The Green Knight (2021)

Film: The Green Knight (2021)

Stars: Dev Patel, Alicia Vikander, Joel Edgerton, Sean Harris, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Barry Keoghan

Director: David Lowery

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

We have not done a theme week in a while on the blog in terms of our reviews, but this week we're going to change that, as I am sitting on four film reviews from 2021, and am expecting to see at least one film before Friday in theaters, so I can add in a fifth.  So each day this week we'll be discussing a 2021 film release, and we're going to start with one still in theaters, and one that has gleaned a surprising diversity of opinions: The Green Knight.  Directed by David Lowery, this is one of a number of pictures that was initially expected to come out last year but was delayed due to the pandemic.  I thought when I first encountered it, despite some solid trailers, that we were in for a version of the Arthur legend, some gorgeous Howard Pyle-style heroism that was fantastically lit.  What I found, though, was a moody, difficult piece about sacrifice & the price of mortality that provides no simple answers, but instead opens up a variety of well-etched questions.

(Spoilers Ahead) Much of The Green Knight is about mood, and as a result describing the plot is a bit difficult, particularly since very few of the characters actually have names.  What we have, though, is Gawain (Patel), a handsome young man who is not yet a knight but due to his status as the King's nephew through his mother (it's implied, but never said outright, that the King here is an aging Arthur, the queen Guinevere, & Gawain's mother is Morgan le Fay), he is elevated and likely to be the next king.  When the magical Green Knight offers a riddle, only Gawain, eager to prove himself, is headstrong enough to challenge him, with the Knight offering to Gawain that "should he strike a blow on him, it will be returned a year later."  Rather than fight, the Knight bows to Gawain, who decapitates him...after which the knight leaves, reminding Gawain of the bargain.  

There is more to the story, but I want to pause and move on to the discussion of the picture because, as I mentioned above, while plot is critical to driving The Green Knight, it is a supporting character to the film's ideas.  The movie takes a hard look at the value of honor.  Much of what drives Gawain, for better or worse, is an elusive respect.  It's why he makes the foolish decision to both fight the Green Knight and to decapitate him (rather than deduce the logic of the riddle), and it's ultimately what leads to his death before the end credits, when he sees a long life, but one filled with privilege rather than happiness, and one destined for sadness.  The film's message feels a bit complex, but it's aware of it.  Gawain ultimately chooses death to honor a bargain...but a bargain that he likely should've ignored in the first place, and certainly didn't understand.  There's an arbitrariness to the film that feels intentional, and reflexive of life-after all, most of life feels quite by chance, and oftentimes to defy logic.

The movie's overall aesthetic is extraordinary.  Once you settle into the pacing, it's a gorgeous, foggy vision of the Arthurian legend, with occasionally flights into a realistic fantasy (gotta love the giants), and one that isn't going to explain some of its choices.  Alicia Vikander plays two roles, first as a commoner and later as a lady who gives Gawain a sash that will save him from the Green Knight.  Vikander oftentimes gets ragged upon for not doing more with her Oscar win, but here you see why she won it in the first place, taking two very difficult-to-play parts, and totally immersing them into the mystery.  

Dev Patel is also giving us his all as the lead.  Patel has graduated, slowly but surely, from his nerdy roots in Slumdog Millionaire and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel into a bonafide hunky leading man, and he brings a movie star swagger to Gawain, a young man lost in his own destiny.  Patel, whose acting choices are often at odds with his movie star charisma in other roles, knows how to play Gawain's confidence, the brash assuredness of privileged youth, perfectly.  We watch it start to strip away as the movie progresses, and he understands that he cannot understand all things.  Combined with a clear nod to the gays (not just a thirsty kiss from Joel Edgerton, but the now infamous fistful of semen is a sign that Patel knows where his fanbase is), this is the role that Patel totally sold him to me as a promising leading man living up to that promise.  The Green Knight is not perfect (some of the quirks feel a little bit too shock-the-audience for me, and not quite with the humble melody of the movie), but I am going to lean into the 5-star rating as this movie swept me up in its story, and I suspect that in future screenings those quirks will read as foretelling rather than out-of-place.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2015)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2015)

The Nominees Were...

Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Rooney Mara, Carol
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

My Thoughts: While category fraud has been prevalent and growing at the Oscars for decades, one has to wonder looking at 2015 if this was the straw that broke the camel's back, for the good or the bad.  In 2015, there was no pretense about the category fraud of two specific contenders (Rooney Mara & Alicia Vikander), both of whom are leads in two-lead films, one of which (Vikander) doesn't even have the recent excuse of "no two leads from the same gender in the same movie."  I'm strongly against this category fraud, not least of which because I'm a huge classic movie buff, and wouldn't want to deprive the world of the fame achieved by the likes of Thelma Ritter, Agnes Moorehead, Walter Brennan, and Claude Rains by getting Oscar nominations for their best roles.  As a result, I usually knock anyone that is a clear violator of category fraud of one "star" in the ranking of how I would vote for them here.  That doesn't always mean that I don't end up giving this trophy to a lead performance when they're miles above the rest of the field (see here for example), but it does mean that they have to work harder since they're already starting with a clear advantage.

This has to be said because Rooney Mara is sensational in Carol.  It's very hard to play an introverted character, unequipped with the language to express what she's feeling, particularly in a period piece where she's starring opposite an actress who gets both of those tools to deliver a performance, but Mara does it.  There's something so meticulous in her Therese.  Look at the way that she unpacks speeches she wants to give to Carol but says them to other people (Jake Lacy's Richard, for one) instead, or how she has to express so much through her face that her words and body can't.  Mara isn't an actress I would have gone to when she made her big splash in The Social Network a decade ago as someone who would have made a great silent film star, but here she shows that ability, acting out complex emotions that are alien to her character with a complete effortlessness.

Vikander is also swell in The Danish Girl.  2015 was a banner year for the actress, and if she doesn't start straightening out her career choices, might be the only banner year in her career, but she deserved the kudos she received for this and other films that year.  There's an ease to her Gerda, a comfortable nonchalance that hides the insecurities in her relationship with Einar/Lili, and she more than makes up for Redmayne not really getting his character.  I would have liked to have seen more of what happens to her as the story becomes entirely Lili's toward the end, and she's pushed to being the supportive wife, but Vikander is much better than cheeky Twitter commentators would let you believe when they discuss The Danish Girl.

When we get to the three actual supporting parts, we sadly don't see the consistency that Vikander & Mara bring to their work.  It is very hard to begrudge Jennifer Jason Leigh an Oscar nomination after all of these years of waiting, but did it really need to be for Quentin Tarantino's worst movie, and not just that, but one of the worst movies of 2015?  Her performance here is completely one-note, and one of the lesser examples of "I'm the only girl in a cast of all men" which feels about how she got noticed here (also Tarantino does have a strong history of landing at least one of his actors with Oscar).  She gets some fine asides in against Russell, but there's nothing special or interesting happening here, and it feels a lot like Stanley Tucci's nomination for The Lovely Bones a few years back in that they just desperately wanted to honor this specific actor while they had the chance.

Speaking of "I'm the only girl in a cast of men," we have Rachel McAdams, who like Leigh is landing her first (and so far only) Oscar nomination for Spotlight.  Unlike Leigh, who most people just assume was finally getting cited after years of rejection, McAdams appears to have her defenders in this role, but I'm not one of them.  I've come around to her as an actress (Disobedience being my "oh, right" moment), but here she does nothing with her Sacha Pfeiffer, taking introverted to just mean one-note and reserved.  Leigh at least brings some life to her character, but McAdams only occasionally has a spark, her eyes flickering when an interview says something interesting, but there's nothing special going on here, nothing that would warrant a nomination, and one wonders if Hollywood (who has always loved McAdams more than she seemed to love it back considering the press she gets compared to the roles she's done), just wanted to encourage her a little more into being in memorable pictures.

Our final nomination is for Kate Winslet, a proper supporting part and one that actually brings it.  Winslet had the longest absence with Oscar since she'd first been nominated (a seven year spread), and this was a welcome reminder of how good she could be.  Joanna Hoffman could just be observational, there for expositional conversations with Steve Jobs to move along Aaron Sorkin's life, but Winslet fills her with such passion and knowledge you understand why she's the only person who can tell Steve off without having to explain it.  That final scene, where she gives Steve a lecture about what it means to be a father could have been SO hokey (that's how it was written), but she sells it because she's put in the work throughout the film without you realizing it, and that "or you can contact me, at my new job working anywhere I want" line reading where she not only chastises him for his misuse of his daughter but also of her (reminding him that she is also a catch and could work literally anywhere and walk away at any time) may be the best line reading of any actor in 2015.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes in a wonderful touch put Vikander & Mara in the lead categories where they belonged, and as a result we had room for Helen Mirren (Trumbo) and Jane Fonda (Youth), as well as substituting out McAdams for Vikander in Ex Machina (a proper supporting performance).  Winslet would take the trophy, setting her up as the obvious second place to Vikander throughout the year.  The SAG Awards were bound to the category fraud due to their rules (you have to vote for what the studio submits, rather than the Globes or Oscars where it's at your discretion).  Here Vikander won, and the only person thrown out was Mirren in place of Leigh.  Leigh was at the BAFTA Awards, however, as the two that were thrown out were Vikander for herself (she was cited for Ex Machina while The Danish Girl competed for Best Actress) and McAdams, who was replaced with Julie Walters (Brooklyn).  I have to assume that Leigh, McAdams, and Mirren were in some sort of genuine battle for inclusion here, though it's not out-of-the-question that if Vikander had gone lead (very possible), she would have been double-nominated.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Well for starters I'd put in Vikander for the right role-not only is she supporting in Ex Machina, she's better, and in fact better than this whole field.  Rose Byrne is marvelously campy in Spy, and a nomination would have been an acknowledgement of all of the brilliant work she's been doing in comedy over the past decade.  I'd have found room for Kristen Stewart's crown jewel of a performance in Clouds of Sils Maria (she has emerged as one of our finest actresses in the past few years), and finally I would have kept Jane Fonda for that devastating cameo in Youth, arguably a role that would have best illustrated how absurd it is to have Vikander & Mara in this field.

Oscar’s Choice: In what was probably a closer matchup than you remember between Vikander and Winslet, Oscar went full-in on the category fraud.

My Choice: For me it would be between Mara & Winslet, but with Winslet being a proper supporting performance, I'm giving it to her.  Mara follows, with Vikander, Leigh, and McAdams behind.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you in concurrence with Oscar on Vikander, or does the category fraud make you go for Winslet? Do you think that Leigh or McAdams will ever be nominated for better work, or will this nomination suffice for the reminder of their careers?  And who will Helen Mirren be doomed to show up to precursors for the rest of time, never actually getting back to the Oscars?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2015: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Ten Mini Reviews

Usually at about this time each year, the amount of movies that I have gotten to has become completely overwhelming, and I am ridiculously behind on my reviews.  It's an unfortunate side effect of having my busiest time of year at work coupled with my busiest time of year in my personal life coupled with having the busiest time of the year on the blog.  Suffice it to say, it starts to get to me and while I always want to give every single movie I see its due, I also don't think I can get to all of these while the memory is still there for me to properly create a full review.  So with apologies to the filmmakers, I'm going to be doing short reviews here; we'll still have full reviews of all of the remaining Oscar nominees I haven't discussed from 2016, as well as A Monster Calls because I feel like I owe it to you to explain why I loved it so much, but these movies are going to just get the one paragraph.  If you want more of my thoughts, I'll gladly interact in the comments (incentive!)

(Spoilers for the films may be ahead)

Dark Passage
Thoughts: The least viewed of the Bacall/Bogart pictures, it weirdly has the most famous gimmick of the bunch, where we have a "subjective camera" technique seeing the film almost entirely from Bogart's point-of-view as he escapes from prison.  The film is solid, if predictable (shocker-the third most famous cast member is the real criminal!), and I loved the way that Bacall's performance is both a brazen young woman and completely lovestruck (few people did that better than her).  Still, once the gimmick is over it's never quite as strong as the top half-part of me wished they'd have stuck with it, even if that would have meant Bogart only in voiceover.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

Deadpool

Thoughts: I had sworn to myself I wasn't ever going to see a Ryan Reynolds movie again, but somehow he and Jason Bateman continue to haunt me and I end up stuck with them in front of me even when I didn't want to do so.  Here it was me buying the last-minute hype that Deadpool could land in a major category (or at least Best Makeup) and I ended up stuck in a boring, tired pile of garbage that succumbs to the same cliches that it tries to disprove.  Reynolds may have found a role tailor-made for him, but that doesn't mean he's a good actor.
Ranking: 2/5 stars

Dirty 30

Thoughts: Arguably the film I wanted to review fully the most (give or take Paterson), this film, while not a follow-up to Camp Takota, is at the very least a sequel in terms of who is involved.  The Holy Trinity of YouTube come back, but this time it's Mamrie at the center and all the better for it as she's the most naturally-gifted of the actresses at the center.  Hollywood, in desperate need of a romantic comedy lead, is foolish if they aren't taking advantage of an actress who can sell even some juvenile humor with aplomb-when the script works for her, this is genuinely just a good movie-no YouTube curve needed.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

Eye in the Sky

Thoughts: A taut thriller, the last real performance from Alan Rickman before his untimely death (I'm not counting Alice in Wonderland 2), the film is intriguing and actually quite watchable; it's the rare thriller you're not entirely sure how it will end.  The film's treatment of Americans isn't kind, but considering the buffoon we recently elected...not unfair.  Mirren could do this in her sleep (in fact most of these actors could), and I thought the most intriguing parts of this movie (particularly the sly sexism that hits her harder than the other men, particularly when one of her subordinates disobeys) are skated over, but by-and-large this is imminently watchable to the point where I wonder if the director didn't notice it was happening in the script, even if nowhere near the Oscar nomination some were drumming for the dame.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

The Innocents

Thoughts: No actress in 2016 more fully landed on my list of "on the radar" in a bigger way than Lou de Laage.  Between this and her mesmerizing work in L'Attesa, I can attest that I'll be seeking her out in a big way in future years, and I suspect a Cesar is in her future.  The film is not always easy, and occasionally is very hard to sit through, but it's beautifully shot and a more complex picture than you'd normally expect from a mid-fall foreign art house hit.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

The Legend of Tarzan

Thoughts: It seems funny to review Alexander Skarsgard right now, knowing what he's capable of as an actor (is anyone else thoroughly enjoying Big Little Lies right now-I'm totally enamored?).  This film, of course, is not really an acting showcase, but Skarsgard's shot at movie stardom. The casting department could not be lazier (about the only way they could have found a more cliched set of supporting players would have been to throw Paul Giamatti in there for no reason), but the action is fun and I thought the movie itself was beautifully shot.  Still-this is silliness on-top of silliness, and oh man is Chrisotph Waltz terrible.
Ranking: 2/5 stars

The Light Between Oceans

Thoughts: I will admit that initially I had higher hopes for this movie-it was one of my most-anticipated pictures of 2016, particularly considering how much I've loved the three leads in recent years.  However, that disappointment shouldn't be confused with a bad movie, even if it's sadly a pretty predictable one.  Fassbender and Vikander are both great as the tragic romantic leads, and Weisz might under-emote as the grieving mother, but that feels more like the script's fault that she doesn't get any big scenes. Still, some of the film's best moments (particularly Vikander begging her husband to lie for her sake, to keep her from being lonely) show a movie with great unrealized potential.

Ranking: 3/5 stars

Miss Sloane

Thoughts: Sometimes it's hard to remember that not everything is about the Oscars.  This is particularly hard to stomach when a movie stars one of your favorite actors of the moment, one of whom you wish had an Oscar (hint, hint), but Miss Sloane isn't really an Oscar movie.  It's the sort of taut late-Summer thriller that used to get vacation homes for Julia Roberts or Ashley Judd but has somehow gone out of fashion (perhaps because it got completely absorbed by television?).  Either way, this is a fun movie even if it's wildly over-the-top, and is proof that if Chastain ever wants to just cash-out with big paychecks, she has that ability while still remaining watchable.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

Paterson

Thoughts: Surely the best film on this list, and the one with the best performance, I almost skipped including Paterson because I wanted to discuss it more, but that's technically true of all of these movies (I really just want to talk about movies all day long).  That being said, the comments are there if you want to go further.  Until then, remember that this is a fascinating little study of one single life, proving that you can make pretty much anyone compelling with good writing and good acting, and Driver's central performance exhibits a man that feels like he's being under-served in major movies even if he's cast almost everywhere.  That penultimate scene is a doozy, one almost every other actor would have underplayed or screwed up but Driver nails against the wall and keeps you guessing-when is he going to get some Oscar love?
Ranking: 4/5 stars

Sunset Song

Thoughts: Probably the biggest "who?" film on this list, I saw this because it was Terence Davies' follow-up to the sexy and brilliant The Deep Blue Sea. so it felt like a civic duty.  The movie shows the impossibly hard life of Scottish peasants right before World War I.  The movie is beautiful, and has that "case of the handsomes" in that it's rarely compelling, and never really lets up with the hardships even for a moment.  The central love story feels, in my opinion, to be too jumpy in the treatment of Ewan, which is a pity as there was a great movie somewhere in the pages of Lewis Grassic Gibbon's famed novel.
Ranking: 3/5 stars

The Best Films of 2015

Whew!  I went on a bit of a movie-watching bender over the past 36 hours, trying to scoop up as many of the missing films of 2015 that I could, and am officially ready to announce my Top 10 for the year (I already announced my Bottom 5 a few days ago on the blog).  Like with the worst of the year I didn't put them in a ranked order (they're alphabetical), but I highly recommend that you investigate all ten of these if you like to laugh, cry, and most of all enjoy fine cinema.  You'll note that every single one of these films has a female protagonist, which is unusual for me (I've never done that before with a film year), but appropriate considering this was clearly the year of the female-driven film, even if Oscar disagrees when they eventually crown Spotlight or The Revenant.  Without further adieu...

45 Years (dir. Andrew Haigh)

A deeply moving look at the hierarchies and intricacies of love and marriage.  Andrew Haigh has proven himself, with Weekend and Looking, a sharp observer of relationships and here we get the devastation of second guesses and suppositions.  Both Tom Courtenay and especially Charlotte Rampling dominate this in subdued, marvelous acting.

Brooklyn (dir. John Crowley)

Romance, especially big, complicated, straight-dramatic romance had largely gone out of fashion at the cinema until 2015, when films like Brooklyn brought it back.  Saoirse Ronan graduates to adulthood with the same level of ease that she portrayed in Atonement, and it pays off with a coming-of-age story that feels fresh, modern, and yet fully in its time-and-place.

Carol (dir. Todd Haynes)

I have never loved, but only liked, the films of Todd Haynes.  Until now.  Carol is the movie that made me a convert, and it's not hard to see why.  The film is that rare romance where you genuinely can't figure out how it will end until the movie actually gives us that answer (props to Phyllis Nagy on the wonderful screenplay), though all along you're breathlessly hoping that Carol and Therese end up together as Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara make a beautiful pair.

Clouds of Sils Maria (dir. Olivier Assayas)

This is what great acting and writing can accomplish-truly moving mountains.  Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart create something breathtaking in this look at celebrity, relationships, and aging.  The film came out so early in the year you'd be forgiven for thinking its time has passed, but Clouds lingers and comes back at you as it's too perceptive to disappear.

Ex Machina (dir. Alex Garland)

This was a wonderful throwback to the Science-Fiction films of the 1970's, where instead of battling aliens or zombies, we instead find ourselves at battle with ourselves and our own hubris.  Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, and Oscar Isaac create a terrific acting trio, frequently one-upping each other with second agendas and the introspection of forced claustrophobia.

I'll See You in My Dreams (dir. Brett Haley)

Age was a great supporting player in a lot of the best films of the year, and none more-so than I'll See You in My Dreams, a film that meditates on when we stop experiencing newness in our lives and when we pack up the adventures and risks of our youth.  Blythe Danner has never been better (and Sam Elliott never sexier) than in this romance about two people trying something learned and making it feel rich and unexpected again.

Mad Max: Fury Road (dir. George Miller)

The most vibrant action film I've seen in years.  Brimming with lush visuals (John Seale deserves a standing ovation to go with that Oscar nomination), the film is raw, humming with energy, and a complete shock after a year where Jurassic World brought a franchise's heat crashing down.  Everything works, and you find yourself eagerly awaiting every single impending scene.

Room (dir. Lenny Abrahamson)

Based on the amount of tears that came down my face, this was not the smartest date movie I've ever selected.  That's really the only complaint here, as Room is about as wonderful as movies can get, with a perceptive look into the world both of a sheltered, innocent child like Jack (Jacob Tremblay) and a magnificent turn as a woman who doesn't know what to do with her lost youth in Joy (Brie Larson, finally getting the kudos her career has been demanding for years).

Spy (dir. Paul Feig)

The funniest movie I've seen all year...the funniest movie I've seen in several years.  I literally could not stop laughing, and that only happens when you have Melissa McCarthy in top-form (and during the first half of the film, in a form I've never seen her embrace on the big-screen) and a supporting cast of Rose Byrne, Alison Janney, Miranda Hart, and (particularly surprising and delightful) Jason Statham all showing ridiculously well-honed comedic chops.

Testament of Youth (dir. James Kent)

When I keep internally saying the words "Waterloo Bridge" you are doing something right onscreen.  This is one of the most romantic and fully-felt films I've seen in years, with breathy and airy romantic gestures between Kit Harington and Alicia Vikander, who in a year where everyone was awed by her work in The Danish Girl and Ex Machina, won my heart personally forever with her Vera, so defiant and full of ambitions bursting to find their purpose.

And there you have it folks-my top ten of the year!  Share your thoughts on these films (and if you haven't seen any of them, it's time to start clicking that 'Add' button on Netflix) along with your Top 10 lists in the comments!

OVP: The Danish Girl (2015)

Film: The Danish Girl (2015)
Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ben Whishaw, Sebastian Koch, Amber Heard
Director: Tom Hooper
Oscar History: 4 nominations/1 win (Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne, Supporting Actress-Alicia Vikander*, Production Design, Costume)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I feel like sometimes Hollywood can’t quite make up its mind about where it wants to position itself in the larger pantheon of social issues.  For an admittedly progressive community, they frequently make extraordinarily conservative films about hot button topics of the day, which of course age terribly.  Look at something like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, which is deeply preachy and seems far too ridiculous decades later even if the topic it was discussing was still all over the news at the time, or the story of Alan Turing in The Imitation Game, perhaps the most recent example of a social issue totally being dismissed even if the filmmakers call themselves brave.  I unfortunately have to admit that The Danish Girl, one of the first major filmic conversations about transgender issues to come to light in the wake of what has to be considered a watershed moment for the transgender rights movement, falls into this category.  It frequently feels shut off from the progress of the community, and though it tries to allow Victorian Style morals to serve as a cover for why it doesn’t seem a bit more engaged in more complicated issues of gender and sexuality, it ends up feeling like a film that will become quickly dated and already passe.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is a pity because the transgender community probably could use their own Brokeback Mountain style excellent film at this point.  While there has been huge progress for the T in LGBT, you can still sense amongst sects of the aging liberal community an apprehension about, say, Olympic hero Bruce Jenner in a dress on the cover of Vanity Fair.  In fact, while I was watching this film with my brother, I heard multiple murmurs from older couples of “Bruce Jenner” and some uncomfortable laughter in scenes that felt to me like they should be met with a sense of the unfortunate. 

The problem here is that the audience isn’t entirely to blame-the film, especially earlier on in the movie, plays The Danish Girl for laughs.  The film’s approach initially feels really inappropriate, with Einar/Lili (Redmayne) seemingly awakening his feminine side not in earlier flashback scenes or a clear understanding of his true self, but simply by trying on pantyhose.  Lili even gets her name not from something that she has cultivated internally over decades, but simply from an offhand comment from a family friend Ulla (Heard), who discards it laughingly.  This sort of “randomness” makes the second half of the film, where the filmmakers go through the PC language of “always felt like this” feel tacked on, as if they realized suddenly that GLAAD would be all over them if they didn’t handle the subject with more tact.

This is just one of multiple tonal problems the film has.  We don’t get any sense from Lili, for example, of her having much of a sexual appetite despite a clear lust for men earlier on in the movie (she has a romantic dalliance with Ben Whishaw that initially seems like we’re about to have a very complicated love triangle, but that goes nowhere).  Her relationship with Gerda (Vikander) is complicated, but it feels pretty odd considering that many historians considered the relationship to be largely sexless and because Einar seems to voraciously adore his wife and Lili appears to be completely disconnected from her.  All of this makes the film, which needs a tactful hand if, as it clearly was hoping to be, it wanted to be the trans community’s Brokeback Mountain, but by ignoring chunks of history it feels less authentic.

The film’s two central performances have gotten the bulk of the awards accolades, and while both Redmayne and Vikander have showy moments, I wasn’t wowed in a new way by either.  Redmayne’s grace as an actor is really stupendous, and he charms with the best of them, but I still haven’t been wowed in the same way I was with Les Miserables even if the years since have brought him more accolades, and his performance as Lili feels too reluctant and tick-tick-ticking methodical for my tastes.  Vikander has had a banner year, but comparing her work here, which does have a comfortable ease and occasionally brings an emotionally complicated work lacking in what Redmayne is doing, still feels like it’s in the shadow of lesser-recognized pieces like Ex Machina and Testament of Youth.  All-in-all, I’ll be glad if this gets her some sort of recognition for the future and more roles, but I’d prefer her to be cited for something else (and in the correct category-this isn’t even close to being a supporting performance).

Those are my thoughts on The Danish Girl-how about yourself?  Were you like me and felt like the anesthetized approach to the film made it feel like something we’ll kind of just dismiss in the future?  What do you think of Redmayne and Vikander’s chances at Oscar?  And when do you think the trans community will get a movie that feels like an appropriately-handled masterwork?

5 Random Thoughts on the Golden Globe Nominations

There we have it folks, the Golden Globe nominations are now out, and we have what may be the most eclectic group of nominees in conjunction with the SAG Awards I have seen in a while.  Honestly, I am going to be royally disappointed if after all of this we see the same names keep showing up in the winners circle, as this is at the very least exciting and could have us poised for some surprising victors on Oscar night even if the lead winners feel pretty locked in for trophies right now (Leo and Brie, start clearing a shelf).  Let's look at five of my thoughts about yesterday morning's Golden Globe nominations.

1. Best Actress's Fifth Slot is Crazy Competitive

Right now, it feels like four women who got Globe nods Thursday morning feel like they'll be joining the Best Actress race: Cate Blanchett, Brie Larson, Saoirse Ronan, and Jennifer Lawrence.  All but J. Law got both Globe and SAG nominations, and in her case it's a late-breaking movie that stars the planet's biggest movie star, so I feel like it's pretty locked in for the nomination.  The fifth slot, though, is anyone's guess.  The day after Sarah Silverman and Helen Mirren inserted themselves with vigor into the Best Actress race, we saw some of the other names that have bandied for months like Lily Tomlin and Maggie Smith put into the contest, as well as current supporting campaigns for Alicia Vikander and Rooney Mara proving they probably should have gone lead.  The fifth slot could, quite frankly, go to either of the two women, but if it doesn't this is wide open as there's no consistency.  Both Tomlin and Smith could make it, of course, but they're in little seen films and are both comedies that won't score anywhere else.  Names like Charlotte Rampling, Blythe Danner, Carey Mulligan, and even Charlize Theron are also women that could be in the contest, but can they land that rare no-precursor citation?  We'll be looking at the odds of that happening in the next couple of days (it's a TMROJ tradition), but if Mara or Vikander aren't promoted, this could go anywhere.

2. Double-Dipping?

A day after Helen Mirren randomly got two SAG nominations, this morning it was Alicia Vikander that was there twice.  Vikander got cited for both The Danish Girl and Ex Machina, and considering she has been considered by multiple people for both roles now (though The Danish Girl more vociferously), one wonders if she'll be a victim of vote-splitting considering the year that she's had.  Mirren also got nominated this morning for Trumbo, along with Bryan Cranston, which makes me assume this is now a thing-dual nominations at both awards shows means that one or both of them is probably going to make it with Oscar, and considering Cranston is a giant right now in Hollywood and Mirren is a 4-time Oscar nominee, it could so easily be both (I'm guessing it in my current predictions).

3. Best Actor in a Comedy is Hilarious...But Not in the Way You'd Want

Wow-the Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical field, almost always a bit of a question mark in terms of quality, didn't disappoint in this ridiculously weak year for the Best Actor field, as we saw obvious winner Matt Damon (The Martian) joined by Christian Bale & Steve Carell (The Big Short...which is also now a thing considering its strength the past two days), Al Pacino bizarrely for Danny Collins, and perhaps most staggeringly Mark Ruffalo for the little seen Infinitely Polar Bear, the closest we got today to a Sarah Silverman moment.  Ruffalo made it here, but weirdly not for once titanic-sized Best Picture contender Spotlight, which seems to have lost a bit of steam even if it's the only film to score nominations both yesterday and today aside from The Big Short.  It's starting to look like the "everyone's supporting!" campaign for the film isn't working, as Keaton and Ruffalo won't have an obvious "whom should we vote for" position on ballots, and look likely to lose out to surging Paul Dano and Idris Elba.

4. What Happens with Mad Max: Fury Road at the Oscars?

I know the focus should be on the Globes, but the way I'm taking this morning is all about the Golden guy, and Mad Max: Fury Road is the true question of the morning (Creed and its late-surge that didn't hit these awards is the other one).  In my predictions in the past few days I found myself predicting it for eight awards, but could that actually be less than it should be?!?  At this point nominations for directing, writing, art direction, and perhaps even acting aren't totally outside the realm of possibility-could it be the nomination frontrunner (and with that, perhaps even a winner?!?)?  There's no precedent for something like this at Oscar except perhaps The Dark Knight, and even that didn't make Best Picture or Director so I cannot figure it out.  To think a few months ago we were wondering if John Seale or Visual Effects could somehow happen-now they are more than likely the winners.

5. Melissa McCarthy is Finally a Globe Nominee

This is a report that almost no one else was going to write about, but considering I've been tracking this for years I wanted to point out that Melissa McCarthy finally got in with the Globes after bizarrely never making it before.  McCarthy has had ample opportunities in the past (Bridesmaids, Mike & Molly, The Heat, St. Vincent) but it never happened before today with Spy.  One wonders if, with Jennifer Lawrence already a very recent two-time winner with HFPA, she might even win if Lawrence doesn't take it by default or will it be Tomlin taking a sentimental trophy?  It's worth noting that McCarthy's nomination comes at the expense of Globes' pet Meryl Streep, missing for the first time in a while for Ricki and the Flash.

And there you have it-my from-the-gut first thoughts on the Globe nominations-what are yours?  I didn't touch television once again, but know that I'm reprogramming my DVR just like you to catch a few of these shows (the Globes continually live up to their reputation of going with the new compared to the staid nominations that come at the SAG and Emmy Awards).  Share film or TV thoughts down below!

7 Random Thoughts on the SAG Nominations

All right, I have been watching the film awards game for about twenty years now, and I don't think I have ever seen a slate quite like what the SAG Awards threw out this morning.  Honestly-I remember City of God getting its random Oscar nominations a few years back and thinking "there will never be anything like this again," but apparently I was dead wrong.  Here are seven random thoughts I had while looking through this morning wackiness.

1. Sarah Silverman-WTF?

Easily the biggest surprise for me was Sarah Silverman for a film that I hadn't even heard of, and certainly had never seen.  The comic actress, best-known for her work on television, randomly gets into Best Actress for I Smile Back over Lily Tomlin, Blythe Danner, Carey Mulligan, Charlotte Rampling, Emily Blunt, Maggie Smith, and Jennifer freaking Lawrence?  How is that even possible?  I genuinely thought they had made a mistake with the slides and Silverman was actually nominated for a TV movie I'd never heard of before.  The fact that she is now a SAG nominee for film acting is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen at one of these announcements.  Does this translate to Oscar?  Who the hell knows, and quite frankly even if it doesn't it's hard to imagine there being a stranger citation this cycle.  And yes, like all of you I'm going to have to find a way to see this now.

2. Helen Mirren is the Queen of Everything

In any other year Dame Helen Mirren's random two nominations for Woman in Gold and Trumbo would be the shocker of the morning, but nothing is going to beat out Silverman's spot.  That being said, this is a trickier proposition for Oscar conversation, as Mirren is actually quite beloved at the Globes (remember, she randomly got cited last year for The Hundred-Foot Journey).  In fact, it's totally within the realm of possibility if Woman in Gold is somehow deemed a comedy that she could be double-nominated by HFPA as well.  This doesn't necessarily mean an Oscar nod (Mirren herself is aware of this-she was nominated for both a few years back for Hitchcock), but no one has ever been doubly-nominated at both awards and not gotten at least one Oscar nomination.  That could well be in supporting (lead seems impossible, even with Harvey behind her), considering...

3. Trumbo is Now a Thing

With three major nominations, including one that looks plausible for Oscar in Bryan Cranston, it's time to start considering whether Trumbo, which was middling at best but has lots of Hollywood hooks in it, may be an Oscar contender.  The film came-and-went without a peep, but perhaps we've been spoiled the past few years with movies like 12 Years a Slave and Birdman winning the top honors-lest we forget it wasn't that long ago that movies like The Cider House Rules were major Oscar players, and that sort of mid-level drama could be attractive to older members of the Academy (whom, I'm guessing, loved this movie).  Plus, Cranston is a hot name that hasn't been invited to the world of movies quite yet and Mirren is always a threat for awards love (apparently).  While I'd like to see a little bit more breath off of this, this might be the film we all underestimated this season.

4. Category Fraud is Only Sort of SAG's Fault

Alicia Vikander and Rooney Mara both made the supporting lineup, principally because SAG is required to go with studio designations (this is why people like Jennifer Connelly and Benicio del Toro went lead here in the past while they went on to be supporting at the Oscars-mistakes with where they were submitted).  Since the Globes, if they go for either tomorrow, will not be putting them in supporting (they have already deemed this inappropriate), it makes me wonder what their campaigns will be like.  Mara in particular has gained loads of attention for this being a dual lead with Blanchett-could this be a straw that broke the camel's back situation?  Considering that Larson, Ronan, and Blanchett seem like the only sure things there, she could easily pull a Winslet in The Reader and make it into lead at the last minute.

5. Best Actor is Not Strong This Year, But It Is Varied

With the exception of Cranston, the Best Actor field feels about right, though there's still the likes of Michael B. Jordan, Michael Caine, and Matt Damon to consider against Cranston as it seems unlikely that they all three miss with Oscar.  Still, Leo, Johnny, Fassy, and Eddie all sank a necessary basket this morning, and though The Revenant didn't make Best Cast, against this competition it kind of feels like they're giving it to DiCaprio, right?  Damon and Caine appear like his toughest competition, and they now have big debits against them going into Oscar night.  The fanboys look like they will have their reward...

6. Supporting Actor is Confusing

I still can't get over that Spotlight didn't get what should have been an easy nomination for supporting actor, instead only giving in to Rachel McAdams who now seems like a pretty good bet for the Oscars (though it's worth noting that The Hateful Eight didn't release screeners so Jennifer Jason Leigh could still make it with AMPAS).  With Ruffalo and Keaton out of the way, some other names like Michael Shannon (99 Homes-another film I need to make room for on my viewing docket), Jacob Tremblay (speaking of category fraud), Christian Bale (is he best-in-show in that movie, because if he is I think this could happen?), and Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation) all moving into the conversation.  Of these five, unless The Big Short is a late-breaker in the race that I didn't anticipate, I think that Elba is the one we should all start locking into our predictions.  He's a huge star right now, his film is heavy and Netflix is pushing hard, and he's also the best chance this year of a person of color getting nominated for an Oscar.  All that added together sort of makes this a no-brainer.  I wonder, quite frankly, whether it could be Elba v. Mark Rylance for the win.  Also, congrats to Bleecker Street, who produced both Beasts of No Nation and Trumbo-the champagne must be flowing there!

7. SAG Has a Female Problem

This has been noted by everyone on Twitter, but it needs to be repeated-in a year where pretty much everyone agrees the Best Actress field is better than Best Actor, and the female-led films have been the topic of most conversation, SAG chose all films for its top prize where the casts are predominantly male.  In fact, of the 38 actors nominated for Best Cast, only 6 are female-84% of the Best Cast nominees are men.  It's also worth noting that three of those six nominees (Helen Mirren, Elle Fanning, and Diane Lane) come from Trumbo-Beasts of No Nation and Straight Outta Compton don't even have female nominations (for the curious, Marisa Tomei and Melissa Leo in The Big Short and Rachel McAdams in Spotlight are the remaining nominations).  Congress has a greater percentage of women than the SAG Awards do, and that's pathetic.

I don't know enough about television to really complain about the nominations there, though I am stunned Oscar Isaac didn't make it for Show Me a Hero (I suspect he does tomorrow at the Globes though) considering his rising star and HBO's guiding hand.  In SAG's defense, I love that this was not what we'll see with the Oscars-that's exciting, and I long for a year where there's chaos around who will win/be nominated, and that we don't have the same four people collecting trophies every weekend.  I just wish that they'd picked better movies to toss into the conversation.  In terms of Oscar, I think that while certain films probably got hurt today (namely Youth, Suffragette, and I'll See You in My Dreams) others like The Martian, Spotlight, and Joy will probably make up for their lack of nods here tomorrow at the Globes.  In the meantime, weigh in on your thoughts about this morning's bizarre SAG nods.

The Globes' Category Fraud Mic Drop

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association yesterday threw one of the bigger wrenches in a while into the Oscar race.  The voters behind the Golden Globes, arguably the most significant film award not to feature a shiny gold man decided that Rooney Mara (Carol) and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), two of Oscar's frontrunners for a Best Supporting Actress nomination, were actually leads in their respective films and would be considered as such at the Oscars.  Considering the press that being a Golden Globe nominee elicits, and that Globe nominations happen prior to AMPAS voting, it made me wonder what effect this would have on the Supporting Actress race at the Oscars.

This is a pretty big deal, in terms of awards season, and seems to be in response to a years-in-the-making push against category fraud.  While category fraud (where lead performances are marketed as supporting performances in hopes of bettering a film/actor's chances at a nomination) has been around for decades, a backlash happened in particular in 2007 when Casey Affleck, the title character and most significant person in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, was cited in supporting despite the most screentime and the crux of the story's plot centering on his character.  Since then, we've seen a bit of a backlash when actors market clearly leading performances in the supporting category, and occasionally we've seen the Academy reject this out-of-hand (see Kate Winslet in 2008's The Reader, where she won supporting trophies at the Globes and SAG Awards before competing in lead at the Oscars).  This year there was an uproar amongst Oscar pundits when it was announced that Vikander and Mara, who are considered by most people who have seen their pictures as above-the-title characters, would still campaign as supporting and it appears that HFPA is having none of it.

The Academy isn't bound by Globes decisions, or even campaign decisions, as Kate Winslet illustrates above, and so this doesn't necessarily doom Vikander and Mara in the supporting races.  Catherine Zeta-Jones, notably, was nominated for Best Actress for Chicago at the Globes and still went on to win the Oscar in the supporting field that year.  However, this sort of category confusion occasionally has major effects on the Oscar race, most notably in 2003.  That year Scarlett Johansson was cited for leading actress for both Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl Earring at the Golden Globes, but her campaign for Lost in Translation (considering its Oscar haul, clearly the more likely candidate that year) greedily switched to supporting at the last minute despite her being a main character, and as a result almost assuredly cost her a nomination in what was a very chaotic Best Actress race.  Vikander and Mara's campaigns may look at the Globes, and wonder if being in lead at the Globes and supporting at the SAG Awards would hurt their campaigns and just end up changing at the last minute in a move similar to Ian McKellen a few years back for The Lord of the Rings (which paid off nicely-McKellen won an Oscar nomination in the process).

If Vikander and Mara either aren't in the Oscar conversation due to losing out on their nominations or they move to lead, the entire Supporting Actress race kind of turns on its head.  Both of these women are considered significant frontrunners for the trophy (particularly Vikander) at this juncture, and taking them out would give us no real obvious contender for the win.  While it's questionable whether or not either would make Lead Actress (Mara specifically could have issues there considering her costar Cate Blanchett is also a contender), Supporting Actress would be thrown into a bit of pandemonium.  Assuming that certain random names like Rachel Weisz (Youth), Phylicia Rashad (Creed), and Helen Mirren (Trumbo) don't pop up, there are essentially eight additional names that seem to be amongst the nominees for Supporting Actress in a world without Vikander/Mara; these women are Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Joan Allen (Room), Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs), Diane Ladd (Joy), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Elizabeth Banks (Love & Mercy), Julie Walters (Brooklyn), and Jane Fonda (Youth).

Looking at these women there are clearly names that will have a better shot at a nomination (Winslet, McAdams) than others (Ladd, Walters), but the race seems relatively open amongst these women as none of them are ironclad at the moment and I wouldn't say any is guaranteed.  You can take someone like McAdams (who is the only female in a likely male-driven Best Picture nomination, which is usually a solid way to get noticed), and remember that she's never been in Oscar contention before, and this theory falters occasionally (see Vera Farmiga in The Departed or Margot Robbie in The Wolf of Wall Street).  The same goes for the rest: Kate Winslet is in a movie that flopped, Julie Walters and Elizabeth Banks are in tiny films, Joan Allen and Jane Fonda have small roles that could be ignored, and Diane Ladd/Jennifer Jason Leigh are in pictures no one's seen yet, so we have no clue on their actual feasibility.  All-in-all, these eight could make for a (hopefully) madcap spread-the-wealth year if we can't have category fraud.

And of course, there's the question of the winner.  Winslet's won recently and hasn't really done anything since to deserve a second trophy, Fonda's won twice and is in a slim role, Walters/Ladd/Leigh/Allen are all actresses with long pedigreed careers but no one thinks of them as "destined for Oscar" anymore (even though admittedly no one thought that about Patricia Arquette until last year), and McAdams, probably the nominal frontrunner in a field like this, isn't getting the standout raves for Spotlight that the male players are and has never been in Oscar contention previously.  All-in-all, if the Globes (thankfully) have broken back the tide of category fraud this year, we could have a truly exciting race amongst the supporting ladies.

Six Biggest Questions for the Best Actress Race

If there's one thing about this past year and upcoming season of movies that I am thrilled about, it's that the Best Actress field looks amazing.  Seriously-I cannot tell you the last time I was this excited about all of the gourmet prospects set to hit me in the face and the wonderful little movies that I've already had the pleasure of encountering earlier in the year. There's a plethora of names from Oscar-winning stars to longtime character actors getting their due to up-and-coming players to a newcomer that seems to be in literally every film this year.  All-in-all it's a great time if you love women at the movies (and if you don't, what the hell is wrong with you?), but it also begs a few questions.  After all, while great film is by far its own reward, it's worth pondering which of this avalanche of names manages to make it to the Kodak as one of the five lucky contenders for a shiny gold man.  I'm less concerned right now with winners (though it's also exciting that at least as of now there's no one that has clearly positioned themselves at the front of that line either), but more on nominees, which is more exciting anyway (it's only every four years or so that this category is remotely competitive).  The below six questions seem to be the most critical in deciding who will be translating their buzz and reviews into a little bit of Oscar immortality:

1. Who is Committing Category Fraud?

Recent nominees Helen Hunt, Julia Roberts, and Hailee Steinfeld can all agree that getting a nomination is easier if you lie about your role in the film, and despite appearing in a vast majority of their most-recent Oscar-blessed movies, all three of these women scored dubious nominations for their "supporting" work onscreen (Roberts in particular still sticks in my craw since she's in more scenes than Streep who did go lead, gets the final scene, and is one of the biggest movie stars on the planet and could well have gained a lead nomination if she wanted to, letting the likes of her costars Margo Martindale and Julianne Nicholson maybe have a huge career boost from such a citation).  This year seems more than open season for potential category fraud, with the likes of Ellen Page (Freeheld), Rooney Mara & Cate Blanchett (Carol), and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) all oddly positioned to go either lead or supporting, though critics say they should all be competing in the lead race.  Blanchett has a bit of a history with going supporting when she shouldn't (she had nothing to say about such a thing when she did it for Notes on a Scandal), and no film has been nominated twice for Best Actress since Thelma & Louise in 1991 so Carol in particular seems susceptible to fraud.  While I'd love for some campaign to say "screw it" and shoot for the stars (trust me, it would be far better for press for a film like Carol if both Mara and Blanchett were competing against each other in lead, and probably help them much more in gaining actual votes because of the "competition" angle), I'm doubtful.  The question is which of these women decide to go supporting.  In the case of Vikander in particular, this could be a make-or-break moment for women like Kate Winslet, Rachel McAdams, and Jennifer Jason Leigh who are going to be making a play to actually win the supporting trophy (Vikander would start out with a huge advantage considering her film's buzz and the year she's had).  It's also worth noting that a confusing campaign could hurt these women (look at Scarlett Johansson's big miss in 2003) or the Academy could ignore it (Keisha Castle-Hughes and Kate Winslet in The Reader comes to mind).

2. Which Cate do we pick?

Assuming that Blanchett doesn't go supporting for Carol, the Academy is left with its biggest conundrum in this category since perhaps 2001, as Blanchett will have two films that are in contention, not just one.  Both Carol and Truth are star vehicles for Blanchett, who is probably due for an afterglow nomination after her major triumph in Blue Jasmine, but she could end up missing for both because of vote-splitting.  It's worth noting that in 2001 Nicole Kidman was skipped at the SAG Awards for her work in both Moulin Rouge! and The Others, and many people thought that Tilda Swinton or Nia Vardalos might earn a nomination by technicality as Kidman had active campaigns for both films potentially splitting her support.  While Kidman ended up with her first nomination that year, Scarlett Johansson wasn't so lucky two years later.  Blanchett could try the route employed by Kate Winslet in 2008 (pushing one to supporting), but that still only resulted in one nomination for The Reader as the Academy refused such nonsense.  How Blanchett's campaign pans out could play a major role in whether she gets to the Final Five either in lead or supporting (or both).

3. Is the Academy sick of Jennifer Lawrence and David O. Russell?

I can't tell right now whether or not the public is sick of J. Law-it's hard to know, though it's been a while since we have had a movie star that demanded this kind of polarized reactions.  Still, this could be a big moment for the Academy as Joy is clearly designed to continue Russell's amazing consecutive run of Best Picture nominees, and Lawrence could make history as the youngest actor to score four nominations, besting Jennifer Jones.  The question is whether or not this will work for her-if the slight stench coming off the X-Men and Hunger Games franchises (diminishing returns, both commercially and critically) hurts her, she could be in for a surprise snub.  However if she continues to be the star of the moment, it feels like Joy will be yet another chance to reward her (perhaps even with a second trophy).

4. Will the Buzz Translate?

Right now there are four actresses who are clearly critical favorites but who have not had their Oscar moment that could potentially change all that in a few months (again, remember that we don't really have a frontrunner quite yet).  Brie Larson (Room), Emily Blunt (Sicario), Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn), and Carey Mulligan (Suffragette) have not won much in terms of hardware (and only the latter two have scored with the Oscars), but they're all in positions in their career where a nomination could happen, and all have strong reviews coming out of their respective film festivals.  The question here is what happens as a result of that.  People can go from festival buzz all the way to the Kodak (look at Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone or Gabourey Sidibe in Precious) or they can be completely forgotten like Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy Mae Marlene.  The campaigns for these actresses, as well as public reaction to their relatively small films will be critical, but I would be stunned if 1-2 didn't end up in contention later this year.

5. Time for an Oscar Favorite?

Occasionally Oscar gets a little nostalgic or repetitive, and decides it must have a certain former winner back in the fold for whatever reason.  In 2009, despite Emily Blunt making far more sense on paper (up-and-comer, real-life person, never honored, Globe nominee in Drama) for The Young Victoria, the Academy decided that it must have Helen Mirren randomly nominated for The Last Station, a nomination I am guessing even Mirren herself forgets happened.  Marion Cotillard last year trumped Jennifer Aniston for a similar sort of situation, though here she at least had better reviews.  The question becomes which "longshot" former winner might be invited back for another round in the fifth slot?  I am not counting Blanchett and Lawrence here since they seem more-than-likely to be in the conversation regardless and fifth-slots never actually win the trophy (which both of these women seem like strong possibilities to do), but instead Sandra Bullock (Our Brand is Crisis), Julianne Moore (Freeheld), Maggie Smith (The Lady in the Van), and even Cotillard again for Macbeth.  Bullock probably has the best shot considering the prestige behind her project (from the men who brought you Argo), but any of these women could theoretically make it if they get good enough reviews and Oscar's feeling it.  And then of course it's always unwise to totally discount Meryl Streep, whose work in Ricki and the Flash was light, but then again so was her performance in Music of the Heart and that still got through.

6. Will Anyone Get an "It's Time" Nomination?

One of the sadder things about the Best Actress race is that, unlike the Best Actor field where the likes of Gary Oldman, Mickey Rourke, and Frank Langella all managed to score late-in-their-career "you should have been an Oscar nominee by now" sorts of nominations, the Best Actress field rarely does this, going instead for the tried-and-true former winners/nominees and the PYT's.  This year, however, three women could be looking at their very first trophy, two of them their very first nomination.  Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), Lily Tomlin (Grandma), and Blythe Danner (I'll See You in My Dreams) all three have gotten plaudits from festivals and critics, and in the case of Danner she even got a bonafide hit.  If they were men with the careers they had, we'd likely be pushing them hard for nominations, but this year is ultra competitive and this category isn't as kind to "career achievement" style first nominations.  I suspect that all three will get pushes from their studios, but the question is will any of them catch fire?  Tomlin in particular has been having a major career moment what with the Kennedy Center Honor and a recent TV series/Emmy nomination.  Part of me wonders if she might actually be able to win the thing, if she can land the nomination.

And there you have it folks-the six biggest questions for this year's Best Actress race.  What are your answers to these questions and what five women seem most likely to succeed?  Share your thoughts below!