Sunday, November 25, 2007

"I'm not there."

That's what Cate Blanchett might be saying to Harvey Weinstein as they study the nominee list for the oscars in a couple months IF this new "lead" thing is true. My first impression is that this move smacks of greed and hubris - I mean, she's one of five Dylans and is onscreen for what, 25% of the film, at most? - but I suppose there have been lead nominees with less screentime, and there are strategic advantages to this, including box office concerns and other factors. So I'll withhold judgment, at least until I see the film. But in my gut, I just DON'T like this idea. Not at all.

8 Comments:

Blogger Rural Juror said...

Yeah..this confounds me. Although, it's hard to imagine her not getting nominated, no matter the category. This would screw up both actress categories, though. That being said, it might let Saoirse or JJL or someone have a better shot.

3:44 AM  
Blogger Kamikaze Camel said...

Maybe this is all a big way of allowing the Weinsteins to market both Cate and Sam Morton for Control. Now if Cate is lead they can afford to market Sam in supporting.

I really hope a Weinstein rep is reading my constant harping about Morton. It's not even that she's that good, it's just that there is this performance by a popular already twice-nommed actress sitting there in a perfectly good movie and... nothing. Just. AAGH!

To paraphrase Lindsay Lohan in Freak Friday: The Weinsteins are ruining my life!

9:22 AM  
Blogger NATHANIEL R said...

i love the idea personally. Because I think it will stop her from winning. ENOUGH with Blanchett already

10:05 AM  
Blogger adam k. said...

But what if it doesn't? What if she wins lead? How will you feel then???

I personally don't even believe this rumor. I think she'll be supporting, when all is said and done. But the idea of her committing category fraud two years in a row and being rewarded for it makes me very upset.

10:24 AM  
Anonymous steve said...

It's not really category fraud. She clearly dominates the picture. It's more in keeping with Kidman in The Hours or Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. The film is slanted in her favor. Plus, she's in it more than anyone else (a little less than 1/3, maybe?).

Also, supporting to lead category shifts are less insulting than lead to supporting frauds.

I loved the performance and think it's supporting, but can see that there's room for interpretation.

11:34 AM  
Blogger Kamikaze Camel said...

Watch the move be defended by people saying that the period Cate portrays is also the most defining one in Dylan's career and as thus can be interpretted as being at the forefront of the film or something silly like that.

10:41 PM  
Blogger Colin said...

Personally, I don't buy that any of the Dylans are supporting. If we treat I'm Not There as a series of short film segments, then Blanchett, Bale and Ledger are all leads. I feel the same applies to Clive Owen, Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke in Sin City, too.

2:45 AM  
Anonymous steve said...

Interesting point, Colin, but even in that context its hard to picture Bale or Ledger as leads.

Bale is the subject of his segment, but he doesn't have much of an arc to work with and much of the narrative focus is on the talking heads who discuss him.

In Ledger's sequence, the focus seems to be on Gainsbourg (although this might be my imagination because her performance so handily trumps his?).

1:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home