BAFTA Awards

By February 12, 2017Nat-news, News

The BAFTA ceremony was held today at the Royal Albert Hall in London. Unfortunately Natalie was unable to attend due to her advanced state of gestation (the same happened six years ago when she was nominated for Black Swan). This time, the best actress award has been again for Emma Stone in La La Land. In any case, Jackie has won the best costumes award for Madeline Fontaine. Congratulations to the winner.


Author Belerofonte

More posts by Belerofonte

Join the discussion 13 Comments

  • Namor12a says:

    :But…Who What Wear…WWW…!?Ā” šŸ™‚

  • Natness says:

    ItĀ“s a shame how the industryĀ“s love affair with La La Land leaves NatalieĀ“s artistically far superior performance unrewarded. A film, and actress, that are merely nice and likable are being showered with prizes while less enjoyable but profound work does not get the recognition it deserves. In a few year, perhaps earlier, when the crush has become daily routine, we will look back at this awards season with embarrassment.

    • Andreas says:

      It’s not even just that. Even Isabelle Huppert doesn’t have a chance, and her performance was spectacular, too. It should be a head-to-head between Portman and Huppert. Emma Stone is really good in La La Land, but above those two performances? It isn’t right.

  • Brian says:

    Pretty obvious Natalie isn’t getting the Oscar. Maybe in another three years.

  • Shannon says:

    Sorry, off topic but, Mathilda was Natalie’s best character to date. Mathilda had ShakespearIan depth and power. You could imagine her growing up to be a cleaner, but Mathilda grew up to be a politician. How does that happen and how does her time as a 12-year old assassin affect her performance as a politician in a crisis? She, like her mentor Leon, is one focused, simple, disciplined, milk-drinking, plant-loving professional, who really hates corruption in high places, but who may not have a standard ethical code, and who certainly has friends in very low places. She might just be President one day, if she and her career survive the present crisis. But is that good or bad? I think the answer could be popular, entertaining, and profound.

  • Nina says:

    Maybe it’s better she’s not winning. I feel like there may be a backlash if she won her second Oscar. Especially considering people like Amy Adams haven’t won their first. She still has critical acclaim for her performance and I think the role showed to her doubters that she’s not a one trick pony.

    • Natness says:

      But what kind of backlash would that be? If someone deserves an Oscar, why not award it to that person even if its their second one? Amy Adams isnĀ“t even nominated this year.

  • Nina says:

    Amy Adams was only an example. There are many actors that have been nominated several times but have yet to win. Unfortunately many people seem to have an irrational dislike of Natalie. I think having two oscars will probably give people another reason to dislike her. I have yet to see La La Land but I think Stone’s performance has to be something special if she is winning over Natalie

    • Rachel says:

      I haven’t seen La La Land either, but it’s curious to me that the only three performances I’ve heard people really rave about are Natalie’s, Isabelle’s and Amy’s. I haven’t heard much at all about Emma’s performance, and people on social media seem surprised by her awards sweep.

    • Natness says:

      I donĀ“t care about people šŸ˜‰

      And quite frankly, I think that showering La La Land with Oscars will result in more and more people disliking the film, as a narrative will form around it saying “itĀ“s okay but it really didnĀ“t deserve that”. ItĀ“d be easier to love La La Land as the film that “nearly won”.

      As to StoneĀ“s performance: itĀ“s good, really. But itĀ“s nothing special. Given the other nominees in her category, the Oscar would go to the least worthy performance if it was given to Emma. Which is what will be happening in two weeks.

  • jesslv74 says:

    I really wish I would have seen the movie, just to know if she’s really deserving of the Oscar (and all of the other awards) rather than the other women who are nominated.

  • jesslv74 says:

    I know it’s subjective, but still…I wanna see what all of the fuss is about.

  • Belerofonte says:

    I have seen all the nominations for the Oscars, except, paradoxically, Natalie’s (Jackie is finally released this Friday in Spain), and all of them have an excellent level. Emma Stone is radiant in La Land, but her whole performance is based on her overflowing charisma. Instead, what Natalie or Isabelle Huppert do is impressive, and very difficult to achieve for an actress. I sincerely believe that in any other year (last year, for example), Natalie would have won without any difficulty.

    In any case, it seems that the reception of the film by the guilds has not been as enthusiastic as the critics in Venice and Toronto. It’s too “artistic” apparently (whatever that means). The Academy will always prefer ten “Hidden Figures” than one “Jackie” … unfortunately.