The 24th Annual Who'll Be Back?

[Big Magilla]

I tend to not read comments on other sites. The smart members post here, albeit not as frequently as they once did. The dumb ones, on the other hand, just keeping getting dumber. Unfortunately, however, my Yahoo feed has lately posted some very disheartening articles which I discover too late were reprints from Gold Derby.

One such piece was a "who'll be back next year" article full of unlikely suppositions, one of which had Michelle Williams a prime contender for playing Peggy Lee in Todd Haynes' Fever, a project that has been in development since 2000 and at one time had Nora Ephron and Reese Witherspoon connected to it. The problem is that if it even it actually does get made now, Haynes' has another project due out this year in which case the earliest we're likely to see it is in 2024.

The same individual also mentioned Brendan Fraser and Colin Farrell as possible early repeaters, both in supporting roles, Fraser in Scorsese's film, and Farrell in support of Rachel Weisz in a Todd Solondz film that has been in the planning stage since 2018.

Tee's predications are, as usual, more astute. I won't argue with any of them. I will, however, add my own "bonus" predictions.

While I would love to see Claire Foy finally nominated after being so close for both Chazelle's First Man and Polley's Women Talking, I expect to see her chameleon-like co-star Jessie Bckley back for a second time before Foy gets another chance. Buckley's upcoming films include something called Wicked Little Letters in which she has the starring role with Olivia Colman and Eileen Atkins in support. It sounds like a long shot but if not that, then something else soon.

For my close but no cigar selection, I also pick someone from Where the Crawdads Sing, but it's neither Taylor Swift nor Daisy-Edgar Jones. It's Harris Dickinson who also made a big splash in Triangle of Sadness. He has the lead opposite Saoirse Ronan in Steve McQueen's Blitz which is currently filming.

[dws1982]

The fact that a remake of Bullitt seems to be his next proposed project speaks volumes. I could obviously be wrong –- Spielberg remains, in Eastwood terms, young enough for a rebound –- but my strong feeling is, this was his final serious Academy chapter.

I don't know what the status of this project is but I don't believe he's attached to this anymore. He said in an interview recently that he doesn't know what his next project is and doesn't have anything lined up, although he was pitching Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon screenplay to HBO as a limited series (unsure if he intends to direct or produce).

[Mister Tee]

Normally, I don’t jump too quickly into composing his thread. My preference is to spend a few days luxuriating in the Oscar show itself, and only afterward -- as I’ve said in the past -- using this as methadone from which to withdraw for another year. This year, though, so disheartened me, it’s pushed me here sooner -– a spot for retreat from the unhappy present, to contemplate a future I hope will provide better outcomes.

What are the chances of such outcomes? In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ll quote you what I wrote at the top of last year’s edition in this series, full of unwarranted optimism:

“Happily, 2022 looks considerably more promising (films of course sight unseen), with major efforts on tap from some of our most distinctive filmmakers: Chazelle (whose film is already yielding hot buzz), Scorsese, Fincher, Wes Anderson, Guadagnino, Spielberg back again -- and such unpredictable but sometimes exceptional folks as Baumbach, Luhrmann, Polley, Innaritu, Russell, Lanthimos, McDonagh. (Apologies for the mostly male-ness of this list; if anyone can point me to more promising female-directed films, I’ll be happy to include them.) No telling, of course, how many of these films will impress, but it’ll be good to have so much of the varsity back on the field once again.”

Now, in my defense…Spielberg, Luhrmann, Polley and McDonagh did furnish many of this year’s nominees (if only a single winner), and Scorsese, Fincher, Anderson, and Lanthimos all had their films pushed back into 2023, for which I can’t be blamed. But Chazelle, Baumbach, Russell and Innaritu contributed major belly-flops, which shows the danger of prediction based on pedigree.

But I’ll choose to be optimistic, and hold out great hopes for those films that were pushed into this year, as well as added entries from Nolan, Gerwig, Payne, Michael Mann, Bradley Cooper and Andrew Haigh -– plus films that have already received positive screening reaction (Blackberry, Air, Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn, Past Lives, Jonathan Majors in Magazine Dreams). Taken together, they’re enough to give one a bit of hope.

On to this past year’s pack of contenders, and their futures:

A lot of commentary on the best actor slate this year emphasized all five nominees being first-timers, and something about that grouping rankled me. Austin Butler and Paul Mescal are, of course, newbies; Bill Nighy’s the kind of actor who probably only stumbles into a nomination, as he did this year; and Brendan Fraser, while he had a prominent presence in the past, most all of it (aside from Gods and Monsters and Quiet American) was in a different universe from awards.

Colin Farrell, though –- he belongs in a different slot. From the time he emerged, in Tigerland, he’s seemed a serious actor, and he’s pursued a decently-ambitious career, working with top-flight directors on worthy projects. Some of those efforts went splat for him -- Alexander, The Way Back, Winter’s Tale, Casandra’s Dream – but, along the way, he also scored impressive-enough credits: Minority Report, The New World, In Bruges, The Lobster, The Beguiled. This year was the first time he slid into AMPAS’ comfort zone, but he’s built up a truly honorable resume, and I think ought to be looked at rather differently from the rest of the slate. Perhaps he’s reached that age where Oscar voters begin to take good-looking actors more seriously. Whether he can cash in on this to become an AMPAS regular –- or, at least, enough of one to compete for a win in the decade ahead -– is of course subject to question. His most promising upcoming project is a Todd Solondz film, Love Child, and who ever knows what to expect of Solondz? What I’d say is, Farrell’s reputation got a big boost this year –- critics’ awards attest, even if AMPAS didn’t follow suit -– and I’d be surprised if he didn’t take advantage with a strong creative spurt, and maybe a win to offset Sunday’s disappointing result.

Had Brendan Fraser not hit the jackpot the other night, some would probably be pointing to his presence in Killers of the Flower Moon as potential further comeback material. As it is, I believe he’d have to knock people flat to get additional AMPAS attention. I assume he’ll attempt to score prime roles from this Oscar-win status, but I believe, in most people’s eyes, he remains a minor (if very likable) actor, and the odds against anything like this happening for him again are astronomical.

Paul Mescal isn’t quite the child he appears: he’s up to 27 years old-- still young for leading roles, but not quite Chalamet in Call Me by Your Name. Based on Normal People, I viewed Mescal as one of the great promising actors of recent years, and it appears much of Hollywood feels the same – the very fact of his nomination (for such a small film) speaks volumes, as does the roster of interesting films he’s lined up: a Garth Davis film opposite Saoirse Ronan; an Andrew Haigh effort co-staring Claire Foy…with big projects down the line, including Gladiator 2 (which I don’t ever care to see) and Merrily We Roll Along (which I hope I live to see). I think he’s the one on this year’s lead actor slate most likely to be holding a statue within the decade.

Someone at another site snarkily hoped the Oscar audience “would be more generous to Bill Nighy next time they see him, in the In Memoriam reel.” I thought this was funny-ish, till I realized he’s barely more than two years older than I. Nighy first came known to most of us 20 years ago, in Love, Actually (the movie so many claim to hate, but which always seems to be brought up), and has provided solid performances ever since, without getting this kind of recognition before. Pressed, I’d guess this nomination was his industry gold watch…but in an era that brought Christopher Plummer a late run, never say for sure.

Could Austin Butler drop from striking-distance-of-Best-Actor all the way to forgotten man? It’s certainly possible, as we have no pre-Elvis evidence of his ability (or lack thereof). The role of Elvis is such an overwhelming one that a nagging “was it the part or the actor?” question is hard to avoid. (And I’d contend the “Why is his voice still doing that?” discussion is a sub-rosa way of keeping that issue alive.) Butler DOES have a potentially interesting follow-up coming: The Bikeriders, a Jeff Nichols effort that could go a ways to answer these questions. I’m kind of inclined toward “this was his peak”, but, as always, I’m open to correction.

It's odd to think of a two-time winner somehow turning into an overdue candidate, but I think what (in the minds of many) happened to Cate Blanchett this year -– an all-time performance, feted across the board, undercut by an oddball juggernaut and diversity calls –- creates that unlikely narrative. Blanchett has clearly ascended into the AMPAS stratosphere -– 8 nominations, only in her early 50s; easily set to join the elite double-digit nominations crowd –- so she’d be a candidate for a third Oscar regardless. But the circumstances of this loss make her less a McDormand “it could happen” than a Streep “it has to happen”. As for what project? -– her current active resume includes TV and commercial projects, a who-knows? thing called The New Boy, and, most intriguingly, a collaboration with Almodovar, about which it’s hard not getting hopes up. As Yogi says, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but I feel pretty confident that, for Blanchett, the future includes more Oscars.

It’s weird for someone with Michelle Williams’ high nomination count (her 5th, in only 18 years) to go through a season such a non-factor. Some of that had to do with the “is it lead or not?” foofaraw, but the performance, as well, wasn’t universally agreed-upon. She’ll surely win one of these days…won’t she? I can’t say I’d have chosen her in any of her five times up, but she’s capable of being sensational -- as anyone who’s seen her Fosse/Verdon work can attest. It’s simply a matter of finding the role to bring that talent to the big screen. Currently, she’s supposedly working toward a Peggy Lee bio, which fits (dishearteningly) into current Oscar tendencies. Whatever. I fully expect Williams to win an Oscar before all’s said and done.

Ana de Armas should be offering nightly novenas to Andrea Riseborough, who took all the heat for the lead actress brouhaha, and kept de Armas (in a movie people hated) from being The One Who Stole Deadwyler’s Slot. De Armas doesn’t appear to be rushing to cash in on her good fortune: all her upcoming projects seem to be spy movies of one sort or another. I’d have made her a long-shot for return, regardless, but, barring a shift in career emphasis, I’d say this is her sole appearance.

As for Andrea Riseborough herself…as I mentioned the other day, the shot of her in the audience during the best actress presentation was my first inkling she’d shown up for the show (or anything in the entire season). Since I don’t know her, I have zero idea whether this same would have happened absent the controversy. I will say I doubt she benefited in any fame-enhancement way from this bizarre series of events…but it’s conceivable good directors will now be more apt to consider her for roles, which is still the best pathway to Oscar nods. She appears to have a prime part in an upcoming Kate Winslet film, so we’ll see if that does anything to clarify her immediate future.

The kids at AwardsWorthy are all certain Michelle Yeoh will be back with future nominations, and I find myself saying, Whoa! -– I thought she had to win this year because it was her only/best chance? (Consistency is not a hallmark of these children). Yeoh is in her 60s, and won’t suddenly turn into a drama mainstay (many of her upcoming credits are pure commercial plays, including multiple Avatars). But I could see her getting into the mix again -- at least for Wicked -- on the general premise that actresses who win lead on first try tend to get follow-up nominations. I’d say a second victory, however, is a deep long-shot.

Honestly, what’s hard to believe about Brendan Gleeson is that it’s taken him this long to make the Academy list. It’s a quarter century since most of us first registered him (in Boorman’s The General); over that stretch, he’s worked with many of our foremost directors. Does that suggest he’s the sort of actor taken for granted except on special occasions (like a 9-nomination film in a thin year), or that AMPAS at large has finally noticed how special he is, and will reward him more regularly in years to come? He doesn’t have anything on the schedule that jumps out at you, but, if there’s one thing we know about the man is, he works a lot, so keep an eye out for future appearances.

Brian Tyree Henry isn’t as young as one might guess –- in his 40s – but he’s got plenty of years ahead of him, and he’s very talented, so return visits to the Oscars are certainly on the table for him. To date, he’s done more popcorn movies (and TV) than serious cinema, but maybe this recognition will change that ratio. The closest to an interesting project he has just now is Flint Strong, about a female boxer, so I wouldn’t look for an immediate follow-up. But, over time, he could find the role that advances him from nominee to winner.

I’m a long-time fan of Judd Hirsch (have loved his stage work, both Tony-winning and Tony-losing) but he’s hardly a cinema mainstay…a few minor roles comprise most of his big-screen resume this millennium. And a 42-year gap between nominations kind of tells the full tale. We should accept this nomination as a “well done” late-in-life salute, and not expect it to lead anywhere further.

Barry Keoghan may pull off the quickest return, if reports about his work in Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn (and the film itself) are to be believed. I confess he was largely a new face to me this year, though I’m told he featured in The Green Knight (which I saw) and was supposedly a knockout in The Killing of the Sacred Deer (which I’ll get to shortly). He’s obviously a very specific type, so character roles are likely to be his route back to the Oscars. He’s also, based on this Banshees performance alone, very gifted. I like his chances, Saltburn or otherwise.

Since I didn’t share the rhapsodic reaction to Ke Huy Quan in Everything Everywhere (or get verklempt at seeing an 80s child star 40 years on), I’m probably not to be trusted forecasting his future. One would assume this level of success should at least preclude his having to go back to any day-job existence. But what I see on his current schedule -- largely TV series and voice work -– doesn’t suggest he’ll be back in the awards arena anytime soon. Congratulations, I suppose, on the improbable comeback…and savor it, because it has the strong air of a one-off.

It may not have been obvious from the way I trashed her nomination this year, but I hold a very high opinion of Angela Bassett. When Halle Berry became the first black best actress winner, my immediate reaction was, Bassett should have had the honor. I’d be very happy to see her win an Oscar for legitimate work. But she hasn’t made it easy, in recent years, appearing in far more junk movies than serious efforts. (I of course acknowledge she may not have always had superior choices.) Nothing on her upcoming schedule suggests much different. So, a challenge to writers/directors out there: come up with a part for Bassett like Todd Field did for Blanchett; give her a vehicle that will let all of us root for her to win.

Who’s the hottest prospect among the losing supporting actresses? It’s got to be Hong Chau, doesn’t it? From the moment many of us took full notice of her -– in her close-but-no-nomination run with Downsizing –- she’s been operating at top speed, with prominent roles in Driveways, The Menu, and now The Whale. In each of them, she’s been an indelible presence, with something of the same command Viola Davis projects at her best. And she’s, if anything, amping her career up, with Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City and Lanthimos’ AND already in the can, a Netflix series imminent, and a starring-opposite-Matt Damon gig in Doug Liman’s The Instigators just ahead. Looking back, I see I didn’t even note her in the bonus round in 2017 -– I suspect on the basis her ethnicity would limit her. That’s clearly no concern at this point. I like her chances of winning the prize outright in the decade ahead.

It would have been great if Kerry Condon had won the other night, because 1) she was wonderful and 2) her chances of being back aren’t spectacular. Though she obviously does some U.S. work, her upcoming schedule seems heavy on Irish films, most of which will, this year’s anomaly notwithstanding, remain obscure. She appears to be a favorite of McDonagh’s, which might give her some future chances. But, being realistic, I’d guess this was her best shot.

Jamie Lee Curtis’ win seemed as circumstantial as any since Don Ameche’s -– a long-time veteran in a popular film prevailing in a category where no single candidate could get full focus. (Perhaps fittingly, the two appeared together, way back in Trading Places.) The chances of such a winner repeating would seem to be punishingly small… especially since I don’t see Curtis suddenly expanding her repertoire to include more standard dramatic roles. Enjoy the prize, Jamie Lee; you may not pass this way again.

Stephanie Hsu, on the other hand –- the Everything supporting actress for whom a win would have been more justifiable -– seems to me to have a brighter future. I don’t base this so much on her upcoming schedule (the only interesting project is something called Joy Ride, which I believe is being screened at SXSW as I write this), but on her ongoing Mrs. Maisel performance, and the general talent she showed in Everything Everywhere. I just believe there are stronger days ahead for her, and the publicity surrounding Everything should only help, on that score.

There’s a report out today, Todd Field saying he may never make another film post-TAR. I take such pronouncements with the proverbial grain of salt. Assuming it’s just idle talk…my semi-safe prediction about Todd Field: he’ll write/direct another film in somewhere from 5-15 years; it’ll have strong roles for actors, especially his leading lady; it’ll excite critics and get significant award nominations; and it’ll be so uningratiating that it’ll leave the Oscars empty-handed. Oh, and maybe it’ll open the way for a non-white actress to win over his early favorite (as has happened twice now). I’d like to think he could slip into acceptable-for-AMPAS territory, the way, say, Danny Boyle and the Coens did…but it’s not the way to bet.

Perhaps it’s unkind to put it this way, but do we get the feeling Steven Spielberg shot his wad with this one –- that he may get further nominations, but he’ll never get as close to his Holy Grail 3rd win as he did with this? The guy REALLY wanted it this year –- not only screening at Toronto, but doing Q&A’s, pushing for the Audience Award; highlighting autobiographical elements to an almost please-love-me point. He got very respectful (I’d say flattering) treatment from critics. There were even suggestions Scorsese held back Killers, so as not to compete with his chances. Yet, the whole thing went nowhere (apart from the Globes), because viewers –- audiences -– simply didn’t respond. Given how much personal investment Spielberg had in this (indeed, how personally he’s taken his entire history with the Oscars), I have to believe he’s quietly devastated by this outcome, and may retreat to his fantasy/trivial realm. The fact that a remake of Bullitt seems to be his next proposed project speaks volumes. I could obviously be wrong –- Spielberg remains, in Eastwood terms, young enough for a rebound –- but my strong feeling is, this was his final serious Academy chapter.

Martin McDonagh finally made the leap over the directing barrier, even while accumulating his third screenwriting nomination -– and ended the night as he began, with zero statuettes for his mantel. McDonagh is one of the world’s great playwrights, and has emerged as an impressive filmmaker, but, Shaw aside, the Oscars haven’t been the best venue for writing legends. I presume McDonagh will keep at it, and maybe score more nominations (more easily for writing than directing), but I’ve become pessimistic about his ever winning.

Ruben Ostlund has carved out an interesting niche for himself –- sort of a guerrilla filmmaker who, at least this year, appealed more to audiences than to critics (the Palme notwithstanding). Three of his films in a row now have got Academy attention (even if Force Majeure fell short of nomination), and, while he feels a bit out-there to ever hit the sweet spot for a win, his court-jester approach gives his work enough commercial appeal that I could see him having a long career, occasionally (as this year) dropping in for the odd nomination.

What’s to say about Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert –- a team whose previous effort was about 1000 miles from Academy range, and whose latest won a wholly unlikely slew of prizes? As I mentioned the other day, from personal testimony, these guys are the nicest people on earth, and no one will begrudge them their success on any personal basis. But the bald fact is, their film is perceived by many as massively over-rewarded –- first film EVER to win 6 of the top 8 Oscars –- and the history for directors who won big without heavy consensus (Attenborough for Gandhi, Costner for Dances with Wolves) isn’t pretty. Forecasting their Oscar future is a fool’s errand.

On to the bonus rounds.

Having advocated him as winner this year, I’m getting behind Carter Burwell as someone whose career more than rates a win at some point. This was his third nomination, and I can, without looking, cite multiple occasions where he was just as deserving (Fargo, Gods and Monsters to start). You never know how things will end up for tech contenders, but Burwell’s my latest pick-to-click at some point.

With a movie year as disappointing as this one, it’s difficult to ferret out a director working his or her way up the ladder to eventual nomination. I didn’t have the ecstatic response to Charlotte Wells’ Aftersun that many did, and I haven’t yet seen such bandied-about second-tier prospects as Emily the Criminal or Saint Omer. So…I’m going to pass on this particular round.

As for the secondary bonus bunch –- someone not in the year’s Oscar conversation, but impressive enough you see recognition coming before long -- it feels like it would be cheating to cite Jonathan Majors, since he’s already Sundance-raved for Magazine Dreams. So, I’ll pose this question: What grown-up film last year, not a franchise or centered on a 20th century music icon, achieved the highest gross? If you guessed Everything Everywhere, you’re close but not quite there. The answer is, Where the Crawdads Sing, starring my pick here, Daisy Edgar-Jones. She watched her Normal People co-star jump to the Oscar big leagues this year, and I suspect she may not be far behind. She’s apparently scheduled for the Carole King role in the Beautiful movie, which by itself would make her a hot prospect.

Finally, bonus round classic: someone not previously cited, fully in this year’s conversation, who fell short on nominations day, but you'd suspect will turn up in future. I imagine many people might go with Danielle Deadwyler, whose omission caused such fury. I’m at a disadvantage with her, since, maddeningly, I’ve yet to see her film: it hit Netflix disk sometime in December, and has stood on the Short Wait list ever since (longest I’ve ever waited). Had she got her expected nomination, I’d have sprung for pay-per-view, but, instead, I continue to wait. I could make a case against her (It was the sympathetic role more than her; if she couldn’t get nominated now, what are her chances later?) or for her (like Paul Giammatti once upon a time, she can be rewarded next time out, with the memory of the snub to boost her)…but, in either case, I’d be arguing blindly.

So, to keep it honest, I’ll pick Claire Foy, who could easily have been cited this year, and who has a worthy schedule of films upcoming, any one of which should push her over the top into nomination.

And so ends another Oscar year. 2023 films-worth-seeing seem like they might get here earlier than usual (Asteroid City and Past Lives in May/June; Oppenheimer and Barbie in July), so maybe we can wash the sour taste away more quickly than usual. I expect to encounter you all in discussions, then.

A happy St. Patrick's Day to all.