Mister Tee wrote
Supporting actress is at once the least interesting category as to outcome -- I think Randolph is now on a glide path -- and the most interesting for the number of potential candidates for nomination. This group could absolutely repeat: Foster and Pike, despite weakish vehicles, are deserving -- though it's worth remembering both these ladies won here 3 years ago for movies no one otherwise cared about; Julianne Moore's film could weird out some voters (and, by the way: May/December is no more a comedy than The Bear); Blunt still seems to me borderline, mostly carried aloft by the strength of her film. To my way of thinking, Claire Foy, Rachel McAdams, Viola Davis, America Ferrera or Penelope Cruz could all swoop in and grab a spot (though this would have been a place you'd expect the final three to first make an appearance).
This started as a post to Tee but I realized it could easily turn into what's now an annual griping about the same category. Who is going to fill the lineup?
For X years in a row, Best Supporting Actress remains the most amorphous category with a few obvious contenders and a small army of contenders who appear lucky to get on base. Back in 2019, I think most of us had an inkling that Laura Dern and Margot Robbie were going to get nominated with Kathy Bates (Richard Jewell), Annette Bening (The Report), and Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers) less certain. I'm pretty sure a poll of bloggers over who would be more likely for a nomination, Bates or Lopez would be lopsided in Lopez's direction. Not the case. To be fair, Bates had a National Board win under her belt. SAG threw in Kidman and Johansson (nom), BAFTA (and the National Society) threw in Pugh, and there's your lineup.
So what can we know about the race at this point? Generally, the HFPA lines up with the Oscars 3/5 and 4/5. That's obviously out the window with this expanded lineup to six. 2016 was 5/5 because that lineup seemed pretty locked up from day one.
Da'Vine Joy Randolph would seem to be on a glide path and will probably end up winning. Quick quiz: the last time a Best Supporting Actress contender won the National Board of Review, NYFCC, and LAFCA was Regina King for If Beale Street Could Talk who was the first contender since Dianne Wiest to sweep all four. Whatever quibbles I have about Randolph's candidacy (she's good ,not great) fly out the window coming off of years where Jamie Lee Curtis and Ariana DeBose won.
Who's next?
Well, there's contenders from Best Picture contenders or Best Picture-adjacent contenders:
Golden Globe nominees (Blunt for Oppenheimer, Brooks for The Color Purple, and Moore for May December). All three of these performances have their own set of hurdles. Blunt has the film, the due narrative, she just has more of a scene than a role. But that's more than McAdams had for Spotlight. It sounds like Brooks has the role, but the film is a question mark. So what about Moore? She's a decade past her "due" narrative. Her role is showy (and she's terrific) but it doesn't generate empathy for her character. She's fucked up in a way that isn't fixed by the end and likely will never be fixed (a Moore speciality).
I feel most confident about Blunt. Brooks, I think it really depends on box office and if SAG goes for her. For Moore, it mostly depends on her competition which right now looks to favor her nomination.
What other Best Picture or Best Picture-adjacent performances?
There's Alexander for American Fiction, Davis for Air, Ferrera for Barbie, Foy for All of Us Strangers, Henson for The Color Purple, Huller for The Zone of Interest, and maybe Pugh for Oppenheimer. Who am I missing? From my vantage point, none of these scream nominations at least at this point even with SAG on their side. Maybe Foy if she gets a BAFTA nom.
Beyond the Best Picture field are two Golden Globe nominees (Foster & Pike), both of which I've seen, and both are in films that are in some ways polar opposites. Nyad is lukewarm while Saltburn is divisive. Foster has possibly the largest role of anyone in competition while Pike has a memorably spiky little role. It's hard to weigh one against the other. Both are possible, both are in the club, and both look exactly like the kind of Golden Globe nominated role that doesn't end up getting an Oscar nomination.
Finally, there's Penelope Cruz for Ferrari, a movie that doesn't seem to be picking up awards steam but she's allegedly terrific in it. And there's Rachel McAdams for Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. I would say that McAdams has the most underdog Oscar narrative in years except I'm pretty sure something like this happens all the time, never materializes, and then we forget about it. We're just early in the race right now so anything is possible, especially in a field like this. Even her LAFCA is suspect. Do we know that she would've beaten Randolph in a head-to-head?
I see Blunt, Brooks, Moore, and Randolph as the best bets and about ten people duking it out for the final slot.
What else can we use to divine out the last nominee? Well, this voting bloc is actors and while there isn't an iron-clad rule that nominees in this category are joined by other acting nominees there are examples of the last nominee(s) being a tag-along. This can explain how Jessie Buckley got in over Ruth Negga, how Marina de Tavira got in over Emily Blunt, and how Lesley Manville got in over Holly Hunter or Hong Chau.
Which Best Supporting Actress contenders are from films that are going to have other acting nominations as well?
Easily, America Ferrara. Even if Margot Robbie doesn't show up, Gosling is getting nominated. Next up would be Florence Pugh for Oppenheimer. And then less certain but still in the running would be Erika Alexander for American Fiction, Jodie Foster for Nyad, Claire Foy for All of Us Strangers, and Taraji P. Henson for The Color Purple. None of these are 100% assured. We don't know if Jeffrey Wright, Annette Bening, Andrew Scott, or even Danielle Brooks are assured. I guess Rosamund Pike can be considered in this category because Barry Keoghan will be getting some support.
This math has me leaning towards Claire Foy, but then I go back to the example I used at the beginning with Kathy Bates and Richard Jewell, a film that didn't take off, that nobody was talking about, but by virtue of a strong supporting role a previous winner got her first nomination in ages.
As of now, I'm leaning towards:
*Emily Blunt, Oppenheimer
*Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple
*Jodie Foster, Nyad
*Julianne Moore, May December
*Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers
What are your thoughts? Who am I missing?