”) Also, the comparisons to Depp and Penn back in 2003 don’t hold up. Penn won Globe Drama, Depp won SAG, Murray won Globe Comedy and BAFTA. The televised awards were splitting all over the place. If Redmayne wins BAFTA, then he’s won Globe/SAG/BAFTA. That seems like more than an “experiment” to me.
Now if Redmayne doesn’t win BAFTA, then all bets are off.
Q Mark, so Keaton should be awarded because of his is a “veteran”?? That is a pretty weak argument. In my opinion, it is just the opposite. Redmaybe will and should win because his role is challenging physically and emotionally. Keaton’s is this year’s Julie Christie and Micky Rourke. To me, Keaton’s acting is the weakest of the 5, but he is getting “false buzz” and momentum because of his comeback story, and SAG just set it straight!!
@Alan of NY, I totally agree. It is the usual cliche every awards season. The supporters of Keaton’s reason as to why he should win is not his acting, but it is his because he is “overdue career” or “comeback story”. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of that. They criticize AMPAS for being “political” and at the same time they hypocritically hope AMPAS to go “political” so their “Keaton” can win. It is all over analyzed and too dramatic. Eddie Redmayne’s performance is simply unbeatable, and his SAG win proves that, I think he has it in the bag. Keaton’s performance in my opinion is the weakest of the 5, he is getting buzz because it is a comeback story? Give me a break.
To me, Keaton is the hands-down winner. It’s not even close. One factor that Sasha didn’t mention yet is usually such a big influence in Oscar acting races is the sense of “wow, I didn’t know he/she had it in them.” An actor who exceeds others’ expectations of their ability gives them a leg up when it comes to nominations or wins — it’s probably why Carell got nominated this year, for instance.
Keaton, as has been noted by other posters, has never really been considered overdue since he hasn’t really had that many showcase “Oscar-ish” roles. Birdman is easily his top role in this regard. Therefore, Keaton has both the “working veteran” vote and the “wow, didn’t know he was this good” vote since I’m sure his performance opened a lot of people’s eyes. Compare this to Redmayne, who isn’t as much of a known quantity yet so voters haven’t had time to form preconceived notions of what they expect from “an Eddie Redmayne performance.”
“there’s been a great deal of sadness since keaton was passed over for that,”
What sadness? Where? “Great deal”? Maybe for his supporters but I don’t see any groundswell of sadness.
it is not going to be Keaton. We all know that.
it’s going to keaton. consider sag an experiment. there’s been a great deal of sadness since keaton was passed over for that, and i think the voting branch doesn’t like the results of their experiment. the same thing happened when penn lost to depp for the sag and beat him for the oscar.
I forget where I saw this stat recently, but for approximately the past 15-20 years, at least 1 of the acting Oscars each year has gone to someone playing a real-life person. If Julianne Moore, Patricia Arquette & JK Simmons are locks in their categories, then Best Actor is likely to go to someone portraying a real person. Combined with the Globe Drama/SAG wins, I’m certain it’s Eddie Redmayne. Even before his Globe/SAG wins I’ve been convinced it’s Eddie, because his performance is remarkable and a thing of beauty– my favorite performance of the year, male or female.
We should have all seen the redmayne win coming when Theory was nominated for SAG ensemble. I know many believe Keaton could still win BAFTA, and he could. Yet Marsh’s director nom there suggests major support. Which to me means Redmayne is probably locked there. Keaton could still surprise, of course, but Redmayne to me seems far ahead for this oscar.
There was a typo in my above example — the example should have postulated that Redmayne and Keaton had 50 % of the votes, not 60 %.IBut if they had 60 % and Cooper had 25 %, and the vote “split”, one of them would still win because their 30 % each beats the third party.
Movieram, nice!
I work at crunching numbers for a living, and I think the theory of “splitting the vote” is a fallacy. With a field of 5, it takes about a third of the voters to win in a straight election against two strong contenders.
For example, Let’s say the perceived frontrunners Redmayne and Keaton hold sway to 60 % of the vote. Cooper has 35 %, Cumberbatch has 10 %, and Carell has 5 %. Voters are evenly for the perceived frontrunners, and each get 30 %. Cooper wins with 35 %. But this isn’t really a vote split — in actuality, Cooper is the most popular of the 5 nominees.
If Redmayne and Keaton have more than say 62 or 63 % of the vote tied up between them, then there is no way that a third party wins. If the 62 or 63 % is split almost equally, then either Redmayne or Keaton win by a hair because whoever is in third can not reach their number.
In short, 35 % will win it in a 3 man race. But the one with 35 % is the most popular of the 5 nominees and the other 2 guys just came up short, no matter what the public perception is.
If Redmayne wins the BAFTA (which I believe he will), I’d say he’s pretty much unstoppable. There is a precedent for Keaton to still pull it out, but it’s a rare one.
Safe money is on Redmayne.
Good analysis (as always), Sasha.
But I think the Adrien Brody win was mostly due to the fact that the other two frontrunners (aside from splitting votes) had already won Oscars before (Nicholson had already won THREE btw, not just one). Brody was in an epic and was in every scene. I don’t think it’s a “transformative” factor because he was more of an unknown.
The love for Keaton’s veteran status is overstated I think. This is Keaton FIRST nomination. He has never came close to even knocking the door (like Julianne Moore). So this “due factor” doesn’t really apply to him. And Oscars, when it comes to BA wins in recent years, tend to go for an actor in his prime/peak rather than veterans. Keaton would be the oldest actor to win since Henry Fonda in On the Golden Pond, and he would be the second oldest winner ever.
While Redmayne is young, he would be the eighth (or maybe seventh) youngest winner and the youngest since Brody. So the stats are more in his favor.
Age stat-wise, Cooper is the strongest contender (at 40, he is in the height of his career like ala Hanks and Crowe), but this season’s awards stats are really against him. And I also think the 3 straight nomination year is also overstated. People conveniently ignores that one of the nomination was for BSA. So it’s not like he has given two very strong lead performances the previous two years. And he was impressive in SLP, JLaw did steal the movie from him.
My Top 25 Best Performances by an Actor in a Leading Role
1. Ralph Fiennes – THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
2. Grigory Fesenko – THE TRIBE
3. David Oyelowo – SELMA
4. Aleksey Serebryakov – LEVIATHAN
5. Gaspard Ulliel – SAINT LAURENT
6. Jake Gyllenhaal – NIGHTCRAWLER
7. Viggo Mortensen – JAUJA
8. Joaquin Phoenix – INHERENT VICE
9. Jack O’Connell – STARRED UP
10. Miles Teller – WHIPLASH
11. Timothy Spall – MR. TURNER
12. Félix de Givry – EDEN
13. Tom Hardy – LOCKE
14. Jake Gyllenhaal – ENEMY
15. Kang-sheng Lee – STRAY DOGS
16. Ben Affleck – GONE GIRL
17. Ellar Coltrane – BOYHOOD
18. Phillip Seymour Hoffman – A MOST WANTED MAN
19. Jesse Eisenberg – NIGHT MOVES
20. Oscar Isaac – A MOST VIOLENT YEAR
21. Johannes Kuhnke – FORCE MAJEURE
22. Kirill Emelyanov – EASTERN BOYS
23. John Lithgow – LOVE IS STRANGE
24. Tom Hiddleston – ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE
25. Nicolas Cage – JOE
26. Keanu Reeves – JOHN WICK
27. Dan Stevens – THE GUEST
28. Tom Hardy – THE DROP
29. Jack O’Connell – ’71
30. Jesse Eisenberg – THE DOUBLE
And there more good ones!
What annoys me is how the Academy often falls for the most Oscar-baity roles, and that can involve a disease, a disability or drunkenness. And they’re suckers for playing real-life people. To me, if you’re playing an actual person, you kinda have a road map in how they look and sound. In fact, I just noticed that 4 out of the 5 Best Actor nominees are based on real people. Yes, the impression can be uncanny, but I’m more excited by fictional characters that had to be built from the ground up. To me, Ralph Fiennes and Jake Gyllenhaal also should’ve been up for Best Actor (I would’ve bumped out Carell and Cooper). Fiennes and Gyllenhaal created one-of-a-kind characters that took their acting to places they’ve never been. Who knew Fiennes could do comedy as the fastidious Gustave? Or that Gyllenhaal could be so darkly comic as the go-getting, gung-ho Louis? I found them far more unforgetttable than some of the actors in the more standard, straight-forward biopics.
P.S. Here’s a podcast between Sasha Stone & GoldDerby’s Tom O’Neil: What the hell’s next?
http://www.goldderby.com/news/8376/predictions-oscars-sasha-stone-entertainment-13579086-story.html
“The SAG went to …. Benicio del Toro, who had been nominated in the supporting category for other awards, including Oscar. Given the chance to choose him for lead, the voters did so, enabling Albert Finney to win the supporting SAG. This lack of a win didn’t impact Crowe, who went on to take the Oscar.”
Of course del Toro’s win didn’t impact Crowe winning the Oscar. Benicio del Toro wasn’t competing against Crowe for the Oscar; they weren’t in the same category, as you’ve pointed out. If del Toro had been nominated in lead actor at the Oscars, you might well have seen del Toro beat Crowe again. Voters seemed to love Benicio del Toro’s performance that year and were going to reward him no matter what category he was in. The 2000 Best Actor race seemed a little more muted and scattered, with no one candidate really inspiring a lot of widespread passion. Crowe probably won because he was in a BP frontrunner, had been nominated the year before, and was well-respected in those days before he started roughing up Brits at BAFTA.
That year isn’t really comparable to this year, when Keaton is going to have to face the SAG winner once again at the Oscars. And I’m still having problems envisioning Cooper going all the way for a win. I understand what people are saying about him being “untested” or “not an option” before, but there’s a reason he wasn’t an option…voters weren’t making him one. The reason he’s “untested” is because no other group was voting him into their Top 5 in actor. I understand American Sniper was late-breaking, but not more so than Wolf of Wall Street last year, and DiCaprio still managed to get a Globe nomination (and win in Comedy) and a BAFTA nomination. I remember last year when people were trying to convince each other DiCaprio would win the Oscar. One of the arguments was that DiCaprio was “untested” against McConaughey and could thereby win. And there was much ado about this, and many an Oscar prognosticator jumped onto the (supposed) DiCaprio bandwagon, and what was the end result? The winner was the one who had been in front all along.
I agree with Sasha that the winner is most likely Redmayne or Keaton. Keaton was ahead during the critic’s phase of the race, but it looks like Redmayne is ahead in the more crucial second leg of the race. If he wins BAFTA, he’ll be difficult to beat, I think. The Globe Drama/SAG/BAFTA wins are pretty convincing. Of course there always could be an upset, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Three noms in a row for Cooper. He’s in with a decent shot in with a definite split vote coming up.
If I was choosing the Best Lead Actor nominees…
Ellar Coltrane (Boyhood)
Pierre Deladonchamps (Stranger by the Lake)
Chris Evans (Snowpiercer)
Ralph Fiennes (Grand Budapest Hotel)
David Oyelowo (Selma)
Next in line: Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy), Andy Serkis (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), Channing Tatum (Foxcatcher), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game), Ben Affleck (Gone Girl)
Jesus, Miles Teller drumming, and his expressions doing so, was more mind blowing than most of the acting I’ve seen this year. I loved Carell and Keaton, I really loved Oyelowo and Gyllenhaal but in the end Teller was really overlooked.
Adam, good points. I think a lot of people might have different attitudes about who deserves a SAG vs. who deserves an Oscar.
The Cooper wild card is interesting because voters haven’t had him as an option post-nominations. Keep in mind that votes can depend on the options available, and who is on the radar screen at the time. Example: In 2001, Russell Crowe (Gladiator) and Tom Hanks (Cast Away) were the frontrunners for Best Actor. The SAG went to …. Benicio del Toro, who had been nominated in the supporting category for other awards, including Oscar. Given the chance to choose him for lead, the voters did so, enabling Albert Finney to win the supporting SAG. This lack of a win didn’t impact Crowe, who went on to take the Oscar. It’s not exactly the same as this year, but it shows the impact when voters have different sets of choices.
Currently I see Keaton as the leader, followed very closely by Redmayne and Cooper. Still up for grabs.
No matter what people say or happens,I’m sticking with my “candidate” till the very end(which is Oscar night) Michael Keaton.
I’ve seen the five performances and two of them, simply don’t deserve the nom. In my view, I wouldn’t give the Oscar to any of these five performers, sorry. If I were forced to, I’d go in the following order.
1) Cumberbatch. He’s consistently great, but his Turing is just an iteration of the character he plays sleepwalking: Sherlock. He’s the best of the bunch, and with difference.
2) Keaton. His performance difficulty is only the long takes, the role is a sucession of showy Oscar clips in which, when in doubt, just shout or look crazed. Not a real challenge for an accomplished actor like him.
3) Redmayne. Yeah, he’s good at the physical performance of Hawking under his disease… problem is, he seems to be in that key (but softer) when Hawking wasn’t suffering his disease. He reminded me, on those minutes, of the histrionic and over the top, completely out of focus performance of Russell Crowe in “A Beautiful Mind”. I get why he impresses, but I am not impressed at all.
4) Cooper. Playing a complete fictional character by the numbers. I’m beginning to wonder why did they nominate this performance and not his superior – vastly superior – voice work in “Guardians of the Galaxy”.
5) Carell. I love good old Steve as much as the next in line, but seriously, this is the worst performance of the star trio, and his face is almost a mask, thanks to the horrid make up. Even his voice work seems monotonous to me, and not particularly challenging or accomplished.
None of them could hold the candle to David Oyelowo in “Selma” or Chris Evans in “Snowpiercer”. Even Miles Teller (“Whiplash”), Ben Affleck (“Gone Girl”), Jake Gyllenhaal (“Nightcrawler”) should have been included over at least 2 of these five.
I don’t know. Part of me feels like Michael Keaton’s performance is the favored one, but they also realize that Eddie Redmayne’s performance is amazing and deserves to be rewarded as well. That’s probably why they gave Redmayne the SAG, and Keaton still gets SAG with the ensemble. I think a lot of people wanna give the Oscar to Keaton, so they thought, “OK, let’s at least give Redmayne the SAG, just so people know that he was very deserving as well.”