Melissa Leo in Frozen River

A family of a gambling-addict man - they cannot live without him around and let him go. So, no matter how many times, he thugs them, they still keep looking for him.
This movie starts with one such day - when he runs away with the money saved by his wife for the trailer. Her teenager son is facing the dilemma of whether to continue loving his father in the same way as he did since his birth, as a child, or whether to become an adult now and face the harsh reality that he is son of an addict.
So, as the film proceeds, we are made acquainted with how Melissa's two years of sincerity and punctuality at work are ignored for favors to a younger woman, and how she is tricked into illegal human trafficking across the US-Canada border and later adopts this as a quick source of income, etc.
But thats all about the movie, where our main protagonist finally manages to accumulate the required money and get the trailer she wants, even though it means that she spends 4 months in Jail.
Our topic of discussion is the nomination of Melissa Leo for the 81st best actress academy award and where she stood as compared to the other contenders.
Over the entire span of this movie, I see the same expression on the face of Melissa. Its given that she is portraying a woman in a deep shit situation, but does that mean she had to carry on same long face all the time??
It made me wonder, is she really acting or are her facial features made this way - Which make her look a little stressed and a little nervous and a little worried and a little furiated, all the times??
May be it should have been the casting director, who should get the nomination then :P
This is the one and the major aspect i feel, which kept her from converting that nomination into an award. It deprived her from showcasing variety and intensity of her acting. Moreover, even if u like her expression in the beginning, gradually as it becomes monotonous, you tend to lose the connection with her as audience. Sarcastically speaking, people are allowed to have a different face, even in an independent, negative film.
This movie may have brought focus on those who are very often neglected, if we are to believe the commentary of academy, but I have to disagree on atleast one aspect of that commentary. I am an Indian, but why does the academy needs to brand smuggling of humans into american borders as a truest american way of hoping for a better future??
Is it just because, Melissa checks the baggage of the Pakistani couple, before letting them in her car? And, does she have a IR scanner or a metal detector fixed to her hands? I mean, she does frisk the bag of this Pakistani couple for a moment. So, doesnt she find the baby inside, alive and moving???
The writers and directors of movie may boast of the subsequent scene, when she drops the bag on the way and later retrieves it as the piece which heightened the dramatic effect of this film, but i have to bull shit it. If you open a small air bag and frisk it for the contents, its impossible to not notice a baby in it. So if they had to show all the later drama, the scene where Melissa frisks the bag should have never been there, or should have been removed during editing.
Coming back to the true american nature of her little business venture, if anyone, american or non-american can justify the commentary, please post it as a comment here. I would be enlightened :-)