Sandra Bullock For Best Actress? Ehhhh, Not So Much.

The award for Best Actress has historically been bestowed upon the lady who sacrifices mind, body and soul for a character.  Halle Berry in Monster’s Ball, Charlize Theron in Monster, Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry.  These winners join the ranks of Elizabeth Taylor, Sally Field, Katherine Hepburn and Vivien Leigh.

I’ll get to the point: I don’t believe Sandra Bullock should win Best Actress for her role in The Blind Side.

The Academy Awards are a big deal to me.  The nominees represent the year’s cream of the crop.  I have a rather rigid opinion of an Oscar-worthy performance.  For the record, I am not a member of the Academy nor do I work in the business.  I am but a simple blogger with a flair for the dramatic.  I pay attention to a film, determining if what I’m watching is heavy, sordid, or simply good enough to be an Oscar nominee.  If I offend you during this post or provoke you to tear me to shreds with fighting words, then I apologize.  I don’t mean to push buttons.  I write this only to tell you what I believe makes a nominee.  In this case: Best Actress.

Read more of this story after the jump.

Back in November, promotion got going for The Blind Side.  Some reviews were positive, but one in particular echoed my own thoughts. A.O. Scott of The New York Times 
found the film to be a good family movie but was “made up almost
entirely of turning points and yet curiously devoid of drama or
suspense.”  He didn’t see much depth in Bullock’s character, Leigh Anne
Tuohy. “Ms. Bullock’s brisk self-confidence can be appealing — until it becomes
annoying. The biggest problem here is that her character never changes,
never experiences a moment of doubt or guilt or selfishness, and after
a while her display of goodness sinks into vanity.
The Blind Side is more or less the same story as Remember The Titans and Glory Road.  I can only describe them as “swell” and “uplifting.”  The audience who enjoys The Blind Side is not the same audience in line to see A Single Man.When
buzz started to build about Bullock’s role as Oscar-worthy, I didn’t
believe it.  I saw the film and in no way think Bullock or the movie
itself have what it takes to go up against The Hurt Locker and Precious,
two totally different films with only one thing in common: the ability
to shake up an audience.  Sure enough, when Golden Globe nominations
were announced, there was Bullock, up for Best Actress.  She ended up
going home with a Globe
Then came the SAGs, which she also snapped up.  Now everyone’s
a-flutter with hopes for Sandy Bullock to take home Best Actress on
March 7th.  This goes against everything a Best Actress winner is. 
Bullock’s character was generic (a wealthy southerner who takes
in a kid off the street).  Nothing about her performance moved me
enough to think “This role was made for her.”  I think Carey Mulligan did a far better job in An Education (Mulligan is also up for Best Actress). 

Of course Meryl Streep did a good job.  She IS Julia Child.  People chatter about the vote being split between Streep and Bullock.  Last year when Kate Winslet won, I felt it was long overdue.  Winslet has mighty fine acting chops, and it’s about time the Academy recognized her.I wrap this strong opinion of mine up with a note:  I like Sandra Bullock.  I think she’s  entertaining and funny as hell.  It’s lovely that the Academy wants to recognize Bullock’s work, but her character simply wasn’t Best Actress material.  Ok-I’m all lined up for the firing squad.  Let’s have it.