2021: Penelope Cruz, Jesse Plemons, JK Simmons, Judi Dench, & Jessie Buckley
2020: Paul Raci & LaKeith Stanfield
2019: Florence Pugh
2018: Marina de Tavira & Yalitza Aparicio
2017: Lesley Manville
2016: Michael Shannon
2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy, & Mark Ruffalo
2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, & Laura Dern
2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emmanuelle Riva, & Jacki Weaver
Usually the types of nominees that get in under this designation fall into one of two categories. First, and most often, it's people who sneak in because their film is either already being watched for Best Picture or another acting race. Last year the former fit people like Jesse Plemons & Judi Dench, and the latter fit nominees like JK Simmons & Jessie Buckley. In fact, in the past ten years only two of the nominees (Penelope Cruz & Charlotte Rampling) got in on their own-if you're calling this you're thinking of actors, likely relatively well-known (i.e. former nominees or noted character actors) who are in major films that for some reason haven't gotten much love yet this year.
Rampling & Cruz fit into this conversation in a different way. Sometimes, an actor can sneak in solely based on their big name. These performances tend to favor former nominees or winners (like Cruz), or people considered to be acting titans giving the performance of their lifetimes (like Rampling). The gut instinct each year is to lean into this one because it's sexier, but it's much harder to pull off.
I will say, before we begin, that I'm honestly a little bit leery about this trend this year. The Best Actress field is wide-open, but the Globes pretty much got them all save for Danielle Deadwyler, who was cited by SAG. Arguably Best Actor is the category with the biggest opportunity to surprise, but while that fifth slot is wide open, there's a few Globe/SAG-blessed names (specifically Hugh Jackman, Jeremy Pope, & Diego Calva) who could get the nomination if Oscar is feeling less creative as much of the other contenders are not in genres that Oscar goes for, or are in films that aren't otherwise on his radar. All that being said, the odds are with me that there will be at least one new name, but I am much more curious than most years over whom it might be.
Honorable Mention: There's a few honorable mentions that I'd like to throw out before we get to the main list. Jennifer Lawrence & Brian Tyree Henry have solid reviews in Causeway, and Lawrence is obviously famous enough to get in on her own, but it's a tough sit and Apple doesn't seem that interested in promoting it this year. Daniel Craig's work in Glass Onion will be seen by a lot of people, but I wonder if it might be too silly for him, even though it's starting to become a bit eyebrow-raising that the most successful Bond since Sean Connery has never gotten an Oscar nomination. Gabriel LaBelle is likely too young to make Best Actor (he'd be the youngest person to be nominated since Mickey Rooney in 1939), but he's leading a Best Picture frontrunner (The Fabelmans) so you can't dismiss him entirely. Nina Hoss (Tar) & Woody Harrelson (Triangle of Sadness) have subdued roles in Best Picture contenders, while Tobey Maguire goes over-the-top but very late in Babylon. None of these names would surprise me, but I feel like they'd need more movement to make the cut at this point.
For Her: I initially had Lawrence here given the potential "comeback" narrative of her getting a nomination, but I switched to Riseborough for a film that you likely hadn't heard of 72 hours ago. Riseborough has had a groundswell of Academy members singing her praises in a way I've never seen before. It's common for a high-profile Academy member to personally vouch for a less-famous performer (Julia Roberts did this to help get Javier Bardem nominated for Biutiful), but Riseborough has had a groundswell of support from everyone from Gwyneth Paltrow to Kate Winslet to Sarah Paulson. Whether or not it works, it's impressive & has too many likely voters supporting her to totally ignore it.
Against Her: Riseborough violates pretty much every rule I stated above. She's in a film that was barely released, she's not particularly famous (not in the way Penelope Cruz, nor in the way that even Charlotte Rampling is), and is a noted character actor. She's worked with a lot of Academy members (probably why she's getting the push), but ahead of people like Ana de Armas, Viola Davis, & Danielle Deadwyler (the names she'd need to displace), with major studio pushes? I think this is more of a curiosity campaign than one that will see her nominated.
For Him: Hanks is late-breaking in a movie that's becoming something of a sleeper hit against the odds. Older Academy members will like this film, about a curmudgeonly man who changes his ways by meeting people from different walks of life (the original was nominated for Oscars as well), and he's a beloved movie star. It also is worth noting that with Bill Nighy, Brendan Fraser, Colin Farrell, & Austin Butler the likeliest nominees for Best Actor, that only leaves room for one former nominee to be cited (an all first-time nominee Best Actor race hasn't happened since 1934).
Against Him: While he's much more famous than Riseborough, Hanks would still be the only major nomination contender for A Man Called Otto. I wonder if it might've broken just a little too late to catch the buzz that's happening from an increasingly curious public. I heard a lot of people saying "I'm going to see it" this weekend, rather than having already seen it because it has been doing a slower rollout. I wonder if a swifter rollout would've been the best play for Hanks, an actor who is definitely an Oscar favorite but who has repeatedly been passed over (Apollo 13, Captain Phillips, Bridge of Spies) just as often as he's made it.
For Him: Norton gets a major, showy roll in a film that I think is an outside threat for Best Picture, and is certainly a movie most Academy members have seen (given it was a pop culture hit all over Christmas break). Norton is a three-time nominee who has never won an Oscar, and if people are putting Glass Onion on their ballots (and I would assume they are given the response), it's not a stretch to assume they'd go with an actor they've liked in the past.
Against Him: Just how strong is Glass Onion? The miss at SAG Ensemble, as well as their snub of Janelle Monae, has me wondering if people are taking this film seriously enough to be considered a true Oscar contender, or if this is just popcorn fare that will have to settle for a writing nomination just like its predecessor.
For Her: Smart is pretty much the textbook definition of a Jesse Plemons-style nomination. A woman that has a key role in a film that is in play for Best Picture, and she's in the middle of a career peak. Her roles in Hacks and Mare of Easttown got her mountains of nominations for television, and she steals scenes in this movie. She also has a killer monologue late in the movie that sums up Hollywood in one gigantic, moving nutshell...it's the sort of thing that, if they like Babylon, they could easily cite, particularly given how wide open the Supporting Actress field feels right now.
Against Her: Do they like Babylon? Babylon, which until it actually opens was not just a major threat for nominations, but could've won Best Picture, bombed so spectacularly at the box office it's hard to tell where the Academy goes with this. Sometimes Oscar doesn't give a crap about box office, and it is a good movie (that feels up their wheelhouse). But will they simply vote for the actors that are obvious contenders (Robbie & Pitt) or could they get creative and cite someone like Smart? It's hard to tell, which is why an otherwise surefire contender isn't in the Top 5.
For Them: I'm combining these two for obvious reasons. The big reason why they both could contend as they are giving performances very much up Oscar's alley. Both actresses are in Oscar's sweet spot right now (Buckley was just nominated last year, Foy has been making a name for herself as a serious thespian by launching The Crown, a show that screams "older Academy members love me"), and both have the sorts of impassioned, difficult roles that Oscar loves. The SAG nomination for Best Cast means that Women Talking still has a clear path to a Best Picture nomination, and in an actors' film, it feels weird they wouldn't cite, well, the actors.
Against Them: But if they like them, why aren't they getting votes? Particularly with SAG, how did it make it for Best Cast but didn't get Foy or Buckley into the race? I suspect what's happening is that voters are only picking one of them in a packed Supporting Actress field, and they're drowning out their support-each actress has a showy role, and it's hard to tell even between the two of them which is better-how do you decide that while trying to decide between 10-12 other names? It's possible they are too even to get one of them in, and Women Talking isn't a big enough deal to get them both cited.
For Him: Hanks, as I said above, is an Academy magnet (two wins & 6 nominations through the years). Elvis is a movie that the Academy (and the public) adored, and he has a near co-lead role as Colonel Tom Parker in this movie, playing the narrator atop Austin Butler's Elvis. If they are big fans of the film, it's hard not to think that Hanks won't sneak onto at least some ballots, and in a year bereft of a lot of big biopics & prosthetic transformations (both things Oscar loves), Hanks would give them both in a tidy package.
Against Him: The reviews. Jared Leto last year had an obvious path to a nomination for House of Gucci, but he didn't get it, and it was largely based off of people basically turning his performance into a joke that was too embarrassing for the Academy to get. This is not good acting, and while that hasn't stopped Oscar before (Rami Malek, cough cough), coming from Hanks, someone who doesn't need this citation, it's hard to see a reason to give him a nomination that clearly will age poorly.
For Him: Hirsch spent much of the year in comeback mode. The actor, who hasn't been nominated for an Oscar since 1980, got raves in early screenings of The Fabelmans, and again...this is the sort of thing that sneaks in last minute (not just with someone like Jesse Plemons, but think of someone like Alan Alda in The Aviator a few years back). A former nominee who gets a key part in a Best Picture frontrunner...that's a recipe for success. In many ways he reminds me of Judi Dench last year-someone who made sense all year but no precursor went for...until Oscar did.
Against Him: It's a short performance-Hirsch is barely in the movie, only taking up maybe 8-10 minutes of screen-time, and playing relatively little impact on the story at-hand. Perhaps more of a problem is internal competition-it's clear that Paul Dano (an actor who is destined for an Oscar nomination at some point) is in the conversation after his SAG nomination. It might be easier for Academy members to go there with a much larger part.
For Him: Mescal is an up-and-coming actor that I think is sure to be nominated for an Oscar at some point. His work in Aftersun, coming on the heels of his revolutionary performance in Normal People, has critics crying "best performance of the year" and it's a weak field. I've made this analogy a few times this year, but in many ways the competition looks a lot like 2006, when there were four nominees set-in-stone but the fifth slot felt like it'd be a total free-for-all with atypical performances like Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat threatening to upend Oscar's sensibilities. In the end, they went for Ryan Gosling for a small movie that looked a lot more reputable, and was an endorsement of an actor they'd nominate again in the coming years.
Against Him: For starters, Gosling had a major precursor (a SAG nomination) headed into Oscar morning. Mescal, without that, is a new face in a film that won't be cited anywhere else. That's a tough go, particularly given he'd also be a the fifth first-time nominee in a category that loves to repeat nominees. And against proven movie stars like Hugh Jackman, Tom Hanks, & our #1 option here...it's a tall order that feels a bit like online critics predicting someone they know, forgetting that industry types don't know every fresh new name without some help.
For Him: That leaves us with Tom Cruise. Cruise is in a surefire Best Picture nominee, he's a former nominee (and three-time loser), and everyone in the world knows his name. This is also clearly something that means a lot to Cruise, who hasn't really been in the Oscar conversation since at least 2008, if not 1999. I'm personally surprised he couldn't get a nomination for the Globes, but he did make it for the Critics Choice Awards, and if this film is looking like it could be a Best Picture winner (and that DGA nomination sure is a sign that it's in the running), it's hard to imagine they'd skip Cruise (even if he's a producer and will get an Oscar speech regardless).
Against Him: This is completely against-type for the Oscars. I know we're looking at a year where Angela Bassett might win for a comic book movie (I will predict her, but part of me thinks she'll be the shock snub of Oscar morning next week), but Tom Cruise for playing Maverick? For an Oscar nomination? They have nominated action movie performances before, but it's rare, and more often, even when those films get nominated for Best Picture (like, say, Mad Max: Fury Road) it's more of a tech victory than an acting one. This would stand out as a unique nomination if it happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment