In a crowded year for Best Actress contention, Anne Hathaway could be the only first-timer to receive an Oscar nomination in the lead category, possibly going up against mainstays such as her Devil Wears Prada costar Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, as well as the less-nominated vets Nicole Kidman and Kristen Scott Thomas. Her main competition for the outsider, dark horse position is Frozen River’s Melissa Leo (who may benefit from her film’s initiatory screener campaign even though River’s theatrical release was early and hardly noticed), and Happy-Go-Lucky’s Sally Hawkins, whose film just debuted to favorable reviews citing her brilliant (as in talented and bright) performance. But Hathaway is sure to be the victor –– even though her performance in Rachel Getting Married is hardly deserving of such an honor.

The Oscar buzz for Hathaway has been high for weeks now, enough that the actress apparently joked about it in her Saturday Night Live monologue earlier this month (I thought of it as less a current-year expectation than a general career goal, but it’s made Risky Biz Blog’s Steven Zeitchik compare Hathaway to Catherine O’Hara’s buzz-afflicted character in For Your Consideration). The fact that she’s a well-known movie star should make Hathaway’s buzz continually more reportable by the press and more noticeable by both the public and the voters, which gives her some advantage over Leo and Hawkins in terms of cultural consciousness.

As much as the Academy loves Streep and Winslet (and Kidman and Cate Blanchett), and as much as voters like an Oscar comeback from a relatively M.I.A. past nominee like Scott Thomas (see Julie Christie, Sissy Spacek, Ellen Burstyn, etc.), the Academy really seems to have a thing for young, pretty, popular actresses who suddenly find their (probably once-in-a-lifetime) Oscar-worthy role. Hathaway will follow the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Winona Ryder, Elizabeth Shue, Helen Hunt, Renee Zellweger, Reese Witherspoon, Ellen Page, Charlize Theron and Keira Knightley (not to mention all of those in the Supporting Actress category), some of who have actually gone on to more nominations and therefore proven themselves deserving of their original transition into Oscar territory. However, for Hathaway it isn’t simply about box office beauties who take a pay cut and/or go bad (or at least more adult), as Tom O’Neill claims. If it were that easy, Hathaway should have been nominated for Havoc or Brokeback Mountain. Instead it’s more to do with the Oscar-favored tradition of recognizing the serious turn from the beauty-stripped Hollywood princess. And it helps Hathaway that Rachel Getting Married is additionally a strong film with countless strong performances, among which she stands out the most.

But does she stand out because she’s that much better or because she’s that much more famous? To call Hathaway’s costars in Rachel comparative unknowns is a bit of an understatement. Plus, there’s the matter of Hathaway standing out because her character selfishly butts her way into attention-seeking situations. Yet despite this trait in her character and the basic plot of the film, a less-celebrated actress might have seemed more a part of the ensemble while still being the focal point of the story. It’s easy to notice Hathaway’s performance when you’re constantly reminded, thanks to star status, that it’s Hathaway as you’ve never seen her before.

The sudden display of Oscar-worthy talent is what needs to be questioned, because oftentimes a surprisingly great turn by an otherwise fine actress is more the handiwork of the director than the actor or actress. Rachel helmer Jonathan Demme has a long history of nudging merely decent actors toward a nomination. Some of his one-hit-wonders include Mary Steenburgen (Melvin and Howard), Christine Lahti (Swing Shift) and Dean Stockwell (Married to the Mob), and, of course, he’s the guy who first really convinced us that Tom Hanks could be a serious actor with Philadelphia. Demme shows his talent as an actor’s director best with Rachel, as the majority of the film’s cast could just as well receive Oscar buzz if only they had more familiar names or faces. Even Oscar vet Debra Winger might have had a better shot at another nomination if she were more recognizable (seeing Rachel at a matinee filled with old folks had me hearing the “is that…?” question almost as much as I heard it during Tropic Thunder). It’s actually a bit of a shock that relative newcomer Rosemarie DeWitt, who plays the film’s titular role, appears to be gaining heat in the Supporting Actress race, though that category’s major contenders include a number of unfamiliar names, according to In Contention’s Oscar Prediction Chart.

Without Demme’s direction, Hathaway might not have delivered the goods, as possibly evidenced in her lack of Oscar notice for Brokeback Mountain. Ang Lee is hardly an actor’s director, and yet Hathaway’s three main costars in that film (Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams) were each nominated by the Academy. Hathaway also stood out in that film, mostly as miscast and out-of-her-element, but she was extremely overshadowed performance-wise. A year later, she was upstaged in Prada by Streep, who went on to receive her 14th nomination. Now, with Rachel, she’s the upstager, but it’ll only be enough to get her into the pool of nominees.  Up against Streep and the other more experienced contenders, her celebrity alone won’t help her actually win.