It's not the performance so much as the backstory with Ke Huy Quan that impresses younger voters who grew up with him. Older voters, including some on this board, have gone "who"? Those voters may prefer to evaluate the nominees on performance alone.
Judd Hirsch is in and out of The Fabelmans so fast he really doesn't make that much of an impression. The nomination is prize enough.
Brian Tyree Henry is fine in a nice slice-of-life drama and in a weak year might be a strong contender, but not this one.
Quan gives a heartfelt performance that should resonate even with non-fans of his film, but will it?
Co-lead Brendan Gleeson gives as fine a performance as he has ever given, but it's Barry Keoghan's heartbreaking performance that owns the category.
Should win: Keoghan
Will win: Probably Quan, but I won't give up on Keoghan until Ariana DeBose opens the envelope and says the winner's name.
Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19362
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
When was the last time somebody won the SAG and Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor and lost? Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls and nobody else. I think we can safely assume now the reasons: the AMPA didn't love Dreamgirls, felt no need to honor Murphy, were bigger fans of Arkin and his film. I don't think Quan has much reason to be concerned about those factors. The closest approximation to Arkin might be Judd Hirsch with his fifty year career but (correct me if I'm wrong) but he strikes me more as a stage-television legend than film.
I wrote elsewhere that the only thing working against Ke Huy Quan will be the number of people who hate the film. He doesn't give the kind of performance that you can really separate from the film at large. If you hate the movie, you're not likely to feel differently about Quan's performance. But who do the EEAAO-haters go if not to Quan? Barry Keoghan might be in better shape had he not been up against Gleeson AND in a film where the deuteragonist chops his fingers off. How many voters don't make it to his big Oscar clip? A Keoghan win would also pivot around the notion that his BAFTA win is more indicative of Academy sentiment than his SAG win. Judging from how just about every guild is over the moon for Everything Everywhere All At Once, I don't think I buy that.
That said, I always appreciate a scintilla of doubt. Quite a good lineup though. I would prefer any of these nominees to last year's crop.
I wrote elsewhere that the only thing working against Ke Huy Quan will be the number of people who hate the film. He doesn't give the kind of performance that you can really separate from the film at large. If you hate the movie, you're not likely to feel differently about Quan's performance. But who do the EEAAO-haters go if not to Quan? Barry Keoghan might be in better shape had he not been up against Gleeson AND in a film where the deuteragonist chops his fingers off. How many voters don't make it to his big Oscar clip? A Keoghan win would also pivot around the notion that his BAFTA win is more indicative of Academy sentiment than his SAG win. Judging from how just about every guild is over the moon for Everything Everywhere All At Once, I don't think I buy that.
That said, I always appreciate a scintilla of doubt. Quite a good lineup though. I would prefer any of these nominees to last year's crop.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
Quan will probably win, but Keoghan would be my choice out of the five. I certainly liked Keoghan's performance more than that of Gleeson. Brian Tyree Henry was very good in Causeway, but you're right that it probably wasn't widely seen and feels like a minor film, though I thought it was pretty good overall.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
We seem to have avoided the above-the-line categories up till now. Once again, let's start with the easiest one:
The nominees:
Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin)
Brian Tyree Henry (Causeway)
Judd Hirsch (The Fabelmans)
Barry Keoghan (The Banshees of Inisherin)
Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All at Once)
This category would be simpler than most even without the results from the TV precursors, since there are two easily ruled-out candidates (the excellent Brian Tyree Henry is in a barely seen film and was lucky to be nominated; Judd Hirsch has barely more screen-time than Beatrice Straight, against far fiercer competition).
The next step in elimination appeared to be "and then the two Banshees candidates will divide fans of the film", something we all believed until BAFTA made Keoghan a surprise winner. I know, I know: British, home field advantage (actually Irish, which is kind of the opposite of home field in UK terms, but, whatever...). But it's not as if hometown favorites have universally topped Hollywood folk on their way to sweeps -- Colman and Hopkins, of course, but Cumberbatch and Hinds last year couldn't make it happen. Given how Quan appeared to be slicing through the competition like a Cuisinart (serious critics and populist groups), let's be honest: we all thought he would take BAFTA along with everyone else.
This doesn't necessarily change the overall gestalt of the race. The SAG win put Quan back in first position, as we've always assumed. But the BAFTA miss creates just a scintilla of doubt. I don't often endorse things I see over at Awards Worthy, but I thought somebody there put it well: "I'll be predicting Quan, as we all will. But I no longer see him as mortal lock". He's the clearest pick of the acting categories, but not quite worth betting the rent money on.
The nominees:
Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin)
Brian Tyree Henry (Causeway)
Judd Hirsch (The Fabelmans)
Barry Keoghan (The Banshees of Inisherin)
Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All at Once)
This category would be simpler than most even without the results from the TV precursors, since there are two easily ruled-out candidates (the excellent Brian Tyree Henry is in a barely seen film and was lucky to be nominated; Judd Hirsch has barely more screen-time than Beatrice Straight, against far fiercer competition).
The next step in elimination appeared to be "and then the two Banshees candidates will divide fans of the film", something we all believed until BAFTA made Keoghan a surprise winner. I know, I know: British, home field advantage (actually Irish, which is kind of the opposite of home field in UK terms, but, whatever...). But it's not as if hometown favorites have universally topped Hollywood folk on their way to sweeps -- Colman and Hopkins, of course, but Cumberbatch and Hinds last year couldn't make it happen. Given how Quan appeared to be slicing through the competition like a Cuisinart (serious critics and populist groups), let's be honest: we all thought he would take BAFTA along with everyone else.
This doesn't necessarily change the overall gestalt of the race. The SAG win put Quan back in first position, as we've always assumed. But the BAFTA miss creates just a scintilla of doubt. I don't often endorse things I see over at Awards Worthy, but I thought somebody there put it well: "I'll be predicting Quan, as we all will. But I no longer see him as mortal lock". He's the clearest pick of the acting categories, but not quite worth betting the rent money on.