OVP: Actress (2001)

OVP: Best Actress (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Halle Berry, Monster's Ball

Judi Dench, Iris

Nicole Kidman, Moulin Rouge!

Sissy Spacek, In the Bedroom

Renee Zellweger, Bridget Jones's Diary

My Thoughts: And we are coming to a close of six consecutive days of OVP Ballots (we'll do the remaining three next week), with our final acting race, Best Actress.  Like Best Actor, I think it's worth knowing some context here.  In 2001, the Oscar race for Best Actress was very, very close.  Nicole Kidman, Sissy Spacek, & Halle Berry were all neck-and-neck as you'll see with the precursors below, and this was the rare race that truly no one knew whose name Russell Crowe was going to call out.

Well, Renee Zellweger probably knew she was staying in her seat, though it's not because she wasn't good in Bridget Jones.  Zellweger, in the wake of Jerry Maguire, had spent a few years floundering in different projects, appearing in daughter/girlfriend roles opposite Meryl Streep & Jim Carrey, and then eventually beating Juliette Binoche for a surprise Golden Globe in 2000 (when she was literally in the bathroom).  Her Bridget Jones made her a proper movie star, and she nails the English accent here in a way few American actresses have achieved beforehand.  She also is genuinely funny & charming, getting the pathos of a single girl in her thirties down to a tee.  The main complaint-it's too slight.  The film is too light, it doesn't quite have enough direction outside of her, and isn't good enough.  But in a year where Oscar felt the need to get a little creative, this was a solid decision.

The only other American in this field was of course Halle Berry.  This is Berry's only nomination, and an historic win in the category...that I wish I could say I enjoy.  I agree with pretty much every criticism levied at this part through the years-that she's miscast, that she feels like she doesn't have enough chemistry with Thornton.  It feels like the further into the role she gets, the more she loses of the character, and that's not what the script is doing.  There's nothing there, other than just a beautiful woman who (while still beautiful) hasn't sat in a makeup chair for three hours prior.  When people criticize deglam performances, this is what they're referring to-all physical change, but not enough substance to the work beneath.

Nicole Kidman's work is the opposite.  Heightened glamour (though obviously a "cheaper" type given the character), she also finds depths beneath the mountain of makeup and silk dresses.  Kidman's work here is remarkable, giving us Satine in all of her facets: as a con artist, as a dreamer, as a survivor.  We understand that her life changes with Christian, but unlike McGregor's lovesick writer, who is totally reborn when he meets her, she brings some of the weight of her previous life with her, informing the performance even as she dares to find a change.  It's terrific work, atop singing that feels like it's giving us more of the character (not easy, especially for a non-professional singer). 

Sissy Spacek also gives us layered work in In the Bedroom.  This performance is showy (that plate-smashing scene became iconic for a reason), but only in parts.  Much of the buildup to that is Spacek putting in the groundwork.  I love the way she always seems a little nervous around the son that she has a distant, prickly relationship with, knowing that she has to guide him to do the things she wants since saying it out loud will just have him go in the opposite direction.  This, of course, is a hallmark of being the mother of a defiant young man, one who is desperate to please one parent but not the other, and Spacek (a mother of two) clearly carries that into her work as Ruth.

Finishing off the list we have our only real-life figure (a rarity for this category) with Judi Dench's performance as Iris Murdoch.  This was during that period where Judi Dench could get nominated for playing virtually any part, so you'd be fine wondering if this is just a "default" nomination, but it's not.  Dench is very good as Iris Murdoch, and has one of the trickier acts in the film, playing a woman who has to both be connected to her younger self (played by Kate Winslet) while also showing flashes of growth and fading away.  She does a decent job of giving us a genius on the brink of losing everything, a woman of prose who can no longer find the words.  The film is depressing, and that starts to hurt Dench's performance because it goes for easy sentiment toward the end, but it's still strong work during Dench's heyday.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama, Spacek won, beating Berry, Dench, Nicole Kidman (The Others), & Tilda Swinton (The Deep End), while Comedy/Musical went to Kidman in Moulin Rouge! against Zellweger, Thora Birch (Ghost World), Cate Blanchett (Bandits), & Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde).  SAG went with Halle Berry, besting Dench, Spacek, Zellweger, & Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), while BAFTA picked Dench against Kidman (The Others), Zellweger, Spacek, & Audrey Tautou (Amelie); Berry wasn't eligible due to when the movie was released in the UK, but she was nominated for Best Actress the following year.  In terms of sixth place, it's tricky.  It's possible that Kidman, because she could only be cited for one film, was not only in sixth but maybe even in fourth for The Others, as both were serious threats for a nomination that year, but if you don't count that, it was surely Swinton, doing the legwork for her eventual win in 2007.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: The Oscars have had a complicated history with Kidman's best friend Naomi Watts, who has been cited for two Oscars for underwhelming films, while her best work they ignored.  That happened in 2001, when she gave the performance of her career in Mulholland Drive and they sadly skipped over it.

Oscar’s Choice: Headed into the night, a three-way tie between Berry, Spacek, & Kidman looked as likely as anything, but Berry was able to ride her SAG win to victory, and one of the Oscar's best speeches (it still gets me crying every time).

My Choice: I'm going to go with Kidman over Spacek, because I think her role is trickier given the heightened world Baz has created, and because the singing is so well-done; both will be showing up next week in my My Ballot wrap-up for this category, though.  Behind them I'll pick Zellweger, Dench, and then Berry.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Do you stick with the Academy making history with Berry's choice or do you want to join the Kidman train early with me?  Which of Kidman's 2001 performances should Oscar have chosen if you only get one?  And why do you think it took Tilda Swinton so long to get into the Academy's good graces?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2001: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Actress Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Actress (2021)

OVP: Best Actress (2021)

The Nominees Were...

Jessica Chastain, The Eyes of Tammy Faye

Olivia Colman, The Lost Daughter

Penelope Cruz, Parallel Mothers

Nicole Kidman, Being the Ricardos

Kristen Stewart, Spencer

My Thoughts: We're finishing off the 2021 acting races with Best Actress, a category that reads as kind of weird even though the actors themselves don't.  Three former winners, a multiple-time nominee, and a promising newcomer playing a princess is the bread-and-butter of this category, but if you look at the films, these are good actresses (and largely good performances) in somewhat forgettable movies.  Featuring some films that were relegated to streaming platforms, a lot of the majesty of this lineup feels a bit underwhelming even if the actual work at hand doesn't read that way.

A good example of this is Colman, who is in a fine film, and is giving a splendid performance in a movie, well, few people seem to have seen.  Colman is marvelous here, though, so I can't quibble with the choice itself (and generally I'm fine with Oscar picking obscurity, it just feels like every film was kind of "ehh" here in a way the other acting categories didn't).  She brings such pathos to her character, even when the character wouldn't want that, and does a marvelous job of giving us a complicated look at womanhood, maturity, and the unrealistic expectations we give to mothers.  One of our best working actors, hopefully this isn't her last outing with AMPAS.

Colman's movie is good, which you can't really advertise for Jessica Chastain.  The movie brushes by huge swaths of the real life Bakkers, particularly anything involving the complicated sexuality of husband Jim.  Chastain is the best part of the movie, and does her darndest to sell Tammy Faye, a walking cartoon who is hard to make fascinating because she's so devout & has such faith in the people around her, she reads as two-dimensional even if that's basically who she was in real-life.  But Chastain can only do so much in a movie that's not interested in some of her character layering, and she's working so hard in some scenes it feels like she's trying to make a bad movie good (and she's not going to do it).

Nicole Kidman, likewise, is much better than her movie.  Kidman was such an unusual choice to play Lucille Ball, but it largely works.  She doesn't do Ball's voice & she doesn't look like her, but she gives a decent performance as a woman who spent a decade trying to get what she currently has, and feels she constantly needs to prove to herself that she's worthy of her success, she's been trying to retain it for so long.  But the movie is dreadful, and she's saddled with huge speeches that go nowhere and do nothing...a script this poor is going to hurt any performance, and I think it sometimes makes too indulgent in later scenes.

Kristen Stewart is, for the record, a wonderful actress; in my mind she already had two nominations by 2021 for Clouds of Sils Maria and Personal Shopper.  But her work in Spencer is not good.  Some of that is based on Pablo Larrain (unlike Aaron Sorkin, Larrain has proven before he's a very strong director so this came as a surprise) not knowing how to ground this film in any sort of reality (even a fantastical one).  Stewart's accent work & observation of the real-life Diana's facial expressions are to-die-for (particularly given her LA roots), but she feels adrift in a movie that's largely rudderless.  The film (and her work) just can't find a center, and this becomes a missed opportunity as a result.

The best movie of this bunch is probably Parallel Mothers, though it reads more as a classic because Pedro & Penelope have made so many good movies that you could be forgiven for forgetting that this is only "pretty good" (the third act is filled with too many swings that don't connect).  Cruz is superb, though, hanging on during all of the soap opera moves that the movie gives her titular mother, and reminding us that she's capable of greatness when given the chance.  Like Colman, one of our best working actors, and I hope she doesn't make us wait another decade for a performance this stylized & moving.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama we came very close to Oscar's lineup, with Kidman winning and the only new nominee being Lady Gaga (House of Gucci) instead of Cruz.  For Musical/Comedy, Rachel Zegler (West Side Story) won against Marion Cotillard (Annette), Alana Haim (Licorice Pizza), Jennifer Lawrence (Don't Look Up), & Emma Stone (Cruella).  SAG favored Chastain for their win, with Colman, Gaga, Kidman, & Jennifer Hudson (Respect) the remaining nominees, while BAFTA went totally balls-to-the-walls crazy by giving Joanna Scanlan (After Love) the win atop Gaga, Haim, Emilia Jones (CODA), Renate Reinsve (The Worst Person in the World), & Tessa Thompson (Passing), the first time since 1987 that none of the BAFTA nominees for Best Actress also got in with Oscar.  In sixth place was surely Lady Gaga, and honestly...what a relief that Oscar went with Stewart or Cruz over a performance as bad as hers.  Gaga, I'm sorry, has yet to give a decent acting performance (she's a very good singer & songwriter, but she's no thespian), and getting in for work as bad as Gucci...ooph, that would've been a bad look for Oscar (and given her precursor support, she might well have won!).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: The name that did show up quite a bit during precursor season that would've been a great choice would've been Alana Haim, who (like Gaga) is a singer who is in a storied director's vision, but she actually seems well-matched for it, and sells the unusual duet at the top of Licorice Pizza.

Oscar’s Choice: Due to the chaos of the year, and a quick-trending "overdue" narrative that surrounded Jessica Chastain late-in-the-race (even if it's not entirely clear that was super true), she won against Kidman & Cruz, Tom Cruise's exes competing for silver.

My Choice: In a very tight race, I'm going to go with Cruz over Colman, if only because I think Colman is held back by not feeling connected to Jessie Buckley's work as her younger self.  Behind these two are Chastain, Kidman, & Stewart, in that order.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Are you fine with Chastain getting her big moment, or would you have stood with me for a second round of Cruz?  Am I on my own in thinking this lineup is kind of a shrug even if it has some world-class actresses?  And am I the only person who doesn't get Gaga: Movie Star?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2021: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2021

Past Best Actress Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

OVP: Actress (2002)

OVP: Best Actress (2002)

The Nominees Were...

Salma Hayek, Frida

Nicole Kidman, The Hours

Diane Lane, Unfaithful

Julianne Moore, Far from Heaven

Renee Zellweger, Chicago

My Thoughts: I've said repeatedly in the 2002 lineups that these are some of the best acting quintets that Oscar has assembled this century, and that holds true for Best Actress.  It wasn't just that 2002 was a good year for movies...Oscar had strong taste this year, and it came out in a variety of ways.  That being said, as you're going to notice in the precursors, Best Actress was kind of playing with the answer key for the nominations.  These five women totally dominated the awards season, and it was not a surprise at all when they were announced as the official ambassadors to the Kodak in early 2003.

At this point, Julianne Moore's acting in Far from Heaven is talked about in the way that cinephiles discuss Brando in On the Waterfront or Jane Fonda in Klute...it's so celebrated that it's hard to grasp that there was once a time that it was new.  The real genius in Moore's work (cause she is, true to reputation, wonderful) is that she's so fully-commited to this style of acting.  There are a lot of easy moments in Far from Heaven where she could break, where she could bust the ode to Douglas Sirk that Todd Haynes is crafting, and instead give herself a gigantic Oscar moment, but she doesn't.  That's what makes it so special, and keeps the film glued together even as others around her are faltering from her idealization.

Nicole Kidman's Oscar win has not aged well for reasons that are alien to me, because this might be my favorite performance of hers, confirmed by a recent rewatch of the movie.  In a movie as strong as The Hours, it's hard to single out a favorite and yet it's always Kidman's Virginia Woolf for this watcher.  I think it's the way that she's both (literally & figuratively) in charge of the story, bringing each new character in like a gleeful, sadistic narrator.  There's also the way that she embodies someone who is fed up with what's easy.  She knows that her old life is dangerous, and this new time in the country is where her health might recover, where she can last forever...but all she wants is to live.  "Richmond is death" is spit out like a bullet, her speaking aloud the truth that she knows every day but no one around her seems to understand.  I love her work here.

Renee Zellweger, not Moore, was Kidman's biggest rival for the Oscar, and this is a good performance from Zellweger in the brief time where she was one of the most exciting actresses in Hollywood (Tinseltown, not entirely sure what to do with a woman who was so good at a type of screwball comedy that had basically died by 2002, put her in dramas with diminishing results).  I think there's a fine line between "Roxie isn't a good singer" and Zellweger playing her (as Zellweger is not as good of a singer as, say, Catherine Zeta-Jones or Queen Latifah is), and it doesn't quite work for me with Gere, but that's really quibbling over the lobster...this is an excellent movie experience, and she's so good at pulling off Roxie's naked ambition (fame above all).

Unlike the first three women, Diane Lane does not get the benefit of being in a good movie...she's in, in fact, the worst movie of the five (also, it should be noted, opposite Richard Gere).  But Lane is sensational within this terrible picture.  She plays Connie as a complete woman, one that is difficult to pigeonhole even though it's our gut instinct to do so when given the cliche of a beautiful woman in a loveless marriage having an affair (an onscreen cliche if there ever was one).  She clearly feels alive in her affair, but understands that while her old life isn't something that she values, she knows that the handsome, easy life she's leaving for this man is of value, and can't part with it.  This is complicated, smart acting, and I'm so glad that Lane, who has yet to be nominated again in the years since, got her sole citation for such a terrific part.

All of this leads to Salma Hayek, an actress of talent & a celebrity who seems genuinely interesting (I love her in interviews), but who cannot make Frida work.  This was clearly a passion project for the likable Hayek, so I feel bad ragging on her too harshly, but this performance cannot compare to the four women with whom she's sharing this field.  She seems to simplify the complicated Frida too much, relying on Julie Taymor's visual hints about the artist rather than placing her own mark on Kahlo, and it shows nothing of the iconic Frida that the world would fall in love with in death.  There's not enough there.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama we nearly went verbatim what Oscar said, only subbing out Zellweger for Meryl Streep (The Hours) with Kidman winning, while Zellweger won Comedy/Musical against Maggie Gyllenhaal (Secretary), Goldie Hawn (The Banger Sisters), Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago).  SAG went with Oscar's lineup exactly, but gave the statue to Zellweger and BAFTA gave theirs to Kidman, skipping both Lane & Moore in favor of Streep and Halle Berry (Monster's Ball, which she'd won for the year before-that used to happen with BAFTA back in the day before awards season became so lock-step).  In terms of sixth, it's Streep, and I'm not hearing any arguments here-one of the few times it was clear that Meryl just missed an Oscar nomination.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Meryl deserved an inclusion here.  It's hard to be angry about it.  Streep was nominated for Adaptation in Best Supporting Actress, Hayek would never be nominated again & is an affable star...who cares, right?...even Meryl probably was fine with it turning out this way.  But if we're basing this solely on what everyone put forward, there's no debate-Streep deserved that nomination.

Oscar’s Choice: A tight race between Zellweger & Kidman led to the latter getting it (they had both been nominated the year before & both had lost).  Zellweger would help eliminate Nicole as competition the following year by starring with her, and getting the Oscar in the process.

My Choice: This is going to maybe shock some of my friends, but I'm going with Kidman, just barely over Moore.  This is one of those cases where an unreal connection with a performance makes it impossible for me to deny.  Lane, Zellweger, and then Hayek follow.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  I know that we aren't all in agreement here even if Oscar & I are happy, so who do you want to give your love toward?  Is there another performance that Diane Lane or Salma Hayek should've been considered for other than these movies (Lonesome Dove wasn't eligible, and therefore doesn't count)?  And is this the only time that Meryl has ever been in sixth place?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2002: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2002

Past Best Actress Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

The Prom (2020)

Film: The Prom (2020)

Stars: Meryl Streep, James Corden, Nicole Kidman, Keegan-Michael Key, Andrew Rannells, Ariana DeBose, Kerry Washington, Tracey Ullman, Jo Ellen Pellman

Director: Ryan Murphy

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It goes without saying, but 2020 has been an awful year.  We have spent much of it in isolation (if we cared about those around us), and as a result it's been a lonely year (compounded by a bitter election, a rocky economy, and the constant fear of loved ones coming down with Covid, & the fears that came when they inevitably got it).  The movies have reflected this.  Without the presence of good-over-evil blockbusters (which were all saved for 2021), most movies that have been released this year have been depressing, oftentimes dealing with heavy subjects; there was one critically-acclaimed one I made it through 30 minutes of yesterday that I literally had to turn off because I just couldn't deal with more sadness (I may still get back to it if I feel I'm missing in my year-end lists).  So even with the mixed reviews, I was genuinely excited to indulge in The Prom.  I love musicals, and I love many people in this cast, but really I just wanted something happy to watch for a few hours, and something new.  The Prom is featherlight & has problems, but it delivers if you just want a cotton candy distraction for two hours, and it's a generic crowdpleaser that I recommend trying if you're doing a socially-distant screening this Christmas.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about a young lesbian teenager Emma (Pellman) who cannot go to her prom with her secret girlfriend Alyssa (DeBose), but it's really about four Broadway performers who come to her town to help her get to go to the prom...and in the process get some good publicity for their flailing careers.  The two leads are Dee Dee Allen (Streep, doing at least a semi-fictionalized version of Patti LuPone, let's be real here), and Barry Glickman (Corden), an openly gay actor who is always just out-of-reach of proper critical acclaim.  They choreograph numbers to convince the town, along with eternal chorus girl Angie (Kidman) and former TV star Trent (Rannells), that being gay is okay, and in the process they become better people, confronting old demons & moving on to new chapters in their lives.

The plot is pretty thin, and I'm not saying this just because it's directed by Murphy, but it feels like an extended episode of Glee (which, if you've read this blog a long time, is not a problem for me-I liked the first few seasons of Glee).  Everyone other than Kerry Washington's Mrs. Greene (Alyssa's mother) and a team of Abercrombie-ready bullies is open & accepting, and by the end they all join with Emma in their prom.  The musical numbers are flashy, fun, & "Tonight Belongs to You" is the big showstopper it should be (this must have been a blast to watch onstage-this should do good numbers if it tours).  The script has tons of plot holes (biggest of which is why, exactly, everyone knew Emma was taking a girl to the prom in the first place), but musicals always have plot holes-people are literally singing & dancing for no reason-so this isn't a big problem.  And The Prom feels like a musical that is genuinely happy to be a musical, resisting most winks to the musical-averse in the crowd.

The casting, though, is a bit of a mixed bag & for a while threatens to take the movie off of its track.  Streep is delightful, hammy, and not stretching herself at all (though, really, when was the last time Streep properly "stretched" herself rather than just coasting on her Grand Dame reputation), and Kidman/Rannells are fun if one-dimensional.  But oh lord is James Corden bad in this movie.  I don't even have the collective allergy that the rest of the internet has to Corden (I have liked skits on his show, and I think he does have decent comedic timing even if his recent movie roles feel like he's become a "meet my asking price & I'll do it" sort of actor in the vein of Nicolas Cage).  But his mincing, stereotypically gay performance is the sort of thing you expect from 1990's cinema, and it definitely feels gross coming from a straight man (the part on Broadway was played by openly gay actor Christopher Sieber).  I'm not someone who subscribes to either the school that straight actors can't play queer characters, nor that all queer characters need to redefine stereotypes, but...come on here.  Corden's acting is bad (you understand that when Tracey Ullman comes onscreen & is so much better she nearly knocks him offscreen), and it's deeply offensive, and I struggle to understand why someone (cough Ryan Murphy cough) didn't put that together during an audition.  The role is basically begging for Tituss Burgess to play it (he'd be perfect), and Corden's performance is so wrong I spent much of the film wincing when he came onstage.  If you can get past his work, this is a fun, entertaining ride...but I would understand if you can't.

Birth (2004)

Film: Birth (2004)
Stars: Nicole Kidman, Cameron Bright, Danny Huston, Lauren Bacall, Anne Heche
Director: Jonathan Glazer
Oscar History: No nominations, but Kidman got a Globe nomination.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

It's hard to remember now considering she's basically a treasure in the public's mind (particularly post-Big Little Lies), but in 2004 Nicole Kidman was about to endure what seemingly every actress endures in the years after her Oscar win: a backlash.  Kidman's win in 2002 wasn't without its detractors-some have claimed that while they were glad Kidman has an Oscar, that she didn't win it for the right performance (we'll get to that someday when we get to the OVP's of 2002, but I'll preface I like her work in The Hours more than your average moviegoer).  As a result, in the years that followed, Kidman's work in increasingly eclectic work with cinematic auteurs (rather than moving into more commercial fare after winning such a mainstream award) led to her having a pretty diverse filmography, even if it's one that not a lot of people saw.  One of the more critically-complicated of these was Birth, a movie that received deeply mixed reviews at the time but developed something of a cult status in the years that followed with cinephiles.  As a result, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about considering Kidman did receive a Globe nomination for the picture (and as we resume our 2019 OVP next week, we're not far off from also discussing the movies of 2004), so I caught this movie recently.

(Spoilers Ahead) Anna (Kidman) is a widow who is on the precipice of starting another marriage to Joseph (Huston) ten years after the death of her husband Sean.  During an engagement party, a young boy (Bright) shows up claiming to be a reincarnated version of Anna's husband Sean.  Initially confused, both Joseph & Anna become frustrated and send the "Young Sean" back to his family, thinking it's just a prank. However, the next day Anna's mother Eleanor (Bacall) says that the Young Sean wants to meet Anna, and they do meet at the exact place the elder Sean died.  Young Sean knows shocking details about his "old life," including things about his sex life with Anna, and while everyone else remains dubious, Anna begins to believe that this is her husband brought back to life, and starts to doubt her relationship with Joseph.  Eventually we learn that the Young Sean is not the real Sean, because the real Sean was not in love with Anna; he was in love with his sister-in-law Clara (Heche), who tells him this as proof that he can't be Sean, because Sean would've come to her, not to Anna.  The film ends with an anguished Anna marrying Joseph, who forgives her for her doubts.

The movie, as you can imagine, is pretty provocative & quite cerebral.  There is a lot of conversation about love, death, & what we lose when a loved one dies, and the things we have to do to move on with our lives (including enduring the guilt that comes with moving on from someone we loved).  I totally understand, therefore, why this is such a polarizing film.  The ending occasionally feels like a bizarre copout-it's rare that I leave a movie wanting more ambiguity, but as we learn how the fake Sean knows so much about Anna (through Anna's unopened love letters that Clara was going to give her as a spiteful engagement present, but decided against), we never really understand his motives as to why he initially chose Anna (supposedly it was because he claimed he was in love with her, but is it just a case where he liked Anna from afar, and was mentally unstable enough to believe himself to be the ghost of her late husband...there was a gap in the plot here).

That said, I liked Birth.  I absolutely loved Jonathan Glazer's followup film to Birth (2014's Under the Skin), and there's a similar pattern with this movie, where we have to understand who the real person is, and not just who is being presented to the screen.  The movie wouldn't work without Kidman's excellent central performance.  She plays this role internally, her devotion to her ex-husband (whom, perhaps, she loved more than she loves her next husband, and therefore wants to believe is still alive) so palpable, is controlled & thoughtful.  It's hard to grasp that this was one of the films that led to Kidman's foolish backlash at the time, considering she's so good in the movie, but I'm guessing in conjunction with poor commercial fare like The Stepford Wives and Bewitched at the time, it was inevitable.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2016)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2016)

The Nominees Were...

Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

My Thoughts: All right, we're getting back into our regular Monday & Wednesday articles for OVP ballots today, and where last we left off, we were heading into one of my favorite categories, Best Supporting Actress.  2016's acting races were perhaps the first warning sign that the expanded Best Picture field was truly starting to cause laziness in the Oscars, as you can see here most plainly-every single one of these women are nominated for films that were cited for the top prize.  We're going to do something we rarely do in these write-ups since I'm getting back into the swing of them, and start with the victor since we don't have a lot of other things distinguishing the contest.

Viola Davis is an extraordinary actor, and one who definitely deserved to win an Oscar at some point in her career, but I do question the film she won it for.  For starters, this is a lead performance-you can quibble & fret all you want about this being Troy's story, but it's really the story of Troy & Rose's marriage, and she should have gone lead (I honestly think she might have still won Best Actress in such a field).  So knock off a star for category fraud, as well as for not really transitioning this to the big screen.  Davis & Washington are exceptional, and this must have been a helluva show at the Cort, but on the big screen they don't feel authentic or real enough for my taste-there's not enough modulation, especially compared to what Stephen Henderson is doing.  Davis is great in some of her quieter moments, particularly when she and Washington discuss his love child & lord knows the woman can deliver a monologue, but I'll be honest-this is the least of Davis' three nominated performances for me, and I wish she'd have won for either of the other films instead (she took both OVP's).

Davis' The Help costar would soon tie her record for most-nomiated black actress in 2017, but here she is getting a role that on-paper feels like a slam dunk for Octavia Spencer.  She plays her Dorothy with determination, and though obviously based on a real person, it is a role that feels like it was written with Spencer in-mind.  That said, she still lands it, and finds ways to modulate the work to make sure that it fits.  Look at the subtle ways she makes Dorothy's confidence ebb-and-flow depending on who is in the room (though it's always there in her posture and dialogue), or the killer way she dresses down Kirsten Dunst without it ever feeling like a screenplay ploy.  Spencer is oftentimes taken for granted, but adding richness and warmth to a movie is a rare skill, and should be appreciated-Hidden Figures is the better for her appearing in it.

The same cannot be said for Nicole Kidman, who by most definitions is a world-class actress who definitely should be sitting on more Oscar nominations than she currently has.  I don't think that she handles her "white savior" role with enough delicacy and realism-there's not enough of her complicated relationship with Mantosh, and it feels glossed over to keep the movie bright and "universal" for audience members who look more like Kidman than Dev Patel.  Kidman is too good of an actress to totally fail-she finds some humanity in her relationship with Sunny, but it's not enough, and is one of the drawbacks to the film's weaker second half.

Naomie Harris is the only actor who appears in all three parts of the Moonlight triptych, and thus gets arguably the most difficult task in the film-finding ways to connect with three different actors with a similar (but not too similar) chemistry, while also showing a woman who has moved & struggled through her life.  Harris nails this-the accent is spot-on, and I loved the way we initially view her as a competent, harried mother, and once we learn the secrets of her behavior toward her son, we can never unseen that, even in later scenes where she desperately wants for us (and Chiron) to unsee what we've experienced.  Harris is spectacular, finding a woman increasingly marginalized by her son and society, using what little power she has to try to find her way into both, and then when she realizes the damage she's done, understanding that she can't change the past.

Our final nominee is Michelle Williams, who compared to some of the competition is practically giving a cameo in Manchester by the Sea (one of the reasons I dock a "star" for category fraud is that it's simply unfair that Williams has to compete with Davis, who is in an hour more movie than Williams is).  I am a big fan of Williams, but have found her leaning too much in the "less is less" category of acting in recent years, taking her minimalism too for granted.  So imagine me surprised when she shows up and just knocks her Randi out of the park.  The early scenes where she's a stressed mother, normal, relatable, are matched by the plastic sheen she brings to later scenes.  Affleck couldn't get past what happened to their family-he has to force himself to live with it over-and-over.  Williams chose the opposite approach-cutting every tie she had to that person she used to be in hopes that it would save her from drowning in reality.  Look at that scene where she asks him to lunch, and how she can barely handle even that moment, understanding it might mean finding closure in a moment she can't physically acknowledge, and the anguish of knowing that she can't put back together the man she once loved.  Williams is sensational in this part.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes weirdly went for a carbon copy of the Oscars, something they had not done since 1996 (and that year was cheating, as the HFPA went with six nominations instead of Oscar's five due to a tie).  SAG did the same thing, and Viola Davis won both, indicating a shocking lack of creativity when it came to this field that year.  BAFTA also went for Davis, but at least they found a new name, throwing out Spencer in favor of Hayley Squires in I, Daniel Blake.  In terms of sixth place, it's hard to tell with such uniformity.  Other names being bandied about at the time were Greta Gerwig (20th Century Women), Molly Shannon (Other People), Lily Gladstone (Certain Women), and Janelle Monae (Hidden Figures), the latter being my guess considering that was the one movie that proved popular with Oscar, even if Gladstone got the LAFCA trophy.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Overall, this isn't a bad lineup-there's a reason there was so much uniformity in the precursors-this was a relatively light year for great supporting actress performances.  That said, I surely would have included Monae, who wasn't just awesome in Hidden Figures, announcing herself as a proper movie star, but also in her small role in Moonlight.  I also would have found time for Dakota Johnson, whose nymph in A Bigger Splash is fascinating character work, and kind of announced her as an actress to watch.

Oscar’s Choice: Category fraud, yes, but it's probably better for the world that Viola Davis has an Oscar.

My Choice: A pretty close race for me between Harris & Williams.  I'm going to go with Harris in a slight nod over Williams if only because it's a more difficult part to get across in such a short time frame.  Following them would be Spencer, Davis, and then Kidman.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Pretty much everyone went with Davis, so I assume I'm in the minority by picking Harris-or does someone want to join me on Team Moonlight?  Why do you think there was so much uniformity when it came to this category from precursors?  And who do you think was the sixth place finisher of this field-with so few names in the mix, I'm curious who you think nearly made it?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2016: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2016

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

OVP: Bombshell (2019)

Film: Bombshell (2019)
Stars: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie, John Lithgow, Connie Britton, Mark Duplass, Allison Janney, Malcolm McDowell, Kate McKinnon
Director: Jay Roach
Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (Best Actress-Charlize Theron, Supporting Actress-Margot Robbie, Makeup & Hairstyling*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

We're nearing the end of the year, though anyone knows that the cinematic year ends not on December 31st, but sometime in mid-January when Oscar nominations are announced (and here, we'll be doing most of our genuflecting on the year and decade in late January/early February due to truncated release schedules).  As a result, we're getting through a lot more 2019 films in the comings weeks, and one of them today is Bombshell, currently in theaters.  The film tells the tale of the Fox News scandals of 2016/2017, ones that informed the presidential campaign (though unlike the fates of people like Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes, Donald Trump was not punished for his perpetual harassment and assault of women...hopefully in 316 days that will change).  Here we focus on figures like Megyn Kelly & Gretchen Carlson, whose role in the MeToo movement is undeniable, even if they remain polarizing figures on both sides of the aisle.

(Real Life Doesn't Need Spoiler Alerts) The film is mostly focused on Megyn Kelly (Theron) during the peak of her fame at Fox News, where she went from being the star of a primetime opinion show to being a mainstream superstar thanks to her professional arguments with Donald Trump (played here by the president himself through archival footage).  While Kelly is trying to find ways to balance her conservative boss's (Lithgow as Roger Ailes) beliefs with her increasing disgust at Trump himself, we see two other women who are trying to find their footing at Fox News.  We have Gretchen Carlson (Kidman), a former beauty queen who has been demoted to an afternoon talk show slot, and whose more liberal (for Fox News) political beliefs also feel alien to Ailes, whom she accuses of punishing her for not giving in to his advances.  Finally we have Kayla (Robbie), an aspiring (fictional) Fox personality (who unlike Megyn & Gretchen genuinely believes in the conservative movement, and not just playing a part) who works first for Gretchen and then Bill O'Reilly, but in a rare opportunity finds a way to meet Roger, and in the process he starts sexually harassing her and forcing her to perform oral sex on him in order to get ahead in her career.  All of these women's worlds collide when Gretchen publicly states that she was harassed by Ailes, upending the power dynamic at one of the most powerful organizations on earth.

The film is told in many ways similar to the recent political Adam McKay movies The Big Short and Vice, where the leading women will talk directly to the camera (Megyn most frequently, but definitely Gretchen at one point).  This can be off-putting, and is more miss than hit when films try it, but I kind of liked it for Bombshell.  The film's most impressive feat is the recreation of actresses as distinctive as Theron into exact replicas of their Fox News personas (the men are also impressive, though Lachlan Murdoch owes Jay Roach a muffin basket for having a bearded Ben Lawson hunkify him for the big screen).  Having these personalities, whom the world is used to talking "directly to them" do so on a big screen makes sense-it instantly establishes them as Megyn Kelly & Gretchen Carlson, rather than just actors on a screen in convincing makeup.

The movie is hard to watch, particularly the scenes with Kayla.  Perhaps because Kelly & Carlson's endings are so well-known (Carlson would win the lawsuit but has yet to land a high-profile news gig, Kelly would leave Fox but never escape its stench, failing spectacularly at NBC), Kayla is the audience surrogate, and the one with the cruelest fate, so the fact that we don't know how her story makes it all-the-more-heartbreaking when it ends with her essentially being assaulted (repeatedly) by Ailes.

All three actresses are good.  This isn't a film that would require great acting, and it occasionally slips into caricature.  It's so fun to watch some of the recreations of these people, and getting to judge from the seats people that liberals hate (make no mistake-while the issue of sexual harassment should be nonpartisan and is treated as such here, Jay Roach knows that it's going to be people who hate Fox News who will be seeing this movie and has acted accordingly with the script...my packed audience occasionally booed certain people from their seats), that you would be forgiven for seeing some of these people, especially side characters like Jeanine Pirro, as nothing more than cartoons.  But these are world-class actors, and they find their moments.  I keep thinking of the cautiousness of Kidman as Gretchen, someone smarter than the men in the room but who knows she has to play the part of a former beauty queen to stay in the game, slowly breaking out of her shell.  There's also the great scene where Megyn talks to Kayla, and then refuses to take any of the blame for shielding Roger because she can't face the fact that while Roger is the one who is to blame here, her silence made Ailes rich, Kayla vulnerable, and continued a network that would eventually elect Donald Trump.

This is perhaps the only time in the movie that the film really hints at what is the biggest problem for this picture-that we're left with Megyn Kelly & Gretchen Carlson as our heroes.  I talked about this at the time, but Carlson & Kelly as heroes didn't sit well with people on the left who had seen them as enemies for years.  It's easier to separate the real-life good they did with taking down Ailes with the horrible damage they did when they were at Fox News, but watching them in a movie is different, and the balance isn't right.  We don't see enough of the moments where Carlson dumbs down television by being someone educated at Oxford who claims there's a "War on Christmas" and not enough time is spent on Kelly essentially putting her career ahead of women's rights & helping in a large part to hurt women everywhere by forgiving Donald Trump.  These pop up occasionally, but it feels more like a "cover your butt" move from Roach than trying to incorporate these very complicated, nasty bits of these women's legacies into a film that wants them to just be feminist trailblazers.  This is a pity, as Bombshell is very watchable, and they have the likes of Theron, Kidman, and Robbie ready to not just be movie stars, but find the souls of these women, even if they are complicated.