Let's Talk Best Supporting Actress

[Reza]

I haven't seen Are You There, God? It's Me Margaret, so I can't speak to the merits of Rachel McAdams' worthiness

Please do watch it. Wonderful little film with a great performance by the young actress playing the lead. And Kathy Bates totally outshines Rachel McAdams in the film so its baffling why critics are going gaga over the latter.

[Big Magilla]

I think they have separate juries for each acting category which would explain why they would nominate Paul Mescal and Claire Foy for All of Us Strangers but not Andrew Scott while at the same time nominating Teo Yoo but not Greta Lee for Past Lives.

The tech categories do not have juries which is why the usual suspects fared so well in them.

Some combination of the BAFTA acting nominees should be reflective of what the acting branch of the Academy is going to do. How much Oscar will mirror them is an open question. We'll find out in just a couple of days.

As for supporting actress, Da'Vine Joy Randolph is winning this thing hands down. The only other potential nominee I see getting in on merit alone is Rosamund Pike.

Both Claire Foy and Emily Blunt have the "owed" factor going for them.

Foy, in addition to her strength of performance, has been overlooked at least twice in the past for First Man and Women Talking just last year, which makes her a strong contender. Blunt has also been deserving of nominations that she didn't receive in the past and will almost certainly be given a coattail nomination for Oppenheimer.

That leaves at least three strong contenders for the fifth slot in Jodie Foster, Julianne Moore, and Danielle Brooks. I'd personally give it to Jodie Foster, but I like Julianne Moore's work in May December almost as much so I wouldn't be upset if she grabbed the spot. I do think, however, that it is likely to be Danielle Brooks in the role that made Oprah Winfrey famous. It's Ariana DeBose in Rita Moreno's role in West Side Story all over again but it stops with the nomination. She has no chance of winning.

I haven't seen Are You There, God? It's Me Margaret, so I can't speak to the merits of Rachel McAdams' worthiness, but America Ferrara in Barbie baffles me. It's a fine performance as far as it goes but it's so minor. And anyway, how many of Ryan Gosling's co-stars are there room for? Both Foy (First Man) and McAdams (The Notebook) are former co-stars while Margot Robbie and Emma Stone (La La Land) are strong Best Actress contenders.

[danfrank]

As I've got more and more contenders under my belt, the less certain I am Blunt deserves a nomination. Don't get me wrong: have loved the lady since Devil Wears Prada, and would hate to see her disappointed. But Foy, Cruz, Moore, Pike, maybe even Viola Davis have stronger roles, and are clearly behind her in the queue if not out of the race entirely. It's going to be a real test of my connected-to-best-picture-nominee theorem, because that, to me, is close to the only thing she has going for her...yet it seems to have put her on a glide path.

I quite agree with this. I gave Oppenheimer a second watch, paying special attention to the performers. Blunt’s performance is pretty lifeless and one-note, just so dour that it’s difficult to locate a real human in there. What Blunt has going for her is that she’s quite a likable person in real life, has gained a lot of good will through past (superior) performances, is playing an alcoholic (the Academy loves nominating people playing alcoholics), is perceived as due, and is attached to the award behemoth that is Oppenheimer.

She should have at least been nominated for Prada, where she was incredibly funny.

[Mister Tee]

This race is a muddle.

I had a lunch date today and have been busy since, and now I'm too tired to give my all to either the BAFTA nominations or this topic. Perhaps tomorrow.

But, for right this moment, I couldn't agree more with this summary comment. The BAFTA nominations are such an incoherent mess -- raising questions like "Which ones came from voters, and which from the jury?" and "How can everything about All of Us Strangers except its most-loved element be cited?" -- that they've made many categories less clear rather than more. (I'd argue best director, with the BAFTA omissions of both Scorsese and Lanthimos, has opened that already-overstuffed category to the possibility of 2012-like craziness.)

As for this batch...Randolph is in as the winner. That, I'd assert, is the only thing we know for sure.

As I've got more and more contenders under my belt, the less certain I am Blunt deserves a nomination. Don't get me wrong: have loved the lady since Devil Wears Prada, and would hate to see her disappointed. But Foy, Cruz, Moore, Pike, maybe even Viola Davis have stronger roles, and are clearly behind her in the queue if not out of the race entirely. It's going to be a real test of my connected-to-best-picture-nominee theorem, because that, to me, is close to the only thing she has going for her...yet it seems to have put her on a glide path.

The system also puts America Ferrera way ahead of other competitors. But how strongly can it be working for her when she missed SAG, where Barbie's kicking butt?

And, yeah: what do we do with Danielle Brooks, who's in the opposite position: losing by almost all criteria I've cited, yet showing up everywhere?

The real problem may continue to be, too many quality candidates for limited slots.

[Sabin]

I started this thread a little over a month ago and basically said that there was one front-runner for this award (Randolph), three I felt pretty good about (Brooks, Moore, and Blunt), and then going through Mister Tee's tiered system I generously listed eleven other possibilities (Alexander, Davis, Ferrara, Foy, Henson, Huller, Pugh, Pike, Foster, Cruz, and McAdams).

It's one month later. All the critic's, guilds, and precursors have been listed and what do we know? One of my three choices I feel good about, I no longer feel good about (Moore). Of the eleven very generously pulled choices, I can only safely eliminate three. Erika Alexander is not getting nominated. Had I seen the film before started this post, I wouldn't have listed her in the first place. Viola Davis is not getting nominated for Air. Taraji P. Henson is not getting nominated for The Color Purple. Florence Pugh is not getting nominated for Oppenheimer. To be fair, all of these were pretty big long shots a month ago.

Beyond that, I don't feel comfortable totally eliminating anyone else. I would be very surprised if America Ferrara or Rachel McAdams got nominated but it's not not impossible.

What I'm trying to say is now that we know everything we have less clarity.

I really liked Mister Tee's strategy:
-Role in a Best Picture contender
-Paired with a Leading Actor contender
-Previous winner/nominee

The probably is a lot of the possibilities are sort of questionable in all of those regards.

Are All of Us Strangers, The Color Purple, May December, and Saltburn really Best Picture contenders at this point? Are Fantasia Barrino, Annette Bening, Barry Keoghan, and Andrew Scott really contender for Best Actor or Actress? All of these contenders are on shaky ground.

What we do know is this:
-Barbie, The Holdovers, Oppenheimer, and probably The Zone of Interest are getting nominated which is good for America Ferrara, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, Emily Blunt, and Sandra Huller.
-Paul Giamatti, Cillian Murphy, and probably Margot Robbie are getting nominated, which is good for America Ferrara, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, and Emily Blunt.
-If nothing else, Penelope Cruz, Jodie Foster, Rachel McAdams, Julianne Moore, and Rosamund Pike are previous nominees and/or winners.
-Going off a passing (but interesting) comment about Netflix films being over-valued by SAG, that's points against Jodie Foster & Julianne Moore.

By this math, we should probably be looking at a lineup of:
Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer)
America Ferrara (Barbie)
Sandra Huller (The Zone of Interest)
Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers)
Either Penelope Cruz (Ferrari), Rachel McAdams (Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret.), and Rosamund Pike (Saltburn)

That said, this math leaves out Danielle Brooks, one of the few contenders to get a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a BAFTA nomination.

But again, it could also leave out double nominations (at least) for Andrew Scott/Claire Foy nominations, Barry Keoghan/Rosamund Pike nominations, etc.

This race is a muddle.

[Sabin]

flipp525 wrote
I am so confused by the Erika Alexander talk for American Fiction. She’s always a likable presence and does nicely with the love interest role in the film, but there is nothing there for a nomination. Trust me. Tracie Ellis Ross does more in her much more limited screen time. I could even see a veteran campaign for Lesley Uggams making more sense than Alexander being singled out as the supporting female performance.

Agreed. It was just based on online chatter. I just don’t think Fiction is going to make a play in this category. It’s Wright and Sterling Brown.

Having just seen Ferrari, I’m inclined to think any voters who see this film are going to vote for Cruz. This is a very meaty role that provides a fresh variation on a lot of things I think people like to see her do, not just here and there but in practically every scene. It’s also a consequential role. Obviously she’ll have a better shot if Ferrari plays more of a factor in other (cough) races.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I have a system to try and suss out supporting slates. It's one I came to fairly late in my Oscar life -- after the results of the 2015 supporting actor race.

It may have came to you late in Oscar life because you didn't need it before.

I just applied the three rules you mentioned ((1)BEST PICURE-CONTENDING, (2) BEST LEADING ACTOR/ACTRESS-CONTENDING, 3) PREVIOUS NOMINE/WINNER) to two ranges of nominees: my early Oscar-viewing life (1995-2008) and then the "current era" (2009-2023) (two roughly similar spans of time) and this is what I found:

From 2009-Present, there are 2 nominees that broke that criteria: Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) and Brian Tyree Henry (Causeway). One Night in Miami was strongly Best Picture-contending so Odom Jr. wouldn't qualify.

From 1995-2008, there were nine nominees that broke that criteria, although there were some borderline cases like Clive Owen (Closer), George Clooney (Syriana), Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man), and Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road) who were in films that at one point were Best Picture contending and attached to leading contenders but ultimately proved not to be the case on Oscar morning.

From 2009-Present, I see 2-3 nominees that broke this criteria. Jackie Weaver (Animal Kingdom), Maria Bakalova (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm), and arguably Jennifer Jason Leigh for The Hateful Eight. She's a special case because at one point The Hateful Eight was Best Picture-contending (not by Oscar morning) and also even though Jennifer Jason Leigh was getting her first nomination in 2015 it really didn't feel that way. One could make the case that with a Golden Globe win and a PGA nomination that Borat Subsequent Moviefilm was Best Picture-contending but it really doesn't feel that way.

From 1995-2008, once again I see about 9 that broke the criteria with Natalie Portman as a borderline case for Closer.

This is a significant shift. My first Oscar viewing year saw Kevin Spacey and Mira Sorvino winning with Brad Pitt, Tim Roth, and Mare Winningham all in the hunt.

That makes Brian Tyree Henry's nomination all the more miraculous not just because of how much his nomination flies in the face of your criteria (for which I have a theory) but because of his competition:
*Paul Dano: Best Picture-contending, Paired with a Leading Nominee (or maybe this is proof that she wasn't)
*Brad Pitt: Previous Nominee/Winner
*Eddie Redmayne: Previous Nominee/Winner
*Ben Winshaw: Best Picture-contending

The only reason I can see Henry getting in had to do with the relative weakness of his competition as well as the fact that Apple really hard. I saw billboards in Los Angeles everywhere touting his candidacy.

Whatever the reason, let's hope it's a trend that continues.

[Eric]

Dafoe has twice, in the last 5 or so years, been nominated for films that got no other nominations. Now, in neither of those years could it be said the competition was fierce (on check, the biggest "snubs" for either of them were probably Ethan Hawke in First Reformed and Michael Stuhlbarg in Call Me By Your Name) but I think it's safe to say he's very well-liked and he'd have a solid leg-up to get in even if Poor Things weren't a juggernaut.

[danfrank]

Yeah, those are good examples and your point is well-taken. As others have said I think this is true mostly because there are a lot of Academy members who are not avid filmgoers and only watch a limited number of screeners, prioritizing those in the Best Picture race. Critics generally DO watch all the films, in which case one can argue that their choices are more legit than the Academy’s.

[Mister Tee]

Look: I really like Melton's performance, and am happy he's been getting this encouragement. But I also liked Peter Sarsgaard in Shattered Glass, Bill Murray in Rushmore, and Steve Buscemi in Ghost World. All these guys were feted with critics' awards, but fell short at the Oscar nominations because their films didn't give them enough support. Critics have some sway -- they surely got Drive My Car into the mix -- but, in the particular case of the supporting nominations, the precedents all point the way Sabin and I have been discussing.

It may all be moot, if May December manages a ballot-of-10 slot. Or if (less likely) Portman gets a nomination. And Melton will be helped by the fact that May December contends in such other categories as screenplay and supporting actress -- a situation that didn't apply to JLo or those 2015 male disappointments. But i wouldn't write his name in ink just yet.

[Big Magilla]

Agree. Melton is doing than "hanging in there", he's winning in situations where none of his co-stars are even being considered.

Sessa and Brown may get coattail nominations, but it might be more likely that they bump De NeNiro and maybe Ruffalo before Melton, Downey, or Gosling. Dafoe is a long shot at this point.

[danfrank]

I know that critics awards are not a factor in this nomination-guessing system, but maybe they should be? A case in point might be Melton, who has won multiple critics awards and is getting nominated for bunches of other awards. As of now I’m predicting that May December doesn’t get nominated for Best Picture or Best Actress, given their predilection to snub Haynes films. Doesn’t it seem likely that Melton will get nominated anyway given the boatload of critical attention he’s receiving?

[Sabin]

A quick tangent into Best Supporting Actor-ville:

Mister Tee wrote
From this outcome, I drew up my steps-to-a-supporting nod, which is roughly the one others are referencing, but maybe with a touch or two of my own.

The best route, as we found in 2015, is being attached to a best picture nominee. It does have to be a credible performance -- once that's been at least marginally in the conversation.

*Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction
*Willem DaFoe, Poor Things
*Robert DeNiro, Killers of the Flower Moon
*Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer
*Ryan Gosling, Barbie
*John Magaro, Past Lives
*Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things
*Dominic Tessa, The Holdovers
With Charles Melton, hanging in there.

Mister Tee wrote
Second best is to be in tandem with someone assured of a nomination in lead.

*Willem DaFoe, Poor Things
*Robert DeNiro, Killers of the Flower Moon
*Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer
*Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Mister Tee wrote
A notch further down: be matched with a person at least strongly contending for a lead slot, even if they fall short.

*Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction
*Ryan Gosling, Barbie
*John Magaro, Past Lives
*Charles Melton, May December
*Dominic Sessa, The Holdovers

A case could be made that Brown, Gosling, Sessa, and possibly Melton belong in the former category.

Mister Tee wrote
If you don't have any of those advantages, your best bet is to be a former winner, or at least nominee.

*Willem DaFoe, Poor Things
*Robert DeNiro, Killers of the Flower Moon (only winner)
*Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer
*Ryan Gosling, Barbie
*Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Mister Tee wrote
The toughest way, bar none, of making the roster is to be none of these things: a first-time aspirant, not attached to a best film or lead acting contender.

I'm probably missing somebody but by this formula, it's DaFoe, DeNiro, Downey Jr., Gosling, and Ruffalo.

Melton's best shot would be if May December was a Best Picture nominee and if Natalie Portman was a Best Actress nominee but with neither he's in trouble.

If Paul Giamatti and Jeffrey Wright are in the Best Actor mix, that helps Brown and Sessa.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
What I'm wondering: how long a list the Broadcasters will issue tomorrow, to cover as many of these possibilities as they can?

Not quite, just the usual base-covering six. (btw, excellent analysis)

This year, they dropped Rosamund Pike despite headlines reading "The Color Purple and Saltburn surge!" (with 5 and 3 noms? Really, it should be CC don't dig foreign films this year) and gave America Ferrera her first showing. A Critic's Choice nomination doesn't mean that something isn't *STILL* a blogger fantasy but it's clearly less of one now and more in the realm of the real.

All of which leads Ferrara (by your criteria) to be running more or less equal to Brooks and Moore.

re: Julianne Moore
I wrote that All of Us Strangers is a film that could get six nominations or zero. May December strikes me as a similar thing. It's writing nomination is a good bet and Charles Melton seems to be in good standing right now (I wouldn't call him a lock) but today May December's good luck ran a bit dry when it couldn't get in for Best Picture over The Color Purple and Saltburn and (more meaningfully) these star-fuckers didn't nominate Natalie Portman. With Julianne Moore, her film's Best Picture status is a question mark and so is being attached to lead acting contenders, but she has enough going for her at this point to be considered in the running.

Mister Tee wrote
Phantom Thread is at this point enshrined in memory a major nominee, but we forget what a late bloomer it was: none of us had any idea it was even good, until the moment it won the screenplay prize at NY. It went unseen by many of those other critics' groups. BAFTA was the first signal it would play a part in the race, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Brits did the same for Scott/Foy (and their film) this year.

Facts.

Which leads me to my last observation:
A quick scan of previous CC lineups reveal an average of 4/6 Best Supporting Actress nominees go onto a nomination. Occasionally, they grab the full five (2020, 2016, 2015, 2010), sometimes they dip below (just 2021 by my count). So, which of the six Critic's Choice nominees would I drop? Gun to my head, Ferrara and Foster. Maybe Moore. But here's the thing, if SAG and BAFTA nominations come out and Brooks is missing, then it's no question.

But for where we stand today, I'll whittle them down into tiers a la Okri:

Tier 1: Randolph
(big leap)
Tier 2: Blunt, Brooks
(medium leap)
Tier 3: Ferrera, Foster, Moore
(no space)
Tier 4: Cruz, Foy, Gladstone, Pike, McAdams

Scattered thoughts with SAG and BAFTA coming up:
-all Foy really needs (IMO) to make a leap is a BAFTA.
-if Ferrara doesn't get a SAG nomination, I think she drops.
-Brooks is going to remain a question mark for me until box office receipts drop.

[Mister Tee]

A subject that very much deserves its own thread, and I'm pleased Sabin got one kicked off.

I have a system to try and suss out supporting slates. It's one I came to fairly late in my Oscar life -- after the results of the 2015 supporting actor race. You may remember, we had an extremely wide, exciting field of candidates by that year's end --in addition to the five ultimately nominated, we were looking at Paul Dano in Love and Mercy, Benicio Del Toro in Sicario, Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation, Jacob Tremblay in Room, Michael Shannon in 99 Homes, Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina; there was even talk of Michael Keaton in support for Spotlight (though that was undercut by his winning lead in NY). Some of these got prelim nominations: Dano at the Globes, Del Toro at BAFTA, Elba/Shannon/Tremblay at SAG -- Elba actually won the latter. But, when AMPAS rolled out its roster, the nominees were four performers attached to best picture nominees -- Christian Bale, Mark Ruffalo, Mark Rylance, and Tom Hardy (who'd only been a peripheral part of the conversation) -- plus veteran Sylvester Stallone, in his first nomination in nearly 40 years.

From this outcome, I drew up my steps-to-a-supporting nod, which is roughly the one others are referencing, but maybe with a touch or two of my own.

The best route, as we found in 2015, is being attached to a best picture nominee. It does have to be a credible performance -- once that's been at least marginally in the conversation. (Theoretically, you could have promoted Tracey Letts in Lady Bird -- or Little Women -- but there wasn't enough heat around him to really lift him into contention.) But being seen in one of the big ten is a clear boost.

Second best is to be in tandem with someone assured of a nomination in lead. Sally Hawkins was borderline in Blue Jasmine, but the Blanchett train pulled her along. Maggie Gyllenhaal got her surprise first citation for proximity to presumed best actor winner Jeff Bridges. Marcia Gay Harden was a surprise nominee for Pollock, and had Ed Harris to thank. (Which she did, when she ultimately won.)

A notch further down: be matched with a person at least strongly contending for a lead slot, even if they fall short.

If you don't have any of those advantages, your best bet is to be a former winner, or at least nominee. That's how Stallone survived that 2015 bloodbath. It may be why Kathy Bates got that Richard Jewell nod. Penelope Cruz in Nine, Michael Shannon in Nocturnal Animals, Close in Hillbilly Elegy -- all dubious prospects, helped along by "you've been here before" status.

The toughest way, bar none, of making the roster is to be none of these things: a first-time aspirant, not attached to a best film or lead acting contender. This was what was so impressive about Brian Tyree Henry making the grade last year. It was his first time up, his film wasn't even a consideration in any other category, and somehow he made it: the first supporting acting nomination of its kind since Jacki Weaver's Animal Kingdom mention 12 years earlier. We've seen failure in that situation way more times than not: most of those left out in 2015; even someone as prominent and seemingly headed-for-glory as JLo in 2019. It's not impossible to make the grade from this position...but it's sure not the way you want to play it.

(Such one-offs did use to happen more often in years gone by -- back in my early days, with Terence Stamp/Billy Budd, Nick Adams/Twilight of Honor, Mildred Natwick/Barefoot in the Park -- but it's become increasingly more rare. My private theory is that the implementation of the ten-wide best picture slate has caused voters to focus so heavily on finding ten candidates for their top-line ballot, that they have less time/inclination to seek out off-the-beaten track efforts just for stray performances.)

With all that said, how does this work for 2023's hopefuls?

Da'Vine Joy Randolph meets the top criteria -- in a certain best picture nominee, supporting a very likely best actor contender. Add that to her slew of critics' prizes, and she can't miss.

This post began referencing 2015, and now I cite it again, as I completely agree with Sabin's analogy of Rachel McAdams to Emily Blunt. In each case, the performance itself isn't a knockout, and may not be universally listed (McAdams missed at both the Globes and BAFTA), but connection to a strong best picture contender provides a crucial leg up.

Honesty compels me to note that the person next most likely, under this system, would be America Ferrera. I say this a bit under duress, because, truly, I've never taken her candidacy seriously, since it seems based essentially on a short monologue (I actually only recently remembered the larger role she plays in the film). I still think it's a bit too jokey a thing to qualify, but, if she slips through, I'll come back to this and ponder.

We of course don't know at this point if The Color Purple is going to be a best picture nominee. A bunch of the YouTubers I've listened to in the past 24 hours are insistent the movie is going to be such an audience smash the industry will revive it; they may be correct, or it may be they're rationalizing a year's worth of unfounded/unrealized expectation. It's kind of a crucial difference, using this system I'm proposing: Brooks is, by handicappers, thought to be the number two prospect after Randolph, but, without a best picture (or, to be fair, best actress) attached, she's a first-timer with a no-help film, which would make her an outside contender. (I'm disregarding Henson entirely.) Perhaps PGA & SAG will resolve this question by boosting her film. But right now, she's in a gray area, which seems weird, given how much following she has. Remember, though: JLo was thought to be running first or second, until she wasn't there at all.

I'm still wary about May December as best picture nominee. I like the film (hope to finally get around to writing about it in the next few days), but have the Todd Haynes AMPAS curse floating around in my mind. Julianne Moore would still have high potential by virtue of her former winner status, but a best picture nomination would make her that much more likely.

Jodie Foster and Claire Foy are attached to lead acting contenders, though both Bening and Scott are in maybe yes/maybe no territory, so it's hard to know how much boost they'll get from them. Foster, of course, has her two-time winner status to help her along, but Foy needs all the assistance she can get. The analogy to Leslie Manville is a good one, one to keep in mind as we see neither Foy nor Scott on most of these lower-tier critics' rosters. Phantom Thread is at this point enshrined in memory a major nominee, but we forget what a late bloomer it was: none of us had any idea it was even good, until the moment it won the screenplay prize at NY. It went unseen by many of those other critics' groups. BAFTA was the first signal it would play a part in the race, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Brits did the same for Scott/Foy (and their film) this year.

Last come all those actresses from films unlikely to contend in any other categories: Pike in Saltburn, McAdams in Are You There, God?, and Cruz in Ferrari. The obscurity of their films make them long shots...but, lucky for them, they all meet the final criteria: prior nomination. Meaning you can't count any of them out. (EDITED to add Viola Davis, who meets al the same criteria as the other three.)

As for Sandra Huller...I'm really thinking her strong candidacy for Anatomy of a Fall will wipe away most talk of a supporting run. But, were she to float into the race, The Zone of Interest's potential for best picture/director nominations would make her formidable.

What I'm wondering: how long a list the Broadcasters will issue tomorrow, to cover as many of these possibilities as they can?