So I'm bad with numbers and haven't really been keeping up with the odds-makers. Thankfully Marion supporter Kit has and here is his take:
As of this morning, David Carr of the NEW YORK TIMES has predicted Marion as the winner on Sunday. Here's a little of what he said:
"Deep into the season it seemed Julie Christie would win for her role as a woman lost in the wilds of Alzheimer's disease, but the Bagger's (his pseudonym) instinct suggests that her legendary beauty and aura may not do the trick....Marion Cotillard did herself and LA VIE EN ROSE a world of good by graciously campaigning and spreading her charm....so the Bagger is going with Piaf's gorgeous doppelganger."
Others filing late predictions of Marion as the winner include David Ansen, NEWSWEEK; David Germaine, Associated Press; Moira MacDonald, SEATTLE TIMES; Bill Wine (?), Celebrity News Service; Jen Chaney, WASHINGTON POST; Jill Serjeant, Reuters, in the WASHINGTON POST, plus FILM EXPERIENCE, BOSTON HERALD, ATLANTA DAILY REPORT, and the MARIN INDEPENDENCE JOURNAL.
Much of the blowviating over Christie is by people who say, "I didn't see her film, but everyone is talking about it," or, "the Academy loves giving Oscars to old British actors," or "I didn't see any of the films but I respect her work." It reminds me of the opening song in GUYS & DOLLS, where the bettors are talking about the latest tip someone whispered in their ear as to what animal to bet: "I got the horse right here, his name is Paul Revere, and I'm told that whenever the weather's clear, can do, can do, I hear that the horse can do." Or something like that. That group seems to have been reflecting what they heard rather than making up their own minds. Most people in the Academy are much more committed and serious about the weight of their votes (or at least the people I know), and they work in the field because they love talent and cherish hard work.
Younger journalists and "critics" chose Ellen Page, because they can relate to Juno's circumstances, I guess. But most seasoned writers seem to think "it's not her year." Well, there's Roger Ebert, long of the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, who apparently has lost his reason over JUNO, but he's not the influence he once was. And none of these people vote for Oscars.
Kit also sent encouraging news earlier today:
This is from the NATIONAL POST, and will be hopefully prophetic. I like "Hollywood pundits have prematurely offered the best actress statue to icon Julie Christie....But hold on now. Marion Cotillard's astounding LA VIE EN ROSE portrait of Edith Piaf just could get the glory deserved.".....Betting for Las Vegas gamblers (and elsewhere) has moved to Cotillard, win 5/2, according to majorwager.com....
Update. If you're a betting man/woman:
But Christie is the only actress that requires more of a risk than a reward. Marion Cotillard (nominated for La Vie En Rose) is listed with 2/1 odds. You'll notice that in Cotillard's case, the number to the left is larger than the number to the right. This is where excelling in High School math really would have been important perhaps. The number to the left indicated your payout. The number to the right indicates how much you will have to bet to receive that payout. In this case (2/1), you would bet $1 to win $2. Of course if you were to bet $2, you would win $4 (for every $1 bet you win $2) and so on. Of course you win nothing if Cotillard doesn't take home an Oscar.Source. I might just make a little bet...(seriously).
The best payout for Cotillard is actually at Bookmaker.com, which has been in business since 1985 and is offering a 20% signup bonus. There, Cotillard pays out $2.25 for every $1.00 bet. Just 25 cents more but that adds up the more you wager. Bookmaker.com's utilizes the American Odds format. In other words Cotillard is listed as +225 and can be thought of as $1.00 pays out $2.25 or $10 pays out $22.50 or a $100 bet pays out $225.00. Notice how the decimal point keeps moving to the right depending on the size of the bet.