You left out Paltrow because "she is a good actress" and yet you include names like Theron, Kidman, and Swank. They all run rings around the decidedly mediocre Gwyneth Paltrow (whose win for Shakespeare in Love over Cate Blanchett remains one of the Academy's biggest travesties). I haven't seen Hunt, Berry, or Witherspoon's winning roles so I can't comment on them in detail but they all have been reviewed very highly by most professional critics so there must be something there. In Berry's case, it must be something huge to overcome her regular mediocrity-or-worse.
There is, without a doubt, a lot of Hollywood politics involved in the awarding of Oscars. They rather came to a head with Paltrow, but since then, I think the awards have generally gone on merit. I agree with you it is a shame that Naomi Watts, Catherine Keener, Annette Bening, Joan Allen, Laura Linney, and Julianne Moore have not yet been recognised, despite some wonderful nominated performances, but it is a sad fact that there is generally only one winner every year (except, if memory serves, the Katharine Hepburn-Barbra Streisand tie in '68: talk about the great and the mediocre, it's right there!) I can see at least a few of the fantastic actresses you list winning over the course of the next decade. As for the others, if they turn around and give a brilliant performance unlike anything in their (so-so) careers so far, fine, give them an Oscar. But I'm not expecting it.
To fully answer your question, then: I would have been surprised to hear the list of winners ten years ago. But that would have been purely on reputation and not on merit. Since then, more than one of those actresses has had their reputation as a quality actress increase tenfold.
Cheers,
The Spanner.
reply
share
DarthAlgar
18 years ago
I am not saying Paltrow is an acting god, I just think she has a much better resume acting than the rest, although Kidman is starting to become solid as well. And Theron is starting to pick excellent roles and doing well in them.
I will agree with you on Shakespeare in Love, which I thought to be one of the worst Best Pictures seen in years. How that could possibly beat out Saving Private Ryan, which holds its own against Schindler's List as one of the top 5 movies of the 90s, is simply beyond me. Paltrow was good in the role, but the movie was boring.
For those whom you haven't seen the performances to, Hunt was okay in As Good As It Gets, but the movie was awful for me. Just a pointless, nonfunny comedy. Halle was okay in Monster's Ball, which was also a good movie but not great one.
I probably should have added Scarlett Johansson on the list of future deserving Oscars as well. But I fully expect her, and Natalie Portman, to both win sometime within the next decade.
reply
share
the_spanner85
18 years ago
What makes Shakespeare in Love watchable for me is those two acting gods, Geoffrey Rush and Dame Judi Dench. Don't forget that we also saw Life is Beautiful and Elizabeth in that year; two of my top 10 of the 1990s.
Agree on Johansson and Portman, too.
Cheers,
The Spanner.
reply
share