Big Magilla wrote
This may be the weakest group of contenders in this category since 1975.
I don't know how you can make that claim. I could fill two lineups with viable contenders. They may not all work for me but none would be an embarrassment and it's making for an exciting race.
In 1975, only Adjani and Fletcher were in universally acclaimed films. The others were distinct also-rans. This year, only Cruz is in a universally acclaimed film, while the others including Colman are in films in which they were better than their material.
Penelope Cruz = Isabelle Adjani (distinguished performance in foreign language film)
Jessica Chastain or Lady Gaga = Ann-Margret (famous person playing famous character, also applies to Kidman and Stewart)
Olivia Colman = Louise Fletcher (character actress as star)
Nicole Kidman = Glenda Jackson (former winner, also applies to Colman)
Kristen Stewart = Carol Kane (independent film contender)
These comparisons are a tad bit labored, Magilla. Olivia Colman is hardly a “character actress” at this point. She’s transitioned into a solid leading lady.
Also, does Judi Dench really need another Oscar nomination this particular year especially when there are so many other candidates hovering around the edges (Plimpton, for example, which I am totally in agreement with you on)? I think Dench’s days of getting “participation award”-style nominations just for showing up are over. It’s not 2002 anymore.
Just to fun little story: I’ve met Glenda Jackson twice in the past three years during her Broadway runs of Three Tall Women and King Lear, and I can attest that she is extremely kind and warm in person. (Laurie Metcalf was cold and unapproachable during stage door appearances at Women while Alison Pill inexplicably sent a stage manager ahead of her to announce that she would not be signing programs which was laughable as literally no one even wanted to see her). Glenda, on the other hand, stayed to greet every person waiting and even took pictures with an elderly woman whose first play she’d seen on stage had starred Glenda decades before.
When I spoke with her after King Lear, she remembered my friend and I and introduced us to Ruth Wilson who she was super chummy with. Ruth was like, “Isn’t she just amazing?” Lovely woman.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Big Magilla wrote
This may be the weakest group of contenders in this category since 1975.
I don't know how you can make that claim. I could fill two lineups with viable contenders. They may not all work for me but none would be an embarrassment and it's making for an exciting race.
In 1975, only Adjani and Fletcher were in universally acclaimed films. The others were distinct also-rans. This year, only Cruz is in a universally acclaimed film, while the others including Colman are in films in which they were better than their material.
Penelope Cruz = Isabelle Adjani (distinguished performance in foreign language film)
Jessica Chastain or Lady Gaga = Ann-Margret (famous person playing famous character, also applies to Kidman and Stewart)
Olivia Colman = Louise Fletcher (character actress as star)
Nicole Kidman = Glenda Jackson (former winner, also applies to Colman)
Kristen Stewart = Carol Kane (independent film contender)
mlrg wrote
- Almost every year someone completely of the radar in terms of precursors gets nominated. Jessie Buckley could very well fill this spot, but, at the expense of who? I would say Ellis in King Richard. It could be Balfe but she has the British vote base
I think it could still be Balfe. She really doesn’t have much to do in Belfast. Not making predictions as of yet but Buckley is excellent in The Lost Daughter/everything and has been bubbling under the radar for a moment.
mlrg wrote
Penelope Cruz could be nominated in the same way Banderas was two years ago.
I’m warming to her chances but it should be said that Banderas got a Golden Globe nomination (Cruz didnt) and a BAFTA nomination (didn’t make the long list).
Big Magilla wrote
This may be the weakest group of contenders in this category since 1975.
I don't know how you can make that claim. I could fill two lineups with viable contenders. They may not all work for me but none would be an embarrassment and it's making for an exciting race.
Mister Tee wrote
Penelope Cruz (Parallel Mothers). This may be the oddest candidacy of the year. A goodly number of people who’ve seen the film view her as giving far and away the female performance of the year; LA and the National Society certainly agreed. But she hasn’t shown up many other places (including the BAFTA long-list). Some of this may be due to late-screening, or from subtitle-aversion (though Cruz’s long Hollywood familiarity should blunt that). I confess this is one of the films I’ve not yet seen; I can speak with more authority once I’ve remedied that. My blind instinct, though, is to agree with Sabin: that, in this utterly murky race, she could potentially be our winner –- if only I could guarantee her being nominated in the first place.
I didn't said that I thought Penelope Cruz would win. I was discussing Penelope Cruz's nomination chances.
Penelope Cruz? She might be the critic's choice (no Globe or SAG though; perhaps a BAFTA?) but I get the sense that Parallel Mothers isn't quite the hot ticket this season. But Pain and Glory wasn't either and Penelope Cruz is already in the club, so...
Two points occur to me:
* I don't get the sense that people view Penelope Cruz's performance as far and away the female performance of the year, merely the one that critics can agree on. I have a friend who votes in the National Society of Film Critics. He said that the first round of voting was all over the place.
* I might have problems with Parallel Mothers as a story, but as an actress showcase it's a gift. The whole thing is largely structured around Cruz's character's slow journey and Cruz makes the most of it. If enough voters see it, that might be enough. I could also see older voters enjoying Parallel Mothers more than many films in competition.
* NONE of this explains the BAFTA snub.
But after reading your roundup, I'm convinced. The lineup could be anything...
... or could it? Because I just can't waste enough of my time, I did some digging. Over the last twenty years, SAG has lined up with the eventual Best Actress race three times (2002, 2004, 2006, 2009). This year certainly doesn't feel as locked up as those years. Every other race has seen one SAG contender fall by the wayside except for two races where two did: 2015 and 2012.
2012 saw Marion Cotillard and Helen Mirren miss out. It's not hard to see why. Rust and Bone and Hitchcock were divisive films (if not reviled) if they were seen at all. But it's not hard to work up an explanation for why they made it in and Quvenzhané Wallis and Emmanuel Riva didn't. Riva and Wallis were total unknown quantities in the industry. It's conceivable that SAG voters didn't see their respective films but Academy voters did and not only nominated Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild for Best Picture and Actress, they nominated them for Director as well.
Did BAFTA give any guidance to the eventual outcome? A bit. They nominated Mirren, Riva, and Cotillard alongside Chastain and Lawrence (leaving off Wallis and Watts). This can be chalked up to their fondness for European actresses, I suppose. But at the very least, part of the mystery of the Best Actress race was cleared up. The HFPA and SAG both nominated two films, not particularly liked (Hitchcock and Rust and Bone), almost everyone could see that those were shaky contenders at best while two clearly more beloved, mainstream contenders were in plain sight. "Is somebody going to sign off on the old lady?" "Okay... now we just roll the dice on the kid."
2015 was different. It's easy to forget now but I would still submit it as the most topsy-turvy Best Actress race to forecast. Not the actual nominations, which turned out quite sane, but there was lingering question up until nomination morning as to whether or not Rooney Mara or Alicia Vikander would be nominated in which category. SAG did a bit to clear up that mystery by lodging them in support (in contrast to the Hollywood Foreign Press and BAFTA for Vikander) but instead voiced their support for Helen Mirren for Woman in Gold and Sarah Silverman for I Smile Back, neither of whose films were up for a Golden Globe. I don't think anybody took those two contenders seriously and they were easily dismissed... in favor of Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years and Jennifer Lawrence in Joy. Short coattails on those films, but certainly more expected if only because Rampling had won several critic's prizes (not quite a sweep) and Lawrence wasn't just a known quantity but she was at the highpoint of her commercial career (despite the fact that her film was a dud).
Did BAFTA give any guidance to the eventual outcome? NO. They nominated Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl and Maggie Smith for The Lady in the Van... but not Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years, which nonetheless picked up a nomination for Outstanding British Film. Similarly, Parallel Mothers has made the BAFTA long list for Best Film Not in the English Language and Best Original Screenplay. Charlotte Rampling's path to a nomination has slight similarities to Penelope Cruz's.
... I was pondering equating one film and performance to another, like "Jessica Chastain in The Eyes of Tammy Faye is Helen Mirren in Hitchcock" but that feels a bit silly. Most likely, we're looking at a scenario where 4 of the SAG contenders get Best Actress nominations, unless 3 of them day to which we must ask "Does anything leap out as not belonging in the Best Actress race like Hitchcock and Rust and Bone? Or I Smile Back and Woman in Gold?" I'm not sure. Jennifer Hudson and Respect are out, and I could probably make the case for The Eyes of Tammy Faye though but it's a reach.
I'm not ready to make a prediction but I do see precedent for Penelope Cruz making the cut.
I will post my final predictions after the BAFTA nominations come out. However, some quick thoughts on the race:
- Almost every year someone completely of the radar in terms of precursors gets nominated. Jessie Buckley could very well fill this spot, but, at the expense of who? I would say Ellis in King Richard. It could be Balfe but she has the British vote base
- Magilla is pointing out that Cumberbatch is headed for victory, but I’m still putting my money on Smith. The only thing against him is that in a “normal” year he would have given an acceptance speech at the Globes starting his run of the televised awards that would lead him to a career Oscar, much like Julianne Moore and Leonardo di Caprio in recent years, and this is not a normal year
- Four names seem almost locked for a best actor nomination. The fifth spot could go to Dinklage, Bardem or DiCaprio but, as I’ve mentioned several times before, Cage could show up. I just don’t know if he’s a Willem Dafoe in At Eternity’s Gate or a Ethan Hawke in First Reformed
- Best actress is incredibly crowded. I have a feeling that Gaga will be given the same treatment as Jennifer Lopez two years ago (or Madonna in Evita) and gets omitted. I haven’t seen Being the Ricardos yet but the film looks like a pretty forgettable Sunday afternoon TV film. Penelope Cruz could be nominated in the same way Banderas was two years ago.
I was actually going to post something along these lines, but I was going to break it into four posts with polls as I have in past years.
But let's carry on with my capsule assessment of all four races.
Best Supporting Actress
I am perplexed by all the awards that are going to Ariana DeBose for West Side Story. To me, this is a lazy vote.
Anita in West Side Story has always been the standout role, not just for Rita Moreno in the 1961 film, but for Chita Rivera, Debbie Allen, and Karen Olivo on Broadway and just about anyone else who has played the role. I think more attention should be paid to those who have given us something we haven't seen before such as the extraordinary performances given by Kirsten Dunst in The Power of the Dog and Ruth Negga in Passing. I see all three as likely Oscar nominees, beyond which anything is possible, but I would like to see some combination of Caitriona Balfe and Judi Dench in Belfast, Martha Plimpton and Ann Dowd in Mass, and Aujanue Ellis in King Richard, all of whom I think are more deserving than DeBose.
I continue to be perplexed by Dench's lack of showing to date. They've nominated her in the past for just showing up. She does a lot more than that with very little in Belfast. Perhaps a BAFTA nomination will improve her chances, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Most likely: Balfe, DeBose, Dunst, Ellis, Negga.
Best Supporting Actor
I haven't seen CODA and am unlikely to unless it is given a release beyond Apple TV, but Troy Kotsur's performance seems assured of a nomination as does that of Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Power of the Dog. I thin Ciaran Hinds' chances of a nomination have increased thanks to the outrage of his not being nominated for a SAG award for Belfast. His co-star Jamie Dornan is also apt to benefit from his slight. The fifth slot seems to be a toss-up between Smith-McPhee's co-star Jesse Plemons and the never nominated for acting, Ben Affleck, in The Tender Bar.
Most likely: Doran, Hinds, Kotsur, Plemons, Smith-McPhee
Best Actress
This may be the weakest group of contenders in this category since 1975.
We seem to have been a given a choice between Twitter's beloved Twilight star Kristin Stewart in a blonde wig lamely playing Britain's beloved Princess Diana as doing little more than suffering from bulimia in Spencer, Olivia Colman giving another strong performance in the dramatically confusing The Lost Daughter, Nicole Kidman's surprisingly good interpretation of Lucille Ball in the dramatically weak Being the Ricardos, Jessica Chastain in a knockout portrayal of Tammy Faye Bakker in the interesting but undernourished The Eyes of Tammy Faye, and Lady Gaga in a black wig as an entitled murderess in House of Gucci. Waiting in the wings are the always good Penelope Cruz in the late released Parallel Mothers and Jennifer Hudson showing some serious acting chops as well as singing her heart out as Aretha Franklin in the sanitized Respect.
Most likely: Chastain, Colman, Cruz, Kidman, Stewart
Best Actor
Benedict Cumberbatch seems headed for victory in The Power of the Dog with Andrew Garfield in tick...tick, Boom! poised for a possible upset.
Will Smith, the early favorite for King Richard, is also likely to score a nomination but his chances of winning have suffered from the film's lackluster performance. The always dependable Denzel Washington also seems likely for The Tragedy of Macbeth which is another film I'm unlikely to see unless it is given a release somewhere beyond Apple TV. At least I can picture his performance in this given my familiarity with both the actor and the play.
Peter Dinklage still seems likely to me to grab the fifth spot for Cyrano. Threats include Nicolas Cage in one of his best performances ever in Pig and Bradley Cooper in Nightmare Alley even if he seems more likely to be nominated in support for his minor role in Licorice Pizza.
Most likely: Cumberbatch, Dinklage, Garfield, Smith, Washington
Mister Tee do check out CODA. I remember scoffing at the film (sight unseen) when it first came out and people were putting it on their lists. It's very much like those tv "disease-of-the-week" movies from the 1970s and 1980s but there is a sweetness about it which does not dissolve into icky territory. That's due to the lovely performances especially by Emilia Jones and Troy Kotsur.
As usual you've summed up the acting races perfectly. And Kristen Stewart will prevail all the way to the podium despite that SAG omission.
Normally, when trying to forecast Oscar nominations, we use the same procedure for all categories: survey critics/guilds/pundit options, highlight the 2-3 most likely, mix in 1 or 2 somewhat less certain, then offer a few “but you never know” options to hedge bets. Cut, print; rinse and repeat.
This year, such a one-size-fits-all process isn’t really an option. I look, especially, at the four acting categories, and I find races in markedly different states of being; requiring separate approaches for each.
Start with what appears the simplest: best supporting actress. It’s possible, there, we already know the ultimate Oscar roster. I noted over a month ago that five names seemed to have floated to the top; the Globes went ahead and nominated that very quintet: Caitriona Balfe (Belfast), Ariana Debose (West Side Story), Kirsten Dunst (The Power of the Dog), Aunjanue Ellis (King Richard), and Ruth Negga (Passing). Some have suffered slight blows to inevitability –- the Broadcasters omitted Negga (and, using their “we can always nominate six” power, substituted Ann Dowd/Mass and Rita Moreno/West Side Story); SAG said no to Ellis (and highlighted Cate Blanchett/Nightmare Alley). But these were pretty minor dissents; those damnable regional critics by and large listed the big five, with maybe differences at the margins (if it matters, Balfe -– who scored the big 3 of Globes/SAG/Broadcasters -- was the one who seemed to miss most often), and all five, no surprise, appear on the BAFTA long-list.
We’ll all, of course, be open to the possibilities of Dowd, Moreno and Blanchett; I’d also consider Jesse Buckley/The Lost Daughter and Kathryn Hunter/The Tragedy of Macbeth, who’ve won some prominent critics’ prizes. But if you ask what’s likely to fill out my prediction sheet, it’ll be those December five.
I told you, this was the easiest. Now, compare it to the chaos that is best supporting actor.
Here, we had a mere two candidates -- Troy Kotsur (CODA) and the dominant Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Power of the Dog) -- make all three TV rosters, plus the BAFTA long-list. I retain a small amount of skepticism over Kotsur, solely because I haven’t seen his work, and wonder if the AppleTV issue might get in his way. But, push to shove, I’ll say he and Smit-McPhee are solid for the ballot. After that, it’s the Wild West.
In my heart of hearts, I can’t imagine AMPAS passing on as Oscar-friendly a performance as Ciaran Hinds in Belfast, with the film so strong an overall contender. But SAG seemed equally fertile territory, and he fell short there, so I can’t ink him in.
There are, of course, a number of other contenders who managed two of those three TV slots, and they have to be considered: Jamie Dornan (Belfast) -– though if Hinds isn’t a sure-thing, how can anyone assume a double-nod?; Jared Leto (House of Gucci) –- though it’s a (to put it mildly) divisive performance, and nabbing two of these three (a different two) last year didn’t help Leto in the end; and Ben Affleck (The Tender Bar) –- who’s had a decent year (artistically if not commercially), but is in a film that won’t contend for anything else (and missed the BAFTA listing). The once-cited Bradley Cooper (Licorice Pizza), connected to a likely best picture nominee, and J.K. Simmons (Being the Ricardos), paired with a best actress hopeful, are also clearly in the running.
And, given this general uncertainty, I’d say it’s possible other names could pop up without precursor warning: Mike Faist (West Side Story), who’s had as much praise as his female co-stars, so far without the awards bounty; Jesse Plemons (The Power of the Dog), who, to me, makes more sense if you’re looking for a double nominee; and, one I’ll just toss out, hail mary style: Jeffrey Wright (The French Dispatch), who somehow missed BAFTA in favor of co-star Benicio Del Toro, but is the first person I hear cited when people mention the film. Feel free to add your own candidates. (I know rolotomassi likes Andrew Garfield getting in here, but I don’t see it.) The point is: unlike supporting actress, there are multiple combinations of rosters that could emerge from this ungainly field.
To move to a more sedate race: the best actor category seems 4/5 set – or as close to that as possible. I don’t think anyone doubts Benedict Cumberbatch (The Power of the Dog), Will Smith (King Richard), or Andrew Garfield (tick…tick…Boom!) as a locked-in top three, and Denzel Washington (The Tragedy of Macbeth) is barely behind (questionable only because of the exceedingly limited release). But who takes that 5th spot? This isn’t like supporting actress, where one candidate is far more likely to fill the slot. I give you the Broadcaster/SAG strays -- Nicolas Cage (Pig), Peter Dinklage (Cyrano), Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos); toss in a couple of Globe extras: Leonardo DiCaprio (Don’t Look Up), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza); hell, go out on a limb with Hidetoshi Nishijima (Drive My Car) or Simon Rex (Red Rocket) -- and I’ll tell you, very likely you’re looking at the guy who’ll occupy that final spot. I just don’t have any earthly idea which one.
If anyone was going to ask: yes, I’m serious about Cooper Hoffman, there. I understand, he’s not got half the press-push of his female co-lead, and there’s long been AMPAS-aversion to nominating teenaged guys. But he’s every bit as key to the success of Licorice Pizza, he (along with damn near everything in the film) made it to the BAFTA long-list, and he’s the only one of this group attached to a top-five film. I’m not predicting him to be the one; I’m just saying, it’s foolish to completely sleep on him, as many seem to be doing.
Finally, the actress category – the most fascinating, I think, and I tipped my hand in the earlier thread as to why: I don’t think a single one of them is truly assured a spot. Till this week, I thought Kristen Stewart was one you could bet on (not to win; just nomination guaranteed), but SAG showed how off-base even that was. This is a batch of “I can see why each could lose, but for the life of me can’t figure how one can win” candidates -- and how do you predict a slate of nominees in that situation? I’m sure there are people (at other sites) who think certain people ARE locked…and, the game being what it is, some of those folks are going to turn out correct. Five of the women WILL get nominations; if one of your picks is among them, there’s no way I can prove after the fact they weren’t a cinch all along. I can only submit how many people, prior to this week, thought Kristen Stewart being omitted by SAG was impossible.
Since I start with that no-one’s-locked premise, an order of likelihood is pointless. Anyone from the following field (of ten) can make it, and anyone can miss…meaning the only sensible way to go through them is alphabetically. (Though, somewhat contradicting that declaration, I’ll note that two of the ten I include somewhat under duress…others are more persuaded they’re competitive than I. For completeness’ sake, they’re included.)
The ten:
Jessica Chastain (The Eyes of Tammy Faye). Chastain looked all-but-dead back in September, when her film, the first to confront the Fall box-office beast, fizzled so completely. However, we subsequently learned the grown-up audience wasn’t coming back for anybody -– not even “crowd-pleasers” like Belfast or King Richard -– so the commercial fail doesn’t count against her the same way. She’s shown up in all industry-important spots (Globes, Broadcasters, SAG, BAFTA), and would seem a solid hopeful -– even the win isn’t out of reach. However: post-September revisionism hasn’t extended to her film being in any way likely for the best picture slate; that remains a handicap, and casts a small shadow over her candidacy.
Olivia Colman (The Lost Daughter). Beloved by most everyone since she made her fame-leap only three years back, she’s got the reviews, legit-critic award strength, and hasn’t missed an important slot among the TV round. But, with all that…one can’t ignore that a lot of people really dislike her movie. It has an unfathomably low 46% Rotten Tomatoes audience score (the gap between that and the 95% critical approval is one of the widest I’ve ever seen. Tammy Faye, by contrast, is 66% by reviews, but 87% from audiences). My parents told me they watched the movie this weekend -- had been really looking forward to it -- but were deeply disappointed. They still like HER –- and that general affection may keep her in the running for this nomination -– but I can't help feeling antipathy for the film is going to trip this campaign up at some point. (As it has Kristen Stewart.) Hence, my reluctance to label her a lock.
Penelope Cruz (Parallel Mothers). This may be the oddest candidacy of the year. A goodly number of people who’ve seen the film view her as giving far and away the female performance of the year; LA and the National Society certainly agreed. But she hasn’t shown up many other places (including the BAFTA long-list). Some of this may be due to late-screening, or from subtitle-aversion (though Cruz’s long Hollywood familiarity should blunt that). I confess this is one of the films I’ve not yet seen; I can speak with more authority once I’ve remedied that. My blind instinct, though, is to agree with Sabin: that, in this utterly murky race, she could potentially be our winner –- if only I could guarantee her being nominated in the first place.
Lady Gaga (House of Gucci). Another one I haven’t yet seen, which in this case is a real handicap. What a weird candidate profile: makes the Globes/Broadcasters/SAG, misses most regional slates, but wins at NY Critics. Is she a pure populist candidate? An out-there critics’ pick? Both, while somehow missing the crucial middle? I’m thinking her hopes may rest on House of Gucci’s overall support within the industry. The SAG ensemble nod was a good start, but the film probably needs a PGA nomination to step solidly into the race for one of those bottom-of-ten best picture spots – which would then up her chances at getting into this actress race. If she makes the final five, I’d think she’d have a chance to win.
Alana Haim (Licorice Pizza). Haim has won half a dozen critics’ prizes, from a prime one in Boston to minor Southern and Southwestern groups. She was listed by the Broadcasters and Globes, and is on the BAFTA long-list. She did miss at SAG, but, given she’s only newly a professional actress, it’s not shocking a group of journeymen actors would discount her. And, yes, she lost the comedy/musical Globe to Rachel Zegler –- but the HFPA has a history of rewarding Spielberg films and musicals while disdaining PTA films, so that shouldn’t be disqualifying. Certainly not for the lead actress of one of the prime best picture candidates. Yet, at most of the other sites, she’s viewed as barely a footnote: people have her running 8th or 9th (if they mention her at all). Jennifer Hudson seems to be taken more seriously. So, to answer Sabin from the other thread: you’re damn right she’s under-rated. Again, this isn’t to say she’s in for sure. But omitting her from the conversation entirely? Seems…bizarre.
I’m risking offense here – since it’s not my tribe -- but think about this as tentative explanation: It’s not exactly controversial to say the Oscar-forecasting community leans gay; presumably as a result, the best actress category gets way more focus than any other (the most recent actress thread on AwardsWorthy has 3-4 times as many posts as others begun the same day). And this year’s prime actress candidates are like a gay fantasia: Kristen Stewart; Lady Gaga; Jessica Chastain, playing a woman known for AIDS patient advocacy. To judge from Nate Rogers’ year-after-year advocacy (and his readers’ response), Nicole Kidman also has a huge following in gay circles. How does someone like Alana Haim elbow into this conversation? She (and her movie) are not simply heterosexual; they’re utterly non-glamorous heterosexual –- as someone said, the breakthrough of Licorice Pizza is positing that even people with acne have love lives. This is pretty much the other end of the spectrum from traditional gay appeal. Of course, I’m not suggesting this is ironclad -– no doubt there are gays who love Haim (and heteros who don’t). I’m just suggesting that, as a probability curve matter, the demographic that loves predicting the Oscars would have less natural affinity for Haim and her film than the others in competition –- and they may be using one or two pieces of evidence (SAG, Globe) to dismiss a candidacy in which they didn’t have much interest to begin with. Just my theory. And I hope they prove mistaken on Haim's prospects.
Jennifer Hudson (Respect). This is one of my “under duress” inclusions. Honestly, there’s very little reason to consider her a serious contender. She was omitted by the Globes and Broadcasters, and ignored for nomination (let alone wins) by virtually all the podunk groups. Yet, when she turns up on the SAG list in what feels like classic SAG default (familiar name from a mediocre, semi-commercial early-year film), suddenly people want to vault her into the main event. Okay: she also made the BAFTA long-list; but 1) they have 15 slots, not every one of which is equal, and 2) the way BAFTA’s playing these days, she could easily be there to satisfy diversity goals (Reinaldo Marcus Green is on the list of 15 for directing King Richard –- does anyone think he’s a real contender)? Now, mindful of Sky Masterson’s earful-of-cider warning, I won’t say Hudson is 100% an impossibility. But I very much suspect she’ll be linked in history with Helen Mirren/Woman in Gold or Judi Dench/Victoria and Abdul –- SAG quirks that lead nowhere.
Emilia Jones (CODA). My second under-duress choice. I haven’t seen the film; I know that people who have seem to find her emotionally appealing. But this hasn’t been enough to put her on any of the TV forecasters’ lists, other than the BAFTA group of 15. And her film, while it seems like it’s nailing down a spot among the best picture ten, is at best running 6th or 7th -- which wouldn’t seem enough to vault an unknown past such a formidable group of celebrated actresses. I put her on the list for sheer inclusiveness…but she’s one I’m willing to designate less-likely.
Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos). A solid number of women have won best actress prizes this year from the various (legit or dubious) groups – Kristen Stewart easily the most, but Olivia Colman, Penelope Cruz, Jessica Chastain, Alana Haim and Lady Gaga have all won multiples; even Emilia Jones and Tessa Thompson have taken home a random one each. Nicole Kidman has won not a single one. Yet, she wins the Golden Globe (amid rumors she did ZOOM meetings with the membership) and gets nominated by SAG (who also listed her for The Paperboy and Bombshell), and suddenly she’s the front-runner. This baffles me. There’s nothing unique about Kidman’s performance in the Ricardos; it’s yet another biopic effort, that doesn’t even go that far with impersonation, and doesn’t have any scenes that burn in my memory. How does such a performance get the number one votes to even get nominated, yet alone be a major contender? Is the year so burdened with flawed candidates that a performance that simply doesn’t anger anyone can float all the way to the top? Given how things stand, I can’t rule out such an unlikely scenario coming to pass for Kidman. But, unlike most, I also don’t see her in can’t-miss territory for even the nomination. With her seeming momentum (which can feed on itself), I give her maybe an 80% shot at nomination –- but that other 20% isn’t to be brushed off: she could definitely be left out.
Kristen Stewart (Spencer). The enigma of the race; you probably already know everything I’m going to say about her. Prematurely crowned front-runner by the bloggers of the Oscar Industrial Complex, now maybe prematurely ruled out by those who always hated her movie. She’s been the overwhelming choice of those regional groups, and has only really missed one industry nomination (albeit a huge one). Her biggest shortfall was with the classic critics’ groups, NY/LA/National. Given her critical raves, you’d have expected her to at least make a showing someplace; it didn’t happen. And I don’t have to tell you what her past week has been like. Yet…I still don’t rule her out: for a nomination, and even contending for the win. She continues to have truly passionate rooters, which could well give her the number one votes to make the nomination ballot. And, once she’s made it, who can say what will happen?
Rachel Zegler (West Side Story). She won NBR and the musical/comedy actress Golden Globe; made the BAFTA long-list; her movie is expected to be a best picture player. And that’s pretty much all she’s got going for her. No nominations from the Broadcasters or SAG; very little attention from all those podunk groups. Yet she’s thought to be in the running for a nomination, competing with Haim for “the newcomer slot”. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think those performances (and vehicles) are so distinct from one another, I can’t imagine anyone being torn between the two. If Zegler competes for a slot, it’s as likable representative of a hot film. Even there, I don’t think her chances are great: Maria remains pretty much an ingenue part, and, as with the ’61 version, most of the acting heat is with the supporting characters. But, with so few candidates attached to serious best film contenders, I’ve got to keep her on the list.
I have a private tradition, when I do my nominations forecast, of putting an asterisk in each category next to the prediction I think is most borderline/subject to replacement. This category, this year, will essentially be asterisks all the way down.
There are things to be said about other categories -– film, director, screenplays -- but this has gone on long enough as it is, so I’ll save that for a later post. I look forward to your no-doubt fierce disagreements.
