Here Are The Oscar Best Actress Front Runners

Categories: Film

RustAndBone.jpg
It's never too soon to start guessing Oscar nominations, so I've done some exhaustive research--like talking to one friend in the biz, as well as plumbing the depths of my own usually-semi-right instincts--and decided that the five nominees will probably come from these seven bigshots:


Marion Cotillard, above, in Rust and Bone
(You don't lose your legs in a film and not get nominated.)


Naomi Watts in The Impossible
(It's about the tsunami. A lot of this year's Oscar films are about disasters, like plane crashes, wars, crises, and maybe even budget cuts.)


Jessica Chastain for Zero Dark Thirty.

(And let's not forget 9/11. This one is about the post-traumatic search for bin Laden. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, it reeks of Oscar, even if we don't even know what Chastain plays. Thirty?)


Judi Dench in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
(Who could have played Evelyn Greenslade better than her? Come on, who?)


Helen Mirren for Hitchcock.
(She's the Misses, hitched to the great Hitch. Just guessing her performance won't be for The Birds.)


Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook
(They always like someone young in the category--like when Jennifer herself was nominated for Winter's Bone.)


Keira Knightley for Anna Karenina.

(The film is already dividing people, but Keira needn't throw herself onto the train tracks just yet. She's due for some recognition.)


And here's why I didn't include:

Helen Hunt in The Sessions. Everyone loves a third comeback, but supposedly she'll be in supporting.

Anne Hathaway from Les Miserables. Ditto. She basically has a song, then her ghost shtick. Similarly, Amanda Seyfried probably won't be considered a lead. It's a man's film.

And Quivenzhane Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild. I bet they'll put her in supporting too. That's what they do to very little girls who dominate a film.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
bwaybill
bwaybill

Sorry to burst your bubble but Hollywood was always about money first and foremost and also awards (largely because they help you make money). Yes, the movies were entertaining--but they are now too. If they weren't entertaining, no one would go and pay and they wouldn't make money.

billyjoe
billyjoe

Remember when we went to the movies to be entertained...and without concern about how much money they made during their opening weekend, nor how many Oscars they might be nominated for? 

marcusisyoung
marcusisyoung

@mikeymusto for now, it’s between Lawrence and Cotillard.

PhillyRob
PhillyRob

The spell check on your computer must have exploded when you typed--Quivenzhane 

keating
keating

It's between Jennifer Lawrence and Keira Knightley. (Unless Zero Dark Thirty is better than I suspect it will be.) "Anna" is dividing people, which will hurt Keira's chances.  So Jennifer may be the frontrunner: she's been nommed before, she's had a great year ("Hunger Games" a monster hit), she's belle of the red carpet.  And you could say the same three things about the frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress, Anne Hathaway: nommed before, great year ("Dark Knight"), and attractive.

 

bethesda
bethesda

No one can stump legless Marion!

jackson30
jackson30

I bet Helen does a Reese and steals the film, playing the wife.

billyjoe
billyjoe

 @bwaybill I agree, but I'm talking about the average moviegoer. Today you hear all sorts of people noting a new movie's weekend grosses or mulling about whether an actress might be nominated in a "lead" vs. "supporting" category. It's like a "fanboy" disease infecting the general movie-going public and creating an entirely unnecessary population of cinema dilettantes.

Loading...