Kate Winslet 2 for 2 At the Golden Globes!

[yeah]

Posted: 1/11/09 at 11:26pm

I'm a huge fan of Kate Winslet's work. She's nominated time and time again and always comes up short. How sweet is it that she won for Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress for "The Reader," and "Revolutionary Road," respectively? It's well deserved, sweet justice!

If any actor could/should pull it off, it's Ms. Winslet!

[yeah]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 12:04pm

No one? No one thinks this is cool? hehe okay...

[mormonophobic]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 2:45pm

I just think it's amazing that she's been nominated for 5 Oscars and lost each time. Before last night, 5 Golden Globe nominations and five losses. And then last night, all in one night she became a winner for both categories. If anyone deserves it, I think it's her.

[snl89]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 2:58pm

I FREAKED on the second win. I'm so so happy for her <33

She is BRILLIANT- easily one of the best actresses of this generation- and it's about damn time that she was critically recognized for it

She's so darn adorable too. I know some people have commented that they felt her speeches were self indulgent, but I didn't think so at ALL. I think she was just entirely shocked, and freaking out a bit. But I loved the speeches. Especially all the Leo love in the second one, and the way he was blowing her kisses! Too precious! :)

[broadwaybaby086]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 2:58pm

I've been a huge fan of Kate's for years and I'm so glad that the awards committees are finally not only recognizing her work as fantastic, but voting for her! She is such a skilled actress, certainly one of the best today. I saw both Revolutionary Road and The Reader in the past week and her performances in both are so well-crafted; she had better win an Oscar this year.

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 3:02pm

This makes me feel old, but I laugh when I hear people talk of a 33 year-old actress 'finally' winning an award. I like Winslet, and she certainly has an impressive body of work, but there are actors who struggle for decades before 'finally' gaining recognition (see: Burton, Richard and O'Toole, Peter). People on this board do the same with respect to the Tonys (see: Esparza, Raul).

Updated On: 1/12/09 at 03:02 PM

[snl89]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 3:14pm

This makes me feel old, but I laugh when I hear people talk of a 33 year-old actress 'finally' winning an award. I like Winslet, and she certainly has an impressive body of work, but there are actors who struggle for decades before 'finally' gaining recognition (see: Burton, Richard and O'Toole, Peter). People on this board do the same with respect to the Tonys (see: Esparza, Raul).

I do totally get what you're saying, but.. I do think that in Kate's particular case there IS some legitimate reason to say "finally", just because, young though she may be, she HAS been nominated for 5 GGs and 5 Oscars before this, you know? I so I think that's what we're referencing more than anything. Not so much just that she's an amazing actress who's yet to win major awards, but that she's so often been so CLOSE to winning those awards and yet never has before now. She's been jipped in the past, so it's really refreshing to see her win. That's all :)

But I do definitely get what you mean, and you're probably right! I AM only 19, so, you know, 13 years of no big awards for someone as good as Kate seems like a lot more to ME than it probably really is :)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 3:24pm

I was thrilled for her. I love her work immensely.

She instantly became the front runner in both Oscar categories. I wonder if anyone has ever been the front runner in both acting categories and if so, how long has it been since someone has? Could she win both on Oscar night? That would be wild. I think she will win one at least--or could she walk home empty handed if the Academy only wants to give her one but doesn't agree on which one that should be?

[Mamie]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 3:28pm

Absolutely FABULOUS!

Now all she needs is a Tony...

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 3:39pm

Let me take you back to 1989!!!!!!
Sigorny Weaver won Golden Globes for Best Supporting Actress for "Working Girl" and one for Best Actress in a Drama for "Gorillas in the Mist" (although it must be said that she ties two other actress for that award if you can believe it!!!!!!).
Then at the Oscars that year she was nominated for both awards and lost Best Supporting actress to Geena Davis for "The Accidental Tourist" and Best Actress to Jodie Foster for "The Accused" (Foster was one of the two actress who tied with Weaver).
Anyway, it's my thinking that since Golden Globe winners are usually favorites in the Oscar race if they are nominated that Academy Voters didn't want to send Weaver home with TWO Oscars that night, so they only voted for her in one category...and they probably weren't in the same category she probably didn't get enough votes in any, leaving her with no Oscar.
Let's hope the same doesn't happen to Kate Winslet...although I would like for someone else to take home one of the potential Oscars :)
Updated On: 1/12/09 at 03:39 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 3:57pm

Nice info, MTVMANN! Thanks!

And, yes, let's hope that doesn't happen.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 1/12/09 at 4:08pm

Thanks! And's that's only my theory as to what happened anyways!

Still, I'd rather that she only win ONE oscar this year!

What's strange is, I thought that her best chance was in the Supporting Category for "The Reader", while most polls said her chance was for best actress in "Revelutionary Road". So now I don't know what her best bet is...but if the "Weaver Effect" comes into play, then I would say her best Oscar bet is for "Revelutionary Road" and the Penelope Cruz would be the spoiler in the Supporting Category.

[justme2]

Posted: 1/13/09 at 12:22am

I've seen both of these performances and "The Reader" is far better, IMO. "Revolutionary Road" is a movie that seemed incomplete and her performance was unbelievable.

[yeah]

Posted: 1/13/09 at 12:23am

I already knew that about Weaver; however, prior to that, Weaver had only been nominated once for an Oscar. Winslet will most likely get two nominations this year, making her 6th and 7th, at the age of 33.

The Academy loves to award people for a body of work, whether or not their performance is the best that year. Winslet, in my opinion, has been robbed time and time again.

She deserves both of these for the simple reason that she's the best in these categories. Yes, Cruz is cute and funny in "Vicky Christina Barcelona," but, her performance can't touch what Kate Winslet does in "The Reader."

I adore Meryl Streep, but, we all know she's great. She didn't do anything brilliant in "Doubt." In fact, I thought it was boring and cowardly for them to cast someone like Streep in "Doubt." A far better choice, a riskier choice, would have been to cast Cherry Jones. It seemed too simple and uninspiring to cast Streep.

Kate Winslet deserves both, I hope she wins both, I'm sure she'll win at least one.
Updated On: 1/13/09 at 12:23 AM

[misschung]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:22pm

How is it riskier to cast Cherry Jones, who originated the role of Sister Aloysius?

Meryl Streep is one of those uncanny talents where it's almost humorous that she HASNT accrued more wins.

I like Winslet, and she certainly has an impressive body of work, but there are actors who struggle for decades before 'finally' gaining recognition

And an impressive body, to boot. Anyway, what about directors' recognition? Scorcese, anyone?

[yeah]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 8:41pm

Cherry Jones, I think, would have been riskier since she's not a film star, not a name; that's what I meant by that.

Yes, she created the role on Broadway, but, the film going masses don't really know her or her work.

Don't get me wrong, I love Meryl Streep and she's great in the film, but, she's great in everything.

[Jon]

Posted: 1/16/09 at 11:51am

DOUBT could not have been made without a star. Without Streep, there is no film.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/16/09 at 12:59pm

I don't think Winslet should win for THE READER in the Supporting category since it's very much a leading role (she should have won in 2001 when Jennifer Connelly unfairly won in the supporting category for a leading role in A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
If I were an Academy member I'd vote for her to get a nod for THE READER in the Leading category over REV ROAD.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/16/09 at 11:12pm

The Golden Globes are no longer a real indicator for Oscar wins. The SAG's are a bit closer to what may happen at the Academy Awards.

[snl89]

Posted: 1/16/09 at 11:32pm

I don't think Winslet should win for THE READER in the Supporting category since it's very much a leading role

It's funny-
I haven't seen The Reader yet, but my mom did, and when I brought up Kate's GG win for it, she was astounded to hear that it was for supporting. In fact, she said "are you sure it wasn't for the lead and her win for the other movie wasn't supporting?" and I told her I was positive the supporting win was for The Reader. She wondered how that could even be possible because it was so completely a leading role.


Now granted I've no doubt that she DESERVED both awards, but I too am wondering how exactly they managed to get her Reader role in the supporting category, if it was the only main female role in the movie?

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/17/09 at 12:48am

Julianne Moore was put into Supporting Actress for The Hours and Best Actress for Far from Heaven. While the later is the larger role, Moore ahs more screen time than Kidman who won Best Actress for the former.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/17/09 at 12:53am

I agreed the year that happened with Julianne Moore because I never felt that the story was really about Moore's character. I did feel that Virginia Woolf and Clarissa were more the principals of the story and that Laura Brown was just sort of the bridge that held the thread connecting Woolf and Clarissa together. THE HOURS is one of my favorite films ever made, and it makes sense to me that Laura Brown is considered a supporting role in the movie (she is definitely more of a lead in the book), regardless of screen time. I did think that if anyone deserved a supporting nod from THE HOURS, it was Toni Collette who had one of those Viola Davis, Ruby Dee short yet insanely powerful scenes.
On the other hand, I don't think there's any question about Winslet being the definitive lead in THE READER.

Updated On: 1/17/09 at 12:53 AM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/17/09 at 12:56am

See I thought Moore was the centerpiece of the piece. Part Virginia Woolf and part Clarissa.

[yeah]

Posted: 1/17/09 at 1:00am

Funny that Moore's role in "The Hours" comes up, while Stephen Daldry directed both, "The Hours" and "The Reader."

Category fraud has been going on for years and year and years. It exists because the Academy won't allow one actor to be nominated more than once in one category. It makes no sense, however, Kate Winslet deserve recognition for both of her brilliant pieces this season, so, I say who cares? Yes, she's the leading female role in "The Reader," but, it's Micheal's story, not Hannah's. So, that's how they're getting away with it. Supporting roles have been put into lead, and lead into supporting to get around loop holes.

Like I said, she deserves nods for both "Revolutionary Road" and "The Reader," so, who cares?

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/17/09 at 1:12am

Why is the Academy so reluctant to have actors nominated more than once in the same category. It's allowed in the non-acting categories.