Quvenzhané Wallis Makes History - Youngest Actress Nominated For Best Actress Oscar

78 Comments

• | Reply

• Breathe | January 13, 2013 1:08 PMReply

  I don't know why black people put so much weight on the Oscars. The Academy obviously doesn't care about us, or else we would be nominated for positive, non-stereotypical roles more often and our best movies would have all walked away with an award. It's all political anyway, and at worst, a mindless popularity contest not worth a damn.

• Breathe | January 14, 2013 4:33 PM

  Nah, I just have common sense enough to know that there's no accounting for taste; therefore, listing the blacks films I think should have all the awards on the planet (Bush Mama, The Cool World, Nothing But a Man, Sonny Carson, etc) would be a waste of time because once you disagree, the argument goes nowhere. All we can do is agree to disagree on the quality of said films. Plus, I don't think truly great films need awards given out by white people for validation. I was not amazed by the performances you listed, but that doesn't mean I think they're bad. Better performances by black actors and actresses have been overlooked, IN MY HONEST OPINION. If you want a prime example of mine, look at Ivan Dixon's performance in Nothing But a Man. Like I said, nobody needs awards for validation since the greatness speaks for itself, but it irks me that so many blacks take the Oscars and Golden Globes so seriously when they don't even reward all our best work. Then again, a lot of our best work is underseen or ignored entirely by the majority of the world.

• Say What? | January 14, 2013 10:03 AM

  @ Breathe, you're obviously talking out of the side of your neck. You're running from the "what black films should've won" argument b/c you know darn well your opinion would not support your argument. I mean, when you implied that Denzel, Jamie Foxx, Forrest Whitaker and Monique did not produce great performances, your taste and knowledge of acting is in serious question.

• Breathe | January 13, 2013 11:12 PM

  I'm not going to get into an argument regarding what black films should've won an Oscar. After all, there's no accounting for taste. :) I find it quite amusing that few blacks have won an Oscar for anything but stereotypical, negative roles, though. Most of those stereotypical roles didn't even produce performances I'd consider "great". But hey, if blacks want to treat the Oscars as important, be my guest. Maybe they'll reconsider when they wake up.

• Say What? | January 13, 2013 4:27 PM

  Ahhh Justine, would you call Beasts of the Southern Wild a positive movie and thus Quvenzhane's role a positive one? Besides, for the life of me, I don't understand what "positive" has to do with an award given for a superior performance. Last I checked, film is recognized as a unique and powerful art form on par with painting, sculpture, music, literature and drama. Art? Positive? History class? What?

• justine | January 13, 2013 3:31 PM

  Nominated for positive films requires writers to write those positive films. The majority of writers out there aren't black and therefore won't write those roles.

• Say What? | January 13, 2013 2:49 PM

  Do tell... and what would those positive and non-stereotypical roles have been? I watch a lot of movie, yet, a few may have slipped by me, so tell me, what were our best movies that should have walked away with an award?

• jenn brissett | January 11, 2013 4:08 PMReply

  I think the youngest to be nominated until now was Tatum O'Neal for Paper Moon (1973). She was 10. She also won the Oscar.

• COMMENT POLICE | January 11, 2013 5:00 PM

  I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE COMMENTS AND/OR THE ARTICLE MORE CLOSELY. TATUM WAS SUPPORTING, NOT LEAD.

• audiodramatist | January 11, 2013 8:19 AMReply

  You really think big "D" or any cat can beat double "D" in the Lincoln thing?

• Mark & Darla | January 10, 2013 8:32 PMReply

  Congratulation babygirl you are one in a million, crossing my fingers.

• AccidentalVisitor | January 10, 2013 8:27 PMReply

  Count me as one of those who liked "Beasts of the Southern Wild" but did not love it. It gets kudos for its unique story but I don't get the hype by people in some quarters. But, hey, different strokes for different folks. Wallis was pretty good but I don't think it was as revelatory as many folks made it out to be. I think her nomination comes in part as a result of how great a story it is for her to get that nomination and because, once again, the field of actresses to choose from is relatively weak (not that many great roles for women in general in this biz). Congrats to Wallis anyway. As for Zeitlin, the movie isn't good enough IMO for the Academy to skip Affleck and Bigelow who produced better work this time out. I will say Samuel L Jackson has been getting obverlooked by everyone (not just the Oscars) for what may be his best work in decades. Say what you want about his character and the film Django Unchained, but Jackson's performance will be remembered and appreciated for a long time down the road IMO.

• willie dynamite | January 11, 2013 12:40 PM

  Yes Sam jackson's performance was so deep and so well executed that I think it went over a lot of folks' heads. I also think the academy would have feared a major backlash for nominating him. Black intellectuals and pundits who probably haven't seen the movie would have been in an uproar. Sam murdered that role!!!

• Critics Choice | January 11, 2013 7:35 AM

  @ ACCIDENTALVISITOR, in other words, irregardless of your likes and/or dislikes of the aforementioned films, was the director's input (i.e., vision, direction, "choices") the defining factor in the film's success? Just something to ponder. And it's important to note that although you believe "Beasts of the Southern Wild" is not "good enough"... (better than what Affleck and Bigelow "produced") millions have disagreed with you.

• Critic's Choice | January 11, 2013 5:57 AM

  Totally agree with your take on Samuel Jackson. Respectfully disagree with your assessment of Affleck, Bigelow, Zeitlin and Wallis. Keeping in mind the duties of the director, how was Affleck and Bigelow superior to Zeitlin? Things to consider: Who moved their story in the most effective manner, i.e. camera angles, choice of scenes, duration of scenes, dialog, narration, choice of actors, etc? Who got the most from their cast and is that a reflection of good directing? What range of emotions were projected in each film and how were they delivered? Does the location and budget add to the challenges of the director? re: Wallis and alleged weak field. Name a child star from the past 50 years whose performance was superior to hers. Things to consider: What was their range of emotions? What was the basic attraction of the character? Was said attraction inspired by the love of a "likable" or storybook character? What were the challenges faced by each actor? ACCIDENTALVISITOR, regardless of the rest of the field, if Quvenzhane Wallis's performance was not distinctly different and distinctly superior than most performances, well... please explain why not?

• ALM | January 10, 2013 7:25 PMReply

  I also meant to add that this is a good look for both Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper. They can both say that they are Oscar nominated now. Maybe Chris Tucker can finally get the vehicle he needs to show his range since the ensemble was nominated for a Golden Globe also.

• ska-triumph | January 12, 2013 11:24 PM

  you probably figured out by now this is Jennifer Lawrence SECOND Oscar nomination for lead actress. Her breakout role in WINTER'S BONE earned her 1st nomination just two years ago.

• ALM | January 10, 2013 7:20 PMReply

  Bigelow's diss was the main surprise for me. I knew Adele would be nominated, because the industry is in love with her. Congrats to Quvenzhane. My only other wish was that Emayatzy would have received a nomination for "Middle of Nowhere", but that was too much like right.

• Donella | January 10, 2013 6:47 PMReply

  Gina Montana, the spirited school teacher in Beasts of the Southern Wild HAS to be a relative of Phyllis Montana (When the Levees Broke, God Willing and Da Creek Don't Rise). They look so similar.

• Donella | January 13, 2013 3:21 PM

  I thought it might have been her sister, but her appearance has changed and now she looks even more like Phyllis. She's become more of a firecracker like Phyllis too. Good for her.

• Rodney | January 11, 2013 11:33 AM

  They are sisters. In fact, Gina was featured in When The Levees Broke.

• Bondgirl | January 10, 2013 5:46 PMReply

  As I have said before, I'd adopt that lil girl if I could. She's a winner in my book, no matter the outcome. Love her. Go Quvenzhane! And smdh @ the rest of you Negroes trying to steal her thunder with all these "qualifying" comments. Let her have this moment w/o the usual negativity.

• Taz | January 10, 2013 9:02 PM

  Amen!

• Bondgirl | January 10, 2013 7:58 PM

  I was referring to Andrew & Bohemian Princess, but I'm giving Michelle and DJ the side-eye as well. This kid deserves to read stuff on the Internet that's positive about her, without adults projecting their own personal issues on her. Whether Willow Smith, Zahara Jolie-Pitt or Quvenzhane, black people (black women especially) have a problem allowing our kids to just fuc*ing "be"- be great, be accomplished, be experimental.

• COMMENT POLICE | January 10, 2013 6:42 PM

  OOPS, THAT WAS BOHEMIAN PRINCESS. NO IDEA WHAT PISSED THIS ONE OFF. LET ME INVESTIGATE.

• COMMENT POLICE | January 10, 2013 6:40 PM

  SHE TRIED TO CORRECT SOMEONE WHO WAS ALREADY CORRECT BELOW. INSTEAD OF ADMITTING HER FOLLY, SHE'S TRYING TO PAINT THE PEOPLE WHO CORRECTED HER AS SOMEHOW DETRACTING FROM THE MOMENT. THE LOGIC IS SHAKY ON THAT TACTIC, BUT THERE YOU HAVE IT.

• Say What | January 10, 2013 6:20 PM

  ...steal her thunder with all these "qualifying" comments? usual negativity?? Don't half-step, at who are you giving the evil side-eye?

• Justin W | January 10, 2013 5:28 PMReply

  Congratulations!!!

• BeautyIAM | January 10, 2013 5:14 PMReply

  Oh, YAY! Congratulations to her and the movie!!! So happy to see Quvenzhane. She was incredible in the movie. She has natural talent that is difficult to come by. I will be rooting for her and the movie.

• Simone | January 10, 2013 4:47 PMReply

  In the last may i was the first person in France to talk about Quvenzhané Wallis, they was nothing about her, i penned a beautiful article in our website black movie entertainment.
  
  In this article i talk about the Oscars and i say she was in a very close list to nab an Oscar nomination, i'm not surprised, the first time i saw Beast Of The Southern Wild i marvel by Hushpuppy play Wallis, because she acting extremely very well, she have the ability to act, and she understand what she played very well, and she didn't overact, she just did what is necessary and natural, and that is the reason why people love her. She's just an exceptional kid, she's a unique kid, and she made me say you can not learn everything for everything, you need to have brilliantly in yourself, and she has got all of that.
  
  I hear people say she's too young for win an Oscar, i say she can not be discriminated because she too young, she's amazing and made us say talent have nothing to see with the age, i hope she gonna win the Oscar because she's a great actress simply.

• CareyCarey | January 10, 2013 4:16 PMReply

  In a comment (down the page) I spoke about the elements of Django that I enjoyed and why I would chose it over Beasts Of The Southern Wild for Best Picture. So now I'll speak on Beast and why I need y'alls help. First, to me, BOTSW was a sad and depressing film. And, I didn't enjoy the shaky camera shots. Nor did I completely understand the relevance or the messages (subtle or overt) of the film? Also, I am not going to front, I didn't quite understand the significance of the large wild boars. Maybe I am slower than slow, but I am sure there are great minds... big thinkers here a S&A who can relieve me of my confusion. I also didn't like watching the squalor-ed conditions the habitats of the bathtub had to endure. I mean, although I understood their predicament and their love for their homefront, I nevertheless didn't enjoy feeling their pain and misery. More importantly, I did not like Hushpuppie's daddy. His heart may have been in the right place and his intentions may have been "good", but he was a mean alcoholic father who subjected his daughter to a life of pain and misery. I guess I can say he was a fool. Having said that, and although I loved Quvenzhane's performance, I can't say I "enjoyed" the film. So again, maybe someone can enlighten me on what I may have missed?

• CareyCarey | January 11, 2013 1:19 PM

  *LOL* Yes Donella, God does work in wonders... we find ourselves on the same street. And I am still waiting for someone to tell us what we may be missing?

• CareyCarey | January 11, 2013 1:08 PM

  Willie my man, I'm laughing with you b/c that is the common response... --> "it's amazing and beautiful and groundbreaking". Yeah, what the hell does that mean? Listen, when this movie first hit I remember the shakeup here in S&A. In fact, Tambay posted something on the subject --> "If you've been reading this blog long enough, you'll know that we're fans of bell hooks' critiques, essays, analyses, etc, on all things *black cinema.* We've referenced her words from time to time. When bell speaks, we pay attention, whether we agree with her or not. In short, she's definitely not a fan." Willie, Tambay posted her scathing critique and thangs got nasty. 86 comments... some agreeing with Bell Hooks, many vehemently disagreeing to a point in which some even tried to shoot the messenger. So man, after seeing the film I am now standing in the corner with you and Bell Hooks. Don't get me wrong, as a die hard movie lover, the movie had some redeeming qualities BUT...

• Donella | January 11, 2013 12:47 PM

  Dear Lord in Heaven, I actually agree with you. I'm very pleased for Wallis and her recognition, but I did not enjoy the movie.

• willie dynamite | January 11, 2013 12:31 PM

  CareyCarey I share those sentiments exactly and I have asked many people why this film is adored. They all say that it was amazing and beautiful and groundbreaking. I saw it after the hype train rolled out so I was excited to see it but I just didn't get it. I just did not respond to the material. I do get that Quvenzhane did her thing though. So if anyone has some additional insight as to why this film was so touted please share.

• Donella | January 10, 2013 3:43 PMReply

  (((Quvenzhané Wallis))) I'm rooting hard for her Lead Actress win already. Life of Pi has already stolen my heart for almost every other category.

• FactChecker | January 10, 2013 1:15 PMReply

  Congrats Little Miss Quvenzhane Wallis!! I knew the Academy couldn't deny the depth of talent that lies in this beautiful little girl's bones. What a gift God has given her. My prediction is that she wins the Best Actress category and that BSW wins best picture. Congrats to Benh Z. too. Really good guy and the picture was really beautiful. So sorry Ms. DuVernay didn't get recognized. She was truly deserving for a best director and best original screenplay, as were her actresses.

• sosgemini | January 10, 2013 12:11 PMReply

  Let's not forget to give a shout out to our brother, Reginald Hudlin, for his Best Picture nomination for Django.

• CareyCarey | January 10, 2013 11:09 AMReply

  STANDING IN APPLAUSE! She's not only one of the youngest to receive such an honor, in my opinion, her performance was the best EVER by a child actor. Since I've been "away", I just saw the film last night, so my emotional journey is fresh in my mind. That scene in which she and her father (on his death bed) dropped tears... tore through my soul. That reminds me, I have to give big props to the director, Benh Zeitlin. I've often said I don't believe a white director can or should direct black actors in films in which the characters have to display emotions, mannerisms and the small nuances that are unique to the black experience (I shouldn't have to explain what they are. Not to this audience). But in this case, this was not about being "black", this was a story of a child's journey (she could have been a "he", black or white). My point being, this child, Quvenzhané Wallis, took me on an emotional journey that few actors have ever taken me. How can a child of 9 years old own and evoke all the emotions she displayed? And, do it in such a convincing fashion? I am not easily convinced or impressed, nor moved by the performances of actors on the screen, but I believed and felt Quvenzhané's despair, courage, hatred, hope, longing for love, fear of losing a loved one, fear of being alone, joy, triumph, rejection, confusion, bewilderment, perseverance and emptiness (missing her mother). Yes, she projected all those emotion (I felt them) and I can't help but believe the director and the supporting cast played a pivotal part in taking her there. That reminds me, Hushpuppy's voice-overs/narration also, imo, played an integral role in letting me "feel" and understand what she may have been going through. Again, kudos to the director. But damn, I can't say enough about Quvenzhane's performance. Aside from her spoken words, her facial expressions, eye and body movements... those non-verbal forms of communication were spot on. The best I've ever seen by a child actor.

• Faith | January 10, 2013 11:01 AMReply

  Quvenzhane's got skills, and The Academy noticed! I'll completely lose it if she wins. #TEAMWALLIS all the way!! However, I'm bummed that Bigelow was snubbed.

• mawon | January 10, 2013 10:48 AMReply

  Not going to lie, I teared up a little bit at the news. Rooting for Beasts all the way.

• Jess | January 10, 2013 10:45 AMReply

  Go Quvenzhané, it's your birthday. SHE was the film and this nomination was very well deserved. I was worried that they would snub her and her film. So happy.

• DJ | January 10, 2013 10:34 AMReply

  Aside from its semi amusing pageantry, this is why the Oscars will continue to become irrelevant: Take a look at the Best Director category. Sure, Beasts was an indie triumph -- and I enjoyed as much as anybody -- but can you honestly say Zeitlin's direction was "better" than Tarantino, Affleck, Wes Anderson, Bigelow -- who juggled infinitely more complex pictures, larger budgets, etc? Clearly, the "auteur theory" is dead in Hollywood. Nobody will remember most of the pictures in a few years' time (Tom Hooper's win over Fincher only validates this.)

• CC | January 10, 2013 1:21 PM

  @DJ, I understand your position on the "better" argument, and to a large degree I agree. And since there is no finish line in which the victor crosses first, the debate will continue. However, considering your argument and the one presented by Mawon, my nod goes to him. But let me clarify my position. I enjoyed and was entertained -- MORE -- while watching Quentin Tarantino's Django than Beast. Consequently, if I had a vote, I would vote for Django as best picture over Beast, but Benh Zeitlin over Quentin for best director. My joy of watching Django comes from a multitude of places. First, I loved the story-line, the suspense, the acting and the action. Samuel Jackson gets my first nod. He was the epitome of a boot-licking uncle tom who cracked me up with his antics and vernacular. Jamie Fox thrilled me with his "actions", not necessarily his "acting". I also believe the selection of Christoph Waltz (in Django Unchained) over Leonardo DiCaprio was justified. DiCaprio did his thang but Waltz's performance was multi-layered. So, again, although I absolutely adored Quvenzhane Wallis's performance, and thus by a natural extension give much respect to her director, I would recommend -- to everyone --the movie "Django". "Beast", on the other hand, imo, is for a "select" audience.

• mawon | January 10, 2013 12:36 PM

  It's not effortless.... obviously. But the director's job is not to manage a production. The director's job is to tell the story with the resources in front of him/her and to direct his/her artists into cohesion. The less resources you have, the more difficult your job. There's no arguing this. That's not to say that indie films should get more brownie points for their economic handicaps. But you have to give credit to those who are able to create a film that rivals the craft, quality and complexity of Hollywood, without the funds or support. In regards to Beasts, the details are for me what puts it over films.

• DJ | January 10, 2013 12:26 PM

  @CC -- The "better" argument is, admittedly, an artificial one put out there by cinephiles and critics. Most filmmakers distance themselves from the "I'm better than..." vulgarity when speaking of their peers. Re-read my original point: "I thoroughly enjoyed Beasts.." so this isn't a Beasts-hating rant. But this argument about "indie" resourceful filmmakers having it much "harder" than commercial, big budget filmmakers/productions is flawed at best. It's the same argument folks make for denigrating "commercial, three-act" screenplays as unconventional and formulaic vs. the more "visionary" out of the box ones (i.e., Sundance idolaters...right.). If it's that facile and pressure-less to oversee $100M production --- and the pressures of managing something of that scale -- go for it and give it a try.

• CC | January 10, 2013 11:59 AM

  "can you honestly say Zeitlin's direction was "better" than Tarantino, Affleck, Wes Anderson, Bigelow?". Yes, without a doubt... when one considers the effort, individual challenges and "all" the responsibilities of a director, a person could rightfully come to a conclusion that one director was "better" than another. No one is saying that one is a better overall "director", but in the movies being considered and the individual tasks at hand, one did a better job. Piggybacking off Mawon, how much effort does it take to direct seasoned actors vs. directing "newbies". Also, are the final results (actors being nominated from a movie) more of an accomplishment if the actor(s) are seasoned or new? I am suggesting that the director plays a huge role in said performances (it's his vision). It's also a fact that limited resources could mean smaller crews, b-line actors, limited travel, less exposure, and less shooting time.

• mawon | January 10, 2013 11:40 AM

  I guess this is a matter of opinion because I saw all those movies you're referring to, and I'll still say that Zeitlin's first-time go blew the others out of the water (excuse the pun). No other movie carried as much emotional weight as Beasts did. And the delicate fusion of multiple elements....he brought something to the cinema this year that was completely unique from the other players. It's a heavily layered film whose complexity lies in the nuances. I think you're wrong about Beasts. It will be remembered. And I'm happy sometimes the Academy doesn't play the popularity games like other award shows.

• DJ | January 10, 2013 11:12 AM

  That's an argument made often with indie films. Low budget doesn't make a film any more innovative or visionary (and neither does "high budget" make it polished or noteworthy). My only point is, regardless of personal taste, no way does the skill exemplified by QT, Affleck (in just his 3rd film) or Wes Anderson (whose films clearly express a distinct sensibility) get completely ignored in a "Best Direction" category. That's why these categories and voting has become frivolous.

• mawon | January 10, 2013 10:51 AM

  Yes, you can honestly say that. The smaller the budget, the more difficult the task. You try directing under time-pressed conditions with a six-year-old as your lead supported by a heap of first-time actors. You have to be twice as innovative and creative when working outside the industry. And your story has to be twice as good for it to be recognized.

• sosgemini | January 10, 2013 10:32 AMReply

  Wow! With Argo and Zero Dark Thirty not getting director nominations, you can count those films out for Best Picture. Well, there's a slight chance they could become the new Driving Miss Daisy but---I doubt it.

• sosgemini | January 10, 2013 10:34 AM

  ...and they were the front runners up till today. Wow!

• XXX | January 10, 2013 10:28 AMReply

  Riva makes history as well.

• Tania | January 10, 2013 10:27 AMReply

  Wallis shouldn't be nominated. Cotillard deserved more

• Bohemian princess | January 10, 2013 10:06 AMReply

  So very proud of her but she's not the youngest in history to get nominated. That honor belongs to Jack Henry, the kid from Kramer vs. Kramer who was nominated at age 8 (best supporting actor) Quvenzhane is 9. Jackie Cooper won for Skippy (best actor) in 1931. He was 9. Quvenzhane is however the youngest best actress nominee. If she wins she will be the second youngest to ever win. At the time of Jackie Cooper's win in 1931 he was less than 2 months past his 9th birthday. Although to Quvenzhane's credit she was only 6 at the time she gave her brilliant performance in Beasts. That accomplishment is unmatched. She should be proud.

• mawon | January 10, 2013 10:52 PM

  Lol @ Comment Police. And for the record, ain't nobody mad. I just wanted you to know how useless your fact checking was. Good night!

• COMMENT POLICE | January 10, 2013 4:49 PM

  @BOHEMIAN PRINCESS, FOR STARTERS, YOU COULD HAVE RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO THE POSTER YOU WERE CORRECTING, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU COULD HAVE READ THEEBONYCINEMATHEQUE'S POST CLEARLY. "1st, I wanna say how proud I am of Lil Miss Wallis for not only being the youngest person in history to be nominated IN THIS CATEGORY." "THIS CATEGORY" BEING BEST ACTRESS. BOTH MAWON AND THE ORIGINAL POSTER ARE CORRECT, UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE WRONG. IT'S SETTLED.

• Bohemian princess | January 10, 2013 2:21 PM

  @Mawon, *sigh* once again my comment was NOT in response to Tambay's post. It was in response to another reader that mistakenly identified Quvenzhane as the youngest nominee in the Academy's history when that is the case. The reader did not differentiate between actor/actress so I just wanted to clarify for everyone. I can see this project means a lot to you because you are really making much ado about nothing. I am proud of Quvenzhane but I'm not really going to get my knickers in a twist over something so nonsensical. It's really not that serious. Who knew that a congratulatory post could bring out the hostility in some people? Go figure. @Anwar, you are absolutely right. I stand corrected. Here's to hoping Quvenzhane pulls the upset (from what I've read Jennifer Lawrence is the front runner) and makes history.

• Anwar | January 10, 2013 1:53 PM

  Jackie Cooper didn't win. She WOULD be the youngest winner ever. Currently the youngest is Tatum O'Neal.

• mawon | January 10, 2013 12:41 PM

  He/she qualified with "in this category" so you're still not correcting anyone.....sorry.

• Bohemian princess | January 10, 2013 12:20 PM

  @Mawon, I was actually correcting a poster below me, (theebonycinematheque) not Tambay. Perhaps I should have specified but your attitude is really unecessary. Ugh!

• mawon | January 10, 2013 10:45 AM

  But Tambay did specify Best Actress, so you're not correcting anything.

• Adam Scott Thompson | January 10, 2013 10:04 AMReply

  None of the announcements surprised me except in the Best Director category. I felt that Anderson did a great job with "The Master," as did Affleck with "Argo." If you're going to have ten slots for Best Picture, why not do the same for Best Director? In any case, I like how the race is shaping. It's always more exciting when you can't say for sure who will win for what.

• Adam Scott Thompson | January 10, 2013 10:07 AM

  Oh yeah... left out Kathryn Bigelow. One of the realest in the game right now -- male or female.

• lauren | January 10, 2013 9:57 AMReply

  So thrilled for Beasts of Southern Wild!

• Andrew | January 10, 2013 9:51 AMReply

  Te previously youngest actress to be nominated was not Keisha Castle-Hughes; it was Tatum O'Neal for Paper Moon. She won, and was 10 at the time.

• Tambay | January 10, 2013 10:07 AM

  That's incorrect. This is for the Best Actress category. Tatum O'Neal was nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category for "Paper Moon."

• Peter G | January 10, 2013 9:49 AMReply

  No nominations for Ava Duvernay's "Middle of Nowhere"? had my fingers crossed!

• Michelle | January 10, 2013 9:41 AMReply

  This is child exploitation, I can't understand how you are happy for this.

• Aaron | January 10, 2013 10:16 AM

  How exactly is this nomination of Quvenzhané Wallis a child exploitation topic in your mind? That little girl acted her butt off in that film and you are crying about child exploitation.

• Nadia | January 10, 2013 10:07 AM

  bell hooks, is that you?

• Winston | January 10, 2013 9:50 AM

  And you win the award for "First Negative/Crazy Comment To Be Posted Regarding This Wonderful News". Bamma.

• Denise Mitchell | January 10, 2013 9:47 AM

  HUH?! -_- please explain.

• BLOB | January 10, 2013 9:26 AMReply

  So happy that Wallis got the nom and that Bigelow was left out. Both extremely well deserved.

• Taz | January 10, 2013 9:13 AMReply

  Whoo hoo! Congrats to Ms. Quvenzhane!

• No | January 10, 2013 9:09 AMReply

  It'll be a battle for best picture between Lincoln, representing, as Lincoln himself said, our better angels, or Zero Dark Thirty, the torturing soul of America.

• TheEbonyCinematheque | January 10, 2013 9:05 AMReply

  1st, I wanna say how proud I am of Lil Miss Wallis for not only being the youngest person in history to be nominated in this category and the 1st African American child nominated for an Oscar! 2nd I'm so glad to see Django to be nominated for Best Picture, because even if it doesn't win -- it reflects a new climate for the industry and the Oscars, where a film that shows the attitudes of previous filmmakers like Melvin Van Pebbles and Gordon Parker's can be considered as the best picture.

• Peace Seaker | January 10, 2013 9:02 AMReply

  So proud of that little girl from BEAST OF THE SOUTHERN WILD. She's the youngest ever in that category I believe. Will definitely be watching for her on Oscar night.