OVP: Crimes of the Heart (1986)

Film: Crimes of the Heart (1986)

Stars: Diane Keaton, Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek, Sam Shepard, Tess Harper, Hurd Hatfield

Director: Bruce Beresford

Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Actress-Sissy Spacek, Supporting Actress-Tess Harper, Adapted Screenplay)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

The 1980's are a weird time for me cinematically.  I was alive in the 1980's, but the movies I was obsessed with were Lady and the Tramp and Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day...I was not really concerned with the kinds of films that Oscar was acknowledging.  As a result, I don't have any nostalgia to surround myself with from the decade, and am left with kind of a bad feeling every time someone brings it up with reverence...as the 1980's is easily my least favorite decade cinematically.  The acting is a bit too involved, the headliners are not my favorites, the scripts are too indulgent and anguished...it was a decade where people seemed to be totally oblivious to how awful Ronald Reagan was as president.  I had this sense of apprehension heading into Crimes of the Heart, even though I genuinely like all three of the leading ladies in it (even with my 1980's allergy), as I was curious what a film like this would feel like, and if it would rise above the 1980's trappings.  What I didn't expect, however, was how weird it would be.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about three sisters, all of whom have very different natures.  Lenny (Keaton), is a spinster who has spent much of their life taking care of their dying grandfather (Hatfield), while Meg (Lange) is a struggling singer in Hollywood who has left behind her family.  They are both home immediately following Babe (Spacek), their youngest sister, having had an affair with a black teenager & shooting her husband who regularly beats her senseless.  As the film progresses, we learn more about the trio, specifically the shocking trauma they endured when they were children (that their mother hanged herself and her cat, making them national news).  As the film ends, it looks like Babe will kill herself in a fashion similar to her mother, but is unsuccessful in repeated attempts to commit suicide, and the film ends with the three sisters finally acknowledging their need for one another, despite their differences.

The movie is bizarre not in its approach (it actually kind of works for a theatrical adaptation, even if you can see the strings of it being a play from a mile away), but in its strange tonal inconsistencies.  It is a tender film, one about three sisters who love each other despite deep differences & genuine animosities. But it also runs rampant between comedy-and-drama, oftentimes in ways that you can't really tell what the director is trying to accomplish.  The cat hanging comes as a total surprise during a felt scene, and while it is a spit-take moment, it also feels kind of cheap.  There's something to be said for telling the story of people who endure 15 minutes of fame in the lens of comic tragedy (we've all seen headlines like that "Woman Hangs Self & Cat" feels ripped from the back pages of a tabloid newspaper), but the movie itself never successfully lands on what its purpose is, and when it tries to turn Babe's suicide into an equally comic moment (after seeing what it did to these women as children)...I just didn't like it.  It felt like a parody, and not in a good way.

The film won three Oscar nominations.  As I mentioned, the stage-to-screen translation is good even if you can tell its a play, but weirdly that can be accredited to the art directors.  I loved the lived-in sense of Lenny's house, the way it is bursting with too much stuff, quilts & photo albums & boxes that you've "meant to throw out but have been collecting dust for twenty years."  So often in films we don't see this attention-to-detail, but it's very real-look at your house, and notice things that have sat on counters or on closet shelves for a decade without having been moved in all that time.  Adding this sort of personality makes it feel less like a stage.  The script, though, doesn't do that kind of legwork, and its issues with tone & strange shock value felt off-putting.

Sissy Spacek is the best member of the cast, by a lot in my estimation, even if she also gets the best part.  Keaton is the pro at comedy, but has never done well with films that tread across genres (she's a good dramatic actress, but she needs to play that drama completely straight otherwise it comes off sarcastic), but it's Spacek who best encapsulates the black humor of the film.  She plays her part as someone who lives a more spontaneous life than her sister Lenny, but one more sporadic than her sister Meg, and she's very good when she's pitting her two older sisters against one another (as if she's done it her whole life).  The nomination for Tess Harper is weird.  Harper had just had a breakout part three years earlier for Tender Mercies, but that hardly explains her shrill, blink-and-you'll-miss-it role in Crimes of the Heart, a totally one-note performance that lacks any of the nuance that Spacek is bringing.  It's honestly bad acting, and totally runs aground the rest of the picture.  It's hard to imagine Oscar couldn't have done better.

Who Will Win the 2020 AFI Life Achievement Award?

A few weeks ago, we did a look at who might be the next American to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, and since I had a lot of fun creating the list, I thought it might be enjoyable to take a look at a different upcoming major career recognition honor, the AFI Life Achievement Award.  This past summer, Denzel Washington was the recipient of the distinction, arguably the highest career honor in American cinema, but the organization actually doesn't wait long to announce its next winner, and if history teaches us anything, the victor will be proclaimed in early October, so we're only a few weeks away from learning the winner of the 2020 trophy.  As a result, I thought it'd be fun to take a look at a Top 10 list of who might be selected as the next honoree.

Before we get to the list, it's worth name-checking a few things that previous winners have had in common, so as to deduce who might be most likely to win this year.  47 film luminaries, ranging from John Ford in 1973 to Washington last year, have taken the trophy, so we have a bit of data to mine for clues as to whom next year's honoree might be.

Age: The average age of a winner is 69, though that's definitely an average (Steve Martin is the only winner to have actually been 69 when he won).  19 of the winners have been in their 70's, which is by far the most common age group to have won in, and no victor has been older than 90 (top in age was Lillian Gish) or under 46 (Tom Hanks was the youngest, and that win was criticized enough that I doubt they go for someone that young again).  So this probably means someone like Olivia de Havilland is out, as is someone like Leonardo DiCaprio.  As a result, bonus points to anyone somewhere between about 65 and 79, though obviously they could and have leaned outside that age range.

Occupation: The award is open to anyone in the film industry, but like most honors, it's more geared toward movie stars.  70% of the winners have been principally known for acting, and all but one of the remaining victors have been film directors (the sole person who was neither was John Williams, and there's really no living behind-the-scenes person who could rival Williams in terms of public perception, so it's going to be a movie star or a director).  The film directors who did make it are extremely well-known, just as famous to the public in recent years as a movie star (think George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg), so don't count on aging directing superstars like Norman Jewison or Ridley Scott, as they likely aren't famous enough.  They're also not American which brings us to...

Geography: This is the American Film Institute Award, and while that title doesn't preclude anyone, it sure helps if you're American.  94% of the winners were Americans upon the time they won (this includes people who enjoyed dual citizenship like Elizabeth Taylor and Sidney Poitier), which is potentially why foreign-born icons like Charlie Chaplin, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, & Laurence Olivier never won, and likely why figures such as Julie Andrews or Sophia Loren (who otherwise would have been shoo-ins) haven't taken the honor yet.  The three foreign-born figures who did win (Sean Connery, David Lean, and Alfred Hitchcock) don't really have a lot in common, so it's hard to find some commonality to one person getting in if they aren't American.

Oscar History: If you're going to be taking the AFI title, it helps (a lot) if you're an Oscar winner.  77% of all of the honorees were at the time of their victory winners of at least one competitive Academy Award, and another ten were nominees (two of which, Henry Fonda & Martin Scorsese, would win competitive Oscars post their AFI ceremony).  The only person to have never been nominated for an Oscar and still win the AFI is Steve Martin, someone you'd be hard-pressed to find an obvious corollary to today.  This pattern has gotten even stronger in recent years-85% of the past twenty recipients were Oscar winners (excluding Martin, George Lucas, & Harrison Ford).  So it's likely that the next person to take the AFI will have won a competitive Oscar.

Gender: The ceremony seems to be trying to correct this in recent years, but it's still very much a boy's club at the AFI.  81% of all winners have been men, and the ceremony has never honored a woman who was solely or principally known as a behind-the-scenes figure (women like Shirley MacLaine, Barbra Streisand, and Diane Keaton have all directed films and won the AFI, but all three made their names in movies as actors).  The last two winners have been male, but history has shown that doesn't necessarily mandate that we'll be seeing a woman here in 2020.

DeMille/Kennedy: There are at least two other awards (other than Oscar) that are a strong indicator of whether or not someone will take the AFI trophy-the Cecil B. DeMille Award and the Kennedy Center Honor.  62% of all winners of the AFI were also DeMille winners and of those who were alive to receive it (the Kennedy Center Honors started last of the three honors, in 1978, so John Ford was dead by the time they rolled around despite having already won the AFI), 69% of the AFI Award victors also won the Kennedy Center Honor.  23 people have pulled off all three.  While the AFI has occasionally led the field (ie someone won it there before they picked up other honors, like Steven Spielberg or Elizabeth Taylor), it's a pretty strong indication if you're primarily known for film and you win one of these trophies that you're going to win one (or both) of the others.  One could make a sincere argument that the list of people who have taken the DeMille or Kennedy Center Honor without also having an AFI is particularly short right now, so AFI may be forced to add a new name to the roster next year.  Of the 16 DeMille and/or Kennedy Center victors (without an AFI) who have meaningful cinematic contributions, almost all of them have something stopping them from taking this leg of the Cinematic Life Achievement Triple Crown (I started calling it that years ago...and it has not caught on).  There are several non-Americans (Sophia Loren, Julie Andrews) or Americans more commonly known for citizenship in a different country (Anthony Hopkins, Angela Lansbury).  There are figures with major contributions to cinema but who are more known for TV (Cicely Tyson, Lily Tomlin, Rita Moreno), music (Cher), or the stage (James Earl Jones, Lansbury again), and then there are a few figures due to health or antipathy to such things might not show up at all (Joanne Woodward, Gene Hackman, Woody Allen).  That actually only leaves four figures who could be considered real contenders that AFI hasn't picked yet, and all four will be listed below so I won't spoil the fun just yet.

Fame: This is a hard one to quantify, but all of the winners have to be famous, and tend to still be extremely well-known when they won.  This has become even more pertinent in recent years.  Arguably the last time someone who wouldn't have been a household name still the year they won was Robert Wise in 1998, and in the past few years we've seen actors who are very active in modern filmmaking like Diane Keaton, George Clooney, and Denzel Washington take the trophy, so I suspect that the winner this year would either be still revered or quite frankly be someone whom you'd expect to be getting top billing on your local marquee.  This means that names like Ellen Burstyn, Sissy Spacek, Gena Rowlands, Julie Christie, Faye Dunaway, Mia Farrow, or Francis Ford Coppola, names that probably have earned this kind of distinction but aren't really household in the same way as Clooney, Keaton, & Washington, are going to struggle to get a citation without some sort of revival.  This ceremony is funded by advertising revenue, and as a result they need a bigger name for ratings.

With all of that said, here are my guesses as to who the Top 10 contenders for the trophy are.  Sound off in the comments if you have predictions as well!

Honorable Mentions: Lots of options here, but Goldie Hawn, Robert Duvall, Spike Lee, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Julie Andrews, and Michael Caine are all people that wouldn't surprise me, but all have at least some debits that would preclude them (age, geography, and fame being factors to at least some degree depending on the artist).  However, they're close enough to being real threats that I figured I needed to at least CYA myself by mentioning their names.

10. Ron Howard

Age: 65
Geography: American (born in Oklahoma)
Oscar History: 4 nods/2 wins
DeMille or Kennedy?: Not yet
Why Him: Howard is the rare American director who hasn't won this award that has the sort of name recognition (thanks to his previous years as an actor) and populist films (Cocoon, Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind) that might win him a citation someday.  He's also well-liked by other directors who would have some influence in the selection such as George Lucas & Steven Spielberg (not to mention his movie star daughter could push for him & would make a glamorous, sentimental host for the evening), and he's nearly the right age for the win.
Why Not Him: Howard, though he does have a pair of Oscars, isn't really in the same pioneering league as the other directors from a critical perspective.  His closest corollary among the winning directors would be Lucas, and he's never made anything remotely as important to Hollywood as the Star Wars franchise (even though, ironically, he has made a film in the Star Wars franchise).  Howard makes a lot of sense in theory, but I wonder if they'd pull the trigger for him or wait for a director like Quentin Tarantino to be old enough before they pick another behind-the-scenes figure.

9. Glenn Close

Age: 72
Geography: American (born in Connecticut)
Oscar History: 7 nominations
DeMille or Kennedy?: Not yet
Why Her: Close recently had a bout of incredible press, first from her finally making a play for her Oscar trophy, and then a round of public sympathy for not actually winning an Oscar most assumed was in the bag.  She's well-known to audiences (everyone's heard of her) but still has critical hosannas in her corner to make this feel like a classy choice, and would be near the average age for a winner.  Could she be chosen as a way of the industry saying "yes, you're a legend" after she was denied that claim a few months ago?
Why Not Her: I mean, if she couldn't win the Oscar, it's hard to imagine that she'd take this trophy (like I said-it's very hard to win this if you aren't an Oscar winner).  Close seems a better fit for the Kennedy Center Honors considering she's nearly as well-known for television and stage as she is for film, and it's not like she has a lot of massive hits under her belt in the way that Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks does.

8. Jessica Lange

Age: 70
Geography: American (born in Minnesota)
Oscar History: 6 nods/2 wins
DeMille or Kennedy?: Not yet
Why Her: Lange has been having one of those great, late career renaissances that occasionally gets you to sweep awards like this.  In many ways it recalls Morgan Freeman, who wasn't particularly famous until much later in his career, and then suddenly he was greeted with an onslaught of awards. American Horror Story and Feud have earned her a new generation of fans, and if Keaton & Streep are going to win this trophy, it feels like Lange should join them as an 80's movie queen who stayed a household name decades later.
Why Not Her: Lange had a robust cinematic career, but other than Tootsie there aren't a lot of widely-remembered classics on the list.  More importantly, Lange's late-career renaissance has been for television, not for the movies in the way that Freeman's was.  She would get them ratings, and in some ways this might be what finally got Jane Fonda her trophy, but Fonda is way more iconic than Lange is in terms of her cinematic pedigree (even though they have matching Oscar counts), and Lange would be a harder sell for AFI without another great movie role.

7. Samuel L. Jackson

Age: 70
Geography: American (born in DC)
Oscar History: 1 nomination
DeMille or Kennedy?: Not yet
Why Him: Jackson is the highest-grossing actor in terms of Box Office draw ever.  He's worked with literally everyone (I wouldn't be stunned if even I've made a film with him at this point) and has been both a critical muse (Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino, & Paul Thomas Anderson have all worked with him), as well as the star of major franchises like Jurassic Park, Avengers, Star Wars, and The Incredibles.  He's almost exactly the average age for the honor, and few figures in the past thirty years have been in as much American film as Jackson.
Why Not Him: The problem is that Jackson's made a lot of tripe along with all of those major paychecks.  Notice that Michael Caine has also never won this trophy, and almost certainly Johnny Depp is going to struggle to take it as well.  This is because Jackson's ubiquity hasn't necessarily translated to quality.  Every AFI winner has made a couple of stinkers, but Jackson's name isn't necessarily synonymous with quality, but rather quantity.  That's a problem if you're going to get the highest honor in American cinema.  Plus, even with all of those movies he's still never won an Oscar.

6. Tom Cruise

Age: 57
Geography: American (born in New York)
Oscar History: 3 nominations
DeMille or Kennedy?: Not yet
Why Him: Cruise is a bit young for the award, but few actors can boast his consistent movie star appeal.  Nearly 40 years after he became a headliner, he's still a leading man in major blockbuster movies, and has made a lot of the people who regularly sit in the AFI audience rich beyond their wildest dreams.  He's had quality films (those three Oscar nominations), and has enough movie moments through Jerry Maguire, Mission Impossible, and Top Gun to guarantee a built-in audience for the awards show.  All-in-all, this is a pretty solid bet for someone the AFI will want to claim...one of the few undisputed modern movie stars who can always land a picture.
Why Not Him: Cruise is a bit on the young side, and hasn't won an Oscar (or the DeMille yet, and I think that would come first for him considering the Globes love of celebrity).  More importantly, Cruise's public behavior since his 90's heyday makes this award come with some controversy.  Forgetting the Scientology aspect for a second (and that's a big thing to disregard), he's been erratic as a public figure & his films have taken a serious detour in quality since the early-aughts.  At this point he's more Sly Stallone & Liam Neeson than he is Tom Hanks or Denzel Washington, and Stallone/Neeson aren't anywhere near an AFI Life Achievement Award.

5. Sally Field

Age: 72
Geography: American (born in California)
Oscar History: 3 nods/2 wins
DeMille or Kennedy?: Field will receive the Kennedy Center Honor later this year
Why Her: Field's recent Kennedy Center Honor is a big deal, as it elevates her to the same echelons of people like Lauren Bacall, Joanne Woodward, and Myrna Loy (three other actresses who got the Kennedy Center Honor but never AFI) rather than any number of 70-something actresses who were once headliners but now frequently come in as supporting players or in TV cameos.  The list of true film stars who get the Kennedy Center Honor and not the AFI is small, and Field comes with two Academy Awards, as well as a number of still iconic hits (Smokey and the Bandit, Steel Magnolias, Forrest Gump) and recent success (My Name is Doris, the Spider-Man movies) that could make this an easy sell from a fame perspective.
Why Not Her: Field probably wouldn't be a great choice in 2020, since she just won the Kennedy Center Honor (it's uncommon, though not unprecedented, for someone to get two such awards so close together).  One would think they'd wait a year or two before picking her.  That said, we're likely due for another female victor, and unlike the next two women, she's much closer to the age of the average recipient so I wouldn't discount her; Field represents a jump from "good guess, and maybe someday" to "I could truly see it happening in 2020."

4. Julia Roberts

Age: 51
Geography: American (born in Georgia)
Oscar History: 4 nods/1 win
DeMille or Kennedy?: Not yet
Why Her: Roberts is going to win this award at some point, as long as she lives long enough.  She's exactly the sort of figure who scores the AFI-popular, enduring, beautiful, a leading woman even when her star started to dim, and someone who scored an Oscar at the peak of her fame, so there's critical cache to go with the many, many hits.  Honestly, so confident am I that Roberts will win this, and win it soon, that I didn't even list Sandra Bullock on this list, despite me also thinking she could take this at some point as well (since Roberts will get this before Bullock, in the same way Meryl Streep was always going to win here before Diane Keaton).  It's not "if" but "when" for Julia Roberts.
Why Not Her: Roberts is the youngest person on this list, and while she wouldn't be the youngest victor ever (Hanks may have that record forever, unless the AFI goes for Leo DiCaprio in the next year or two), she'd be the third youngest after Hanks & Spielberg if she took it.  She regularly makes movies, and there's no rush.  Why not give it to her when she's approaching Clooney's age (he was 57)?  I think that will be the thought process for the AFI, at least.

3. Jodie Foster

Age: 56
Geography: American (born in California)
Oscar History: 4 nods/2 wins
DeMille or Kennedy?: Foster memorably took the DeMille at the 2012 ceremony
Why Her: Unlike Clooney, Foster is approaching Clooney's age (she'd be exactly his age if she was the 2020 victor), and she's one of only two people on this list who has taken the DeMille/Kennedy distinction AND has enough distance to that award that it wouldn't llok like they were copying the Globes.  Foster is an iconic star, iconic enough that even without a lot of recent film hits she could still feel like a relevant winner, and she's probably going to win this eventually.  The past two years have shown a propensity for picking actors that were a little young for the award, but were certainly going to take the trophy at some point-could that continue with Jodie?
Why Not Her: Aside from the age aspect, there's the lack of a lot of recent roles, and her tendency to be more political & press-shy than your average winner.  They have strayed in a way the Kennedy Center Honors have not (look at how Jane Fonda has the AFI but not the government-sanctioned Kennedy Center award), but her filmic resume in the past two decades is pretty thin for someone who would be winning a trophy that oftentimes comes at the tail-end of your cinematic career, not when it's largely been dormant for a decade.

2. Jeff Bridges

Age: 69
Geography: American (born in California)
Oscar History: 7 nods/1 win
DeMille or Kennedy?: Bridges took the DeMille earlier this year.
Why Him: He's exactly the right age for this, and like some other recent winners, he's been a constant movie presence for decades, but certainly a constant force in the last decade.  Bridges won his Oscar less than ten years ago, and has scored two citations since then, as well as a lot of renewed affection for being one of the best actors of his generation.  Everyone seems to love him (he'd have great speeches), and this has probably graduated to the "inevitable" at this point for AFI to pick him.  I can't really think of a better time to appreciate him with such a major honor, can you?
Why Not Him: The only thing holding me back from picking him is that he just won the DeMille.  Unlike the Kennedy Center Honors, the DeMille winner has to give a speech, so the AFI could risk all of their best material having gone to that Globes' speech that could still be in their memory rather than Bridges giving a fresher one at the AFI.  That's about the only reason I can think of not to pick him-he was my dark horse guess for this next year until he won the DeMille, and I suspect I'll be predicting him in 2021 if he doesn't take it next year.

1. Robert Redford

Age: 83
Geography: American (born in California)
Oscar History: 4 nods/1 win (as well as an Honorary Oscar)
DeMille or Kennedy?: DeMile in 1993 and Kennedy Center Honors in 2005
Why Him: One of the great mysteries of awards show nerddom, to the point where I always have to double check that I'm not wrong, is how Robert Redford hasn't won the American Film Institute Life Achievement Award.  He's a film icon with a number of classic movies under his belt (he's worked with everyone from Marlon Brando to Paul Newman to Jane Fonda to Meryl Streep), he's an actor-director (Warren Beatty, Clint Eastwood, & Orson Welles can all attest that's a good way to win this), and he's also well-known for his celebration of smaller American film through his work with the Sundance Film Festival.  Should he not win, he'd be one of the biggest names to never take the honor, and one of the more regrettable.
Why Not Him: I genuinely don't know.  He's considerably older than the average winner, and it's hard to imagine that someone hasn't pitched this idea before.  Is he refusing to accept (this doesn't seem like Redford-he showed up for the Honorary Oscar and the Kennedy Centers relatively recently so why refuse the AFI specifically)?  I've never gotten the impression he's a jerk off-screen (and it's not like that's stopped them before-I mean, Dustin Hoffman has won this award).  Honestly, I can't think of a real reason that he hasn't won, and will be perplexed by him not winning until he dies or finally gets the trophy-his recent retirement surely makes a strong case for giving him this, right?  As a result, I'm going with the obvious answer here even though I've predicted Redford before for this honor.

Five Thoughts on Feud

Yes, I'm aware I'm two weeks late on this, but if you knew what my actual life was like, you'd be expressing nothing but sympathy this morning for me.  I'll be honest here-I haven't been to a movie in weeks.  Quite frankly, I haven't seen a movie in weeks-I can't actually remember the last time that I've gone this long without catching a movie either in theaters or at home (literally, cannot remember), which if you can tell, messes a bit with my head.  That's how insane my work life has been in the past few weeks.  But I'm trying to be back and write a bit more on the blog (and gain control over other facets of my life in the process), and timely or not, I want to share my thoughts on the now finished first season of Feud.  Boiling below are the five main takeaways from the series.

1. This Was a Really Cool Concept...That Didn't Really Work

The problem for me with complaining about Feud is that it's a miracle that the show was made at all. In a sign that Ryan Murphy is now so powerful he can get anything greenlit (joining the likes of JJ Abrams and Shonda Rhimes in that regard), we managed to somehow get a story about two major film stars of the 1940's in their twilight years made for television, despite neither of them having a major cache with younger audiences in the way that, say, James Dean or Marilyn Monroe have today.  It's a miracle that the show was made at all, and really cool.  I love the idea that we can venture into a slice-of-life biopic for a television miniseries in such a way, and in particular about two of my favorite actresses.

I just wish it had been better made.  I haven't, admittedly, seen The People vs. OJ Simpson (which I hear just marvelous things about), but biopics are tough for television.  We know how they're going to go, so there's few surprises, and particularly with Murphy there, you can't stray that far from the ostentatious nature of the series into flights-of-fancy, which has been his raison d'être.  Love or hate shows like American Horror Story or Glee, but they don't let reality get in the way of a bold idea, and I frequently felt like he either repeated himself as a creator on Feud, or he made the series too muted. Take the constant back-and-forth between Crawford and Davis throughout the show.  What initially was trashy fun became boring after so many weeks-it would have helped, perhaps, if we'd occasionally gotten out of their cocoon (seen other relics of Hollywood from their era and what was happening to them at the time like Greta Garbo or Loretta Young), but the tight lens on Crawford (and to a lesser extent Davis) got boring after a while, and you mostly wanted to see where things landed rather than enjoy the ride.

2. The Leads are a Big Part of the Problem.

One of the biggest problems in the show may have been the two leading ladies.  For a while I thought the show might get around the age gap (Crawford and Davis were both considerably younger than Lange or Sarandon in real life, making it seem more urgent for them to keep working), and largely it wasn't a problem, but other things got in the way instead with this specific casting.

For starters, Lange played Joan Crawford the same way she played Fiona Goode or Elsa Mars-a woman looking back on the regrets of her life through the lens of lost youth.  The way she played Crawford, it was hard to fathom that at one time she was at the top of her field and a major movie star force.  This is partially the writer's problem-Crawford as written seemed to only get her power through her movie star beauty, not through talent or sheer determination, but that wasn't true in real life, and more importantly it doesn't really work with some of the things she demands later in the picture.  Forget for a second that she doesn't look or sound or act anything like the meticulous but always glamorous Crawford (the scene where she tells off a fan stuck in my craw as Crawford was unusually devoted to her fans to the end), and think instead about how she's constantly struggling with vanity, and yet has the audacity to march into Jack Warner's office or meet with her agents and tell them all to go to hell.  It's an easy out to blame it on her drinking, but she's hardly a believable figure, someone who has to be constantly reassured of her worth, and Lange plays her the same as she plays every other Ryan Murphy creation.  She's giving a good performance (Lange is a very good actress, and Murphy has stumbled upon an aspect of her talents that I hadn't expected based on her cinematic work), but we've been here before-this is not Lange stretching any muscles.  I won't quibble with an Emmy nomination, but the idea that she's doing something that's anywhere as close to what Reese Witherspoon or Nicole Kidman were doing in Big Little Lies is absurd.  If she beats either it will be a travesty.

Sarandon, on the other hand, is not giving a great performance.  I admittedly am sour on her after the election, and don't know if I'm going to gain back the respect I had for her, but only a fool would say the woman can't act-in the 1990's she was consistently mesmerizing.  But here she can't quite find Davis-she alternates between actually playing her (doing the voice, the walk, the very distinctive Davis persona) and then randomly throwing it out the window.  She, again, isn't helped by the writers (I didn't like her relationship with BD Hyman, and Kiernan Shipka has been better before...not to mention the writers' really want this to be the Joan Crawford Story so her screentime is oddly inconsistent), but this is more on her than them.  She can't seem to find her opinions of her daughter, herself, her costar-Sarandon is a movie star whatever else may be said about her, and that sometimes carries the day, but most of the time she was just dull in the role.  Also, the role really hinges on Davis being the talent, but not the beauty, and, well, Sarandon at 70 is still intensely attractive and foxy in a way that Davis, though lovely, never was.  It hurts your argument when she's repeatedly being called "not the glamorous one" when Sarandon herself always looks glamorous.

With neither she nor Lange really carrying the show to a special place, and the writers' slacking off during stretches of time, the show is difficult to save.  However, there is one special performer who will deserve the plaudits coming her way...

3. Judy Davis is the Best Thing about Feud

This is hardly a revelatory surprise, but man is Judy Davis so much better than pretty much everything else happening in Feud.  Davis at once gets the weird balancing problem between straight drama, melodrama, and camp that Murphy is unsuccessfully juggling, and says "to hell with that" vamping onto the screen and making Hopper into an actual character by playing her initially as a cartoon.

Seriously-the best structured scenes of the show are around Davis's Hopper instigating mischief.  It's a pity that the show didn't use that, quite frankly, as a framing device, or simply made a Hedda Hopper miniseries instead, as Davis's character seems to have enough skeletons and delusions come out that Murphy's initial idea about the cruelty of Hollywood could have been filmed through her lens (plus, her legendary feud with Louella Parsons would have gone along with the title).  We get hints from Davis that Hopper is aware that her glory days are over, that she can no longer compete with the teenybopper set and is instead using the fall of her former friends to stay in the limelight, but unlike Lange or Sarandon, she knows what Hopper's public and private faces look like, and is always keeping them separate.  She hasn't survived in Hollywood all of these years giving out information like chewing gum, or not being willing to stab a friend in the back one day and ask them for a favor the next.

No one else approaches Davis.  I quite liked Alison Wright's Pauline, even though she felt underwritten and only came out as a convenient plot point to move Joan Crawford along in one direction or the other.  Dominic Burgess was initially aces as Victor Buono, giving us perhaps the most Ryan Murphy moment of the show (the XXX theater where he says that Dylan Wittrock has "loads of potential" made me do a spit take...and also start following Dylan Wittrock on Instagram), but he's never as fun or saucy as he was in that initial appearance, and the writers quickly forget about him when he isn't feeding plot change ideas to Davis.  Stanley Tucci and Alfred Molina have their moments, but neither win you over quite like Davis does-there's not enough fire or time spent with them for us to see something special happening.  That being said, no one is as bad as a pair of actresses who should know better.

4. The Interview Aspect of the Show Was Abysmal

Interviews as narrational devices are lazy, and have become aggravating in recent years (The Office was an actual documentary, something they acknowledged within the confines of the plot, unlike Parks and Recreation and Modern Family).  Here it's a part of the plot, but totally unnecessary.  All it did was frame up the story, which the writers could have done anyway, and took away from building on supporting players like Buono or Pauline that might have made the experience a little bit fuller.

It has to be said, as well, that Kathy Bates and Catherine Zeta-Jones (playing Joan Blondell and Olivia de Havilland, respectively) are dreadful in their parts.  Bates seems to have become contractually obligated to appear in all Murphy shows, but what was the point of having Joan Blondell even in the series other than to show off that the writers have heard of her?  We never get a background look at her, she's not in Baby Jane or Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte-hell, why not have Bates play Agnes Moorehead instead?  It made zilch sense, and she phones in the role, never really breathing any extra life into it even though you can hardly blame her since the writers don't seem to care.

CZJ at least has a character that factors into the plot, but man is she out-of-practice.  She's beautiful, and arguably the only person playing someone relatively age appropriate of the leading ladies (de Havilland and Zeta-Jones both being in their mid-to-late forties for pivotal scenes in the picture), but she finds nothing in de Havilland other than what is on the paper.  It gets so bad that when she does her Lady in a Cage impression it's hard to tell whether or not she's acting poorly on-purpose to mock the film or whether this is her actually acting.  For someone who has (and earned) her Oscar, this is a travesty-if she wants to continue working, I'd honestly recommend a tune-up with an acting coach of some sorts.

It wasn't all bad in this department-some one-scene-wonders played quite well within the context of the show.  I liked Sarah Paulson's work as Geraldine Page, even if she played it a bit too naively for a woman who had been working in Hollywood for a decade, and Serinda Swan nailed Anne Bancroft's "serious actress" bit with Crawford, in what I'd argue was the best scene featuring Lange outside of the finale. But these weren't consistent roles, and felt necessary to the writing.  The fact that Bates and Zeta-Jones had so many extra lines was infuriating, and made me wonder if they were cast before Murphy had an idea of what he was going to do with the show.

5. The Show Never Solves the "Biopic Problem"

I have never been a fan of a biopic, and that's because only the best of biopics can overcome the "I know what will happen" angle.  The finest biopics, in my opinion (think something like The Social Network and Wild) aren't afraid of making their subject seem more human, more flawed, and manage to be so interesting you forget that you know how this is going to end.  Most biopics, however, don't achieve this and simply strive for accuracy and imitation, but to me that's not interesting, particularly when it comes to television where "what comes next" is so vitally important to keep you tuned in week after week.

With the exception of Judy Davis's comic relief, this problem is never overcome.  You can claim that most audience members aren't going to know the minutia of whether or not Davis won that Oscar or if Crawford would stay on at Charlotte, but let's be honest here: me (gay, cinema-loving me) was Ryan Murphy's intended audience here, and I knew what was coming.  Despite this, the film never focused enough on things I wouldn't know the resolution to when it came to its cliffhangers and plot points.  Even when it fudged with the truth (Davis and Aldrich's imaginary affair), it didn't do so in a way that helped add drama or tension to the actual plot.  Putting more unknowable things (perhaps making Pauline's struggle a bigger part of the show) would have solved this problem, but mostly I felt listless, knowing that Crawford's film Trog would be a huge black-eye on her career, or that neither of these women would ever really have a major comeback chance after Baby Jane.

All-in-all, then, I left Feud underwhelmed.  I can't say I disliked it, because I would have given up on it if I had, but the intrigue factor (and the occasionally light moments) were really all that kept me going.  When Murphy next season tackles the Charles/Diana feud (a more recent affair, and one that has a lot more chances to be needlessly tacky and controversial considering how Diana died and how many people featured in it are still alive) I'll be sitting that one out, as the show didn't have me hooked.  But I'd still like to discuss if you have thoughts-share them below in the comments section!

Wild Oats (2016)

Film: Wild Oats (2016)
Stars: Shirley MacLaine, Jessica Lange, Billy Connolly, Howard Hesseman, Demi Moore
Director: Andy Tennant
Oscar History: No nominations (not even sure if it's eligible with the concurrent Lifetime airing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I recently caught Wild Oats on Lifetime (I believe it's also been playing in theaters, but I couldn't find it nearby and, well, I already paid for the cable).  The film struck me in a way because I kept thinking-"if the leads had British accents, this would be a huge arthouse hit."  It's true that for some reason American audiences respond to their older actors when they have names like Dench, Mirren, and Dame Maggie, but aging American actresses are something you only find on television.  This is, alas, a huge headache as MacLaine and Lange prove here, they can still elevate rather mundane material with the lightest of touches.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film itself is really standard fare as far as these things go.  You have Eva (MacLaine), a recently-widowed woman who is trying to figure out what she should do with her life after her husband's death, particularly financially, while Maddie (Lange), her best friend, has recently found out her husband is leaving her for his secretary.  Eva one day receives a check for $5 million for a life insurance policy worth only $50,000, and at Maddie's insistence, she cashes it and runs away with her pal to the Canary Islands, where both of them find love, Eva with a forgetful aging playboy (Connolly) and Maddie with a sexy younger man (Jay Hayden).

All-in-all it's a pretty opaque script-if there's any scenes you didn't see coming, you don't go to a lot of movies.  Even the midway twist, where Connolly's playboy turns out to be a conman, is pretty easy to spot as there had to be some sort of antagonist outside of the kindly, bumbling insurance man trying to get back the money (played by Howard Hesseman).  It sort of points out the obvious with the British films of this nature-they're almost entirely dependent on a love of the cast of the film, as the movie itself isn't breaking up any great quandaries about old age (this isn't Amour or The Whisperers); it's simply showing the comedic aspects of being old, but not ready to be pronounced dead.

Luckily for me, I quite like this cast, and was struck by how much fun this was to watch, even with the simplest of plots.  MacLaine, as we highlighted recently, is one of my favorite actresses, and she doesn't disappoint here-she has terrific timing with Lange, and in her limited role as her daughter, Demi Moore (don't you wish they made more movies where actresses got to play off of other actresses?).  I love the way that she still can land every single joke-you'll find yourself laughing more than you might have initially suspected, particularly because of MacLaine.  Comedy isn't really Lange's forte (she's truly a great fit for more exaggerated drama), and she hardly needs a comeback in the way that MacLaine does with newer audiences, thanks to her time on American Horror Story, but she's still fun in this-I loved the way she seduces Jay Hayden, and plays the character with her heart on her string.  I gotta say it: it was a fun movie, even if it was no one's definition of a great movie.  Something warm to watch casually on a Saturday afternoon at home.

Those were my thoughts on Wild Oats-how about yours?  Do you agree that MacLaine and Lange elevated the script, or are you sitting there thinking I oversold it because I love these two actresses?  Anyone else wonder where Demi Moore goes next in her career?  Share your thoughts below!

2016 Tony Predictions

Is anyone else really excited for this Sunday's Tony Awards?  I genuinely am-this is the first time in a few seasons I've actually seen some of the nominees (no, not that nominee-I don't have a kidney that needs selling), the ratings should be good due to that nominee, though, and if James Corden's brilliant and wonderful Broadway Carpool Karaoke is any indication he'll have a kind and warm nature as the host that will be refreshing after a certain snarky host has worn out his bit a little in recent years (not naming names, but we both know who I'm talking about).  With the Tony Awards on Sunday, though, it's time for me to dive into my predictions on who will win, and we'll do just that.

Best Musical

Bright Star
Hamilton
School of Rock
Shuffle Along
Waitress

The Lowdown: It'll be Hamilton, come on guys.  We don't even need to discuss.

Best Play

Eclipsed
The Father
The Humans
King Charles III

The Lowdown: This one, though certainly not as splashy and pop culture-y, also seems largely wrapped up.  King Charles III or Eclipsed might score in an acting category, but it seems likely that the critically-acclaimed The Humans is the show to beat.

Best Revival of a Musical

The Color Purple
Fiddler on the Roof
She Loves Me
Spring Awakening

The Lowdown: With Shuffle Along competing in the best original musical category, that leaves room for Oprah Winfrey to get the third leg of her EGOT (anyone else surprised she's never won a Spoken Word Grammy-she should get that memoir out and land this plane) as The Color Purple is surely going to trump She Loves Me.

Best Revival of a Play

Blackbird
The Crucible
Long Day's Journey into Night
Noises Off
A View from the Bridge

The Lowdown: Our first genuinely competitive race of the bunch.  If it were still on Broadway, I think it would go without saying that A View from the Bridge would be taking this one, considering its overwhelming support from critics earlier in the season, but it's difficult for a show that has shuttered to take this trophy, which is why I'm going with an upset of sorts and picking Long Day's Journey Into Night.

Best Actor in a Musical

Alex Brightman, School of Rock
Danny Burstein, Fiddler on the Roof
Zachary Levi, She Loves Me
Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton
Leslie Odom, Hamilton

The Lowdown: One of the few categories that Hamilton isn't guaranteed a victory is oddly the one with the man himself.  If it were just Odom or Miranda, this would be an easy victory, but with both of them in the contest, this could be ripe for an upset with Danny Burstein, a 5-time Tony Award bride hoping to pull a Kelli O'Hara this year, poised for an upset.  Because I can't quite get there, I'm going with Odom (since Miranda will be taking the Best Musical prize and has kind of been hinting that people should vote for Odom), but don't be surprised to see Broadway stalwart Burstein as a shock victor.

Best Actress in a Musical

Laura Benanti, She Loves Me
Carmen Cusack, Bright Star
Cynthia Erivo, The Color Purple
Jessie Mueller, Waitress
Phillipa Soo, Hamilton

The Lowdown: With perennial Tony winner Audra McDonald out of the running this year for only the second time ever in her Broadway career, this seems to be the category where Hamilton will have the most trouble in breaking rather than just tying The Producers record, as Cynthia Erivo has to be considered the heavy favorite over Phillipa Soo.  Erivo's earned raves for The Color Purple, and this role a decade ago was the ticket for LaChanze.

Best Featured Actor in a Musical

Daveed Diggs, Hamilton
Brandon Victor Dixon, Shuffle Along
Christopher Fitzgerald, Waitress
Jonathan Groff, Hamilton
Christopher Jackson, Hamilton

The Lowdown: Splitting the vote only works as a theory at an awards show when there is no consensus over who is the standout amongst a cast of nominated actors.  With all due respect to Jackson and Groff, that's not the case, and Diggs' Lafayette is most definitely going to be taking this trophy in a walk.

Best Featured Actress in a Musical

Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple
Renee Elise Goldsberry, Hamilton
Jane Krakowski, She Loves Me
Jennifer Simard, Disaster!
Adrienne Warren, Shuffle Along

The Lowdown: Proving that there is still room for a soap opera to launch a star into the stratosphere, Renee Elise Goldsberry will surely help Hamilton's awards count as Angela, picking up at least one of the female acting trophies over Danielle Brooks and Jane Krakowski, the likely second places.

Best Actor in a Play

Gabriel Byrne, Long Day's Journey into Night
Jeff Daniels, Blackbird
Frank Langella, The Father
Tim Pigott-Smith, King Charles III
Mark Strong, A View from the Bridge

The Lowdown: Much like the Best Actor in a Musical category, this is a genuine horse-race between three men: Jeff Daniels, Frank Langella, and Tim Pigott-Smith.  Pigott-Smith had arguably the most original creation but I can never tell if Broadway looks a bit down on actors who start their run across the pond, and Daniels has had a relatively robust career on the stage but has never won a Tony.  However, depite having three already, my gut is telling me that this is one of those swan song seasons for Frank Langella, who will probably pick up a fourth statue for his lauded work in The Father.

Best Actress in a Play

Jessica Lange, Long Day's Journey into Night
Laurie Metcalf, Misery
Lupita Nyong'o, Eclipsed
Sophie Okonedo, The Crucible
Michelle Williams, Blackbird

The Lowdown: Wow, what a lineup!  Four Oscar nominees and one of television's finest (seriously-when is someone going to give Laurie Metcalf her Frozen River?).  I know at the beginning of the season it felt like Nyong'o was the one to beat, but her precursor support has been a little dicey and part of me thinks the play may be too serious to win this trophy.  As a result, I'm going to pronounce that Jessica Lange, fresh off of her Drama Desk victory, finds a Tony Award to go with her two Oscars and three Emmys (time to start reading Shakespeare on Tape to grab that Grammy, Jes).

Best Featured Actor in a Play

Reed Birney, The Humans
Bill Camp, The Crucible
David Furr, Noises Off
Richard Goulding, King Charles III
Michael Shannon, Long Day's Journey into Night

The Lowdown: A two-horse race between Shannon, the Oscar-nominated film star, and Birney, an actor so character he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.  Occasionally the Tony Awards play the part of the HFPA (remember the year that Catherine Zeta-Jones and Scarlett Johansson both won?), but as a rule they tend to stick to the boards so my gut says that Birney is the favorite here.

Best Featured Actress in a Play

Pascale Armand, Ecplised
Megan Hilty, Noises Off
Jayne Houdyshell, The Humans
Andrea Martin, Noises Off
Saycon Sengbloh, Eclipsed

The Lowdown: While it's never wise to count out Two-Time Tony Winner Andrea Martin, and Gay Twitter would have a conniption if Megan Hilty echoed the moment her Smash counterpart had a few years ago and pulled off the victory, this seems to be the time for longtime stage vet Jayne Houdyshell to transform from Tony bridesmaid to Tony champion.

There are my predictions-how about yours?  Are you excited for this Sunday's show?  Who are you rooting for?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Thoughts on the Tony Nominations

Yesterday's election news was hardly good for me, but I couldn't let that deter me from getting to the Tony nominations (I would have had this article out last night, but I'm on a strict "watch a movie a day and watch The Real O'Neals live in order to help keep it on the air" plan this week-you should most definitely join me on the latter, as it's a marvelous show and I'm now on a tangent but WATCH IT).  I did very well with my predictions, so I only have three things that I really want to call out, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to discuss the theater just a wee bit:

1. Hamilton Breaks the Record...Can It Do It Twice?

Yesterday Hamilton officially made history again (the puns just write themselves this afternoon, don't they?) when it took sixteen nominations, one more than either Billy Elliot or The Producers, taking a nomination in literally every category that it was eligible for and likely setting up a mind-numbing sweep at this year's Tony Awards.  The question now is around whether or not it can break the other major Tony record: that of 12 Tony wins, which is currently held by The Producers.  It's nominated in thirteen categories, so it would have to win all of them (The Producers won in every category it was nominated for, but didn't have a female lead actress so Hamilton has the chance to break that tie up).  It seems relatively likely it could tie, but both Best Actress in a Musical (where Cynthia Erivo has to be considered a slight favorite for The Color Purple) and Choreography (where Savion Glover's magic work in Shuffle Along is going to be a fierce competitor) are both tossups at this point.  If it can take both, it seems near-certain that it would be able to be the first Broadway show ever to sweep all categories.

2. Audra McDonald and Jennifer Hudson Get Snubbed

In a seismic moment that threw most of Twitter off-guard, Audra McDonald (for the first time in her career for a musical) wasn't nominated for a Tony Award-in fact, even counting in plays the only time she's ever missed was for Henry IV.  While the Meryl Streep of Broadway took the snub with class, it's still a shock not to see McDonald's name amongst the five women nominated for Best Actress in a Musical, and kind of leaves a vacuum (that could, as I mentioned above, benefit both Erivo and Soo).  McDonald has missed a number of performances and isn't going to be with Shuffle Along for very long so the snub is understandable, but this is almost certainly the biggest shock of Tony nominations morning.

Coupling alongside that is Jennifer Hudson, who took on the Margaret Avery role in the recent revival of The Color Purple.  Hudson's name is plastered all over the poster and marquee, and it was expected by many that while her reviews weren't superb that she would end up gaining the nomination on celebrity alone.  Hudson was also making waves on Twitter yesterday with a surprise amount of candor about her lack of a nomination.  Though she quickly deleted the tweet (likely because it erupted a firestorm), celebrities should know better than to assume screenshots don't live forever, and she basically said she was only hired because of her fame, not because of her talent.  It feels like there's a lot of story there, but this does end Hudson's impressive EGOT-style debut series, where she won an Oscar for her film debut and Grammy for her first album.  She could still EGOT, of course, but she's going to need to give the boards another run in order to do it (perhaps she'll revive Effie White?).

3. Best Actress in a Play is Crazy

Four Oscar nominees litter the lineup for Best Actress in a Play, one of the most talented lineups for an award I've ever seen.  Jessica Lange, Sophie Okonedo, Michelle Williams, and Lupita Nyong'o all make up the list of women competing for the prize, and you would be forgiven for assuming that this was a lineup at the Golden Globes rather than the Tony Awards, though both Okonedo and Lange have had long careers on the stage.  Joining them is TV and theater legend Laurie Metcalf, who is one of my favorite performers (when is she going to get her own Frozen River/The Visiter?), and I suspect that while this is probably going to Nyong'o that there's room for Lange or even Williams to sneak in and take the trophy considering their name recognition and that they are both still on Broadway as well (and neither have won this letter in their EGOT).  Either way, I wish that all actressing lineups were this sensational, as I genuinely love all of these women.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  What stood out to you about yesterday's Tony nominations?

Tony Predictions 2016

Next Tuesday we'll officially get one of my favorite announcements of the season: the Tony Awards!  I recently got back from a trip to New York City, and while I don't think I did as well in advance of the awards in terms of what I'm seeing getting nominated (I wanted to keep both of my kidneys so getting Hamilton tickets was off the table), I did have a marvelous time and am excited to see what musicals, plays, and actors are about to have their Broadway dreams come true.  We'll kick it off with the category everyone is excited for...

Best Musical

So, umm, Hamilton.  That's it right?  It kind of sucks for the also-rans, but there's almost no point in mentioning them if you're just concerned about the winner as not since The Book of Mormon has there been such a lock for a nomination and win.  It'll be, likely like The Producers, almost comical how quickly they stack up every statue.

There will, of course, be other contenders in the lineup, as there are three other nominations.  Waitress (which I did catch) has a leg-up both because its star is getting hugely successful reviews and because it seems to be a hit with audiences; the same could be said for Bright Star and School of Rock, the first major hit for Andrew Lloyd Webber since Sunset Boulevard, which is saying something.  While other plays like American Psycho or Tuck Everlasting could also compete (and with their film origins the Broadway community might want to back them to help push a touring company), they don't have the Box Office or reviews that normally associate with this category, even if it's harder to tell the final slots when the winner is so obvious.

Finally, it's hard to tell whether or not Shuffle Along will be nominated.  A star-studded musical, it's very original in its book and script, but for some reason wants to be considered a revival (wait, the reason is simple-it wants to win and not compete against Hamilton while doing so).  I have trouble believing the Tony committee classifies it as such, so I'm sticking with it here, and with Scott Rudin on board it's likely to be included wherever it ends up being eligible.

My Predictions: Hamilton, School of Rock, Shuffle Along, Waitress

Best Play

Unlike Best Musical, the winner here hasn't been preordained in granite for months now.  I suspect, though, that you can take at least Danai Gurira's Eclipsed and Stephan Karam's The Humans to the bank-both have dominated the conversation and have been major players in recent weeks on Broadway, and in a rare twist are actually from American playwrights, which isn't usually the case for the Tony Awards.  On the flip side is Mike Bartlett's King Charles III, which is about Prince Charles taking the throne and already had a successful run in the West End.

The remaining contenders are a bit of a hodgepodge.  Our Mother's Brief Affair got strong reviews, but is it too small to make it here?  On the flip side, you have plays like Misery and An Act of God coasting off of major celebrity/name recognition that will look a bit down-the-nose to Tony voters.  As a result I'm going to finish off the list with a longtime Tony favorite Frank Langella, whose The Father is probably a safe, reliable pick to be included (though likely not to win).

My Predictions: Eclipsed, The Father, The Humans, King Charles III

Best Revival of a Musical

As I stated above, it's quite likely that Shuffle Along could be included here, but if they aren't stretching the truth, this is a battle between five musicals, in which case only three slots are a possibility.  The top choice, in my opinion, will be The Color Purple, which has gotten solid buzz and has a likely play in the Best Actress field.  Name recognition makes me think the final two spots will be Fiddler on the Roof and She Loves Me, though Spring Awakening, which is recent enough that it makes me feel old that it's already being revived (same for The Color Purple), could make it, though the show is closed while the other two aren't, and Tony voters have notoriously short memories.

(Side Note: Though I'm not predicting featured actors here, I am genuinely curious if Jennifer Hudson makes it into that lineup-I doubt she wins, but I think she is bound-and-determined to make a play at least for an EGOT nomination collection, and between this and Confirmation she could soon be much closer to achieving the dream).

My Predictions: The Color Purple, Fiddler on the Roof, She Loves Me

Best Revival of a Play

The reality is that it's almost always easier to be nominated here if you are still on Broadway, and that's true for three of the contenders right now, all of which are handsomely-produced, feature major movie star talent, and seem like strong shots at nominations: Blackbird, Long Day's Journey Into Night, and Arthur Miller's The Crucible.

However, occasionally the Tony Awards have longer memories, so other shows could make it despite having a closure sign on the door.  Hughie starring Oscar winner Forest Whitaker was a gigantic bomb, Noises Off feels like it was just done, though the Times wasn't awful to it.  Honestly, the best shots are probably Old Times, which has the benefit of Oscar nominee Clive Owen, and A View from the Bridge, which stars a shirtless Russell Tovey (which is, admittedly, all I'm really looking for in a play), and perhaps more of a draw for Tony voters (though this is Broadway, so not that much more of a draw), got rave reviews.  Your guess is as as good as mine, but I'm going with...

My Predictions: Arthur Miller's The Crucible, Blackbird, Long Day's Journey Into Night, A View from the Bridge

Best Actor in a Musical

Here we are back a little bit in territory I can understand, as it appears that three men are going to be sure things.  Both of the Hamilton stars Lin-Manuel Miranda and Leslie Odom, Jr. are assured nominations, as is most of the Hamilton cast, let's be honest, and the real question is which one of them takes this trophy.  Joining them in the winner's circle will be perpetually unlucky Danny Burstein, who is assured a sixth loss at the Tony Awards (he and wife Rebecca Luker, another eternal bridesmaid, can console each other through song).

The final two slots are a harder prediction.  Alex Brightman's position as the lead of School of Rock is an ostentatious enough part that he should be able to make it even if he's not in a spot to win, but the fifth spot could be anyone's guess. Brian Stokes Mitchell and Billy Porter are both Tony favorites, but neither stands apart in an obvious way in Shuffle Along, and I suspect they'll split the votes.   That should help out either Benjamin Walker, who somehow has never been nominated for a Tony despite continual spots on Broadway (near unheard of for a man his age) in American Psycho, and Andrew Keenan-Bolger in Tuck Everlasting, who needs to start catching up with his sister soon to avoid a major sibling rivalry.

My Predictions: Alex Brightman, Danny Burstein, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Leslie Odom, Jr., Benjamin Walker

Best Actress in a Musical

First off, let's get the Hamilton out of the way: though she's not a guarantee to win, Phillipa Soo is assured a spot in the final five.  The same can be said for Jessie Mueller, coming off a recent win for Beautiful who is starting to turn into a perpetual nominee for Waitress.  Finally, I think that Cynthia Erivo has gotten too many plaudits and accolades to not make it for The Color Purple.

The final two spots are a bit hazy.  Laura Benanti is always a Tony contender, and she hasn't been on the boards in a while so the Broadway community might be feeling nostalgic.  If they go bigger for Bright Star than I'm expecting, Carmen Cusack would be a potential surprise.  Lea Salonga would be a lock (she's a Tony winner from way back), but Allegiance closed early and it's hard to tell if the Tony winners will have a long enough memory.  And finally there's Audra McDonald.  She's been sick for a number of performances in Shuffle Along and is only going to be in the show for a few weeks before jetting off to London.  However, she's Audra McDonald, six-time Tony winner, who has never missed when she was eligible for a musical.  That's a lot of star power to deny even when any mere mortal would miss under those circumstances.

My Predictions: Laura Benanti, Cynthia Erivo, Audra McDonald, Jessie Mueller, Phillipa Soo

Best Actor in a Play

The dramatic races are almost always a balance between movie star and stage star, as depending on the year the Tony Awards may be feeling particularly-inclined to Hollywood (lest we forget Scarlett Johansson has a Tony but no Oscar nomination) or completely abandon it (despite boffo box office and critical raves Bradley Cooper ended up empty-handed last year).  As a result, when those two collide with someone like Frank Langella in The Father, you take notice as the longtime star of both the movies and Shubert Alley is a near certain contender for a nomination.

The rest of the list is harder to tell.  You have Clive Owen (Old Times), Al Pacino (China Doll), and James Earl Jones (The Gin Game) all as major headliners whose plays have long ago closed, but their cache is still strong if they want the celebrity quotient to be high (it's worth noting that Pacino and Jones, in particular, have had a long Broadway career to go along with their celebrated work in the motion pictures).  On the flip side you have lesser-known Mark Strong (A View from the Bridge) and Tim Pigott-Smith (King Charles III) who could make it based on solid reviews and coattails from their plays.  Gabriel Byrne (Long Day's Journey Into Night), Jeff Daniels (Blackbird), and Ben Whishaw (The Crucible) all are in the unique position where their shows are still on Broadway (always helps if you're nominating a show people can actually seek out), while a nod to Jim Parsons (An Act of God) would be a way of welcoming a major television star who has been hitting the boards like mad (this is his third Broadway play since 2011).  The one name you won't see, though it's probably the most famous on this list?  Bruce Willis, whose work in Misery may have been a way to stretch the longtime cinema icon, but even if it'd be fun to see him at the CBS broadcast, movie star quotient will only get you so far.

My Predictions: Jeff Daniels, Frank Langella, Al Pacino, Tim Pigott-Smith, Mark Strong

Best Actress in a Play

Despite somehow missing out at the Drama Desk Awards, it's hard to imagine recent Oscar winner Lupita Nyong'o, who is getting absolute raves and is the frontrunner for the trophy, missing out when it comes to Eclipsed.  The play is a major critical player and after Hollywood has repeatedly been chastised for denying her roles despite a recent major debut, I suspect that Broadway will self-congratulate in this situation.  Alongside her will surely be Jessica Lange, whose work in Long Day's Journey into Night won her an Olivier citation sixteen years ago and has never been nominated for a Tony Award.  Sentiment might make her a favorite if Nyong'o loses any sort of momentum.

Speaking of Oscar nominees, a number of other women from Hollywood will be amongst those wanting a shot at the Tony this year.  Michelle Williams (Blackbird), Sophie Okonedo (The Crucible), Cicely Tyson (The Gin Game), and hell, even Keira Knightley (Therese Raquin) are all possibilities, though the first two have the advantage of still being on Broadway right now.  Laurie Metcalf may not have an Oscar nomination, but she's a Tony favorite and her work in Misery was routinely cited as the best part of the play.  Finally, there's Nicola Walker, who is not a household name even in New York, but could get in if praise for A View from the Bridge is particularly strong.

My Predictions: Jessica Lange, Laurie Metcalf, Lupita Nyong'o, Sophie Okonedo, Michelle Williams

And there you have it-the nominations are on Tuesday, but in the meantime go ahead and speculate in the comments!