OVP: Supporting Actress (1999)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (1999)

The Nominees Were...

Toni Collette, The Sixth Sense

Angelina Jolie, Girl, Interrupted

Catherine Keener, Being John Malkovich

Samantha Morton, Sweet and Lowdown

Chloe Sevigny, Boys Don't Cry

My Thoughts: It is pretty rare (and as the Academy becomes even more insular, even rarer in the 21st Century) for the Academy Awards to do what they did in 1999-give us all five first-time nominees.  While each of these women would have very diverse careers that followed (three of them, to date, have been invited back to the Academy Awards as a nominee for a different picture), they all started as first-timers together.  It's fascinating to think about how one of them became a global superstar, one emerged as an Indie darling, and the remainder are three beloved character actresses with very different fanbases.  But we're only judging the performances in front of us, so let's start with them, shall we?

Samantha Morton is maybe the most versatile of these actors, having appeared in countless roles in the years since of varying sizes.  I think it makes sense how well she fits into the vision Woody Allen has set up for her in Sweet & Lowdown.  The mute girl with a heart-of-gold is a staple at the Oscars for a reason (just ask Jane Wyman or Holly Hunter), but I wanted a bit more of it from her.  A lot of her acting here that works is more physical, reactive rather than driving the viewer, and while that's a good fit, it doesn't give us the range I want from this piece (and as Hunter showed in The Piano, not being able to speak onscreen is no excuse for not giving us everything you'd get with a lot of dialogue).

Toni Collette, oddly enough, does that kind of projecting without speaking in her most famous scene in The Sixth Sense, going through a facial journey as she understands her son's gifts, and gets to have a reunion of sorts with her mother (she does have dialogue, but it's definitely secondary to what she's doing).  Collette is aces in this in general, though.  She nails the tough spot of being a single mother in a horror movie (very much a cliche) by giving us a sense of not just what it's like to raise a unique child, but also what it's like to put your life on the back-burner to raise said child.  This is one of those performances that Oscar could've skipped (Osment gets the showier part), and I'm so glad they didn't.

I will confess since this is the last (guaranteed) time that we discuss her that I've never been really besotted with Angelina Jolie as an actress.  I think she's better as a movie star or celebrity, but when she's forced into actually acting or transforming, she can't do it.  Part of the reason she works in Girl, Interrupted is that we're getting that star persona full-force, for the first time, and audiences were wowed by it.  In many ways it's similar to what one of her competitors that missed the field in 1999 (Jean Smart in Guinevere) is doing-it's the first time we see this talent, so we assume it's limitless and are astounded, but we quickly get used to it, and it's not something where every performance is an event like Meryl Streep or Julianne Moore.  Again, I need to judge this based on what's totally in front of me (those are the OVP rules), and what I'm seeing is intoxicating...but I don't know that it's great acting.

Catherine Keener is able to achieve both in Being John Malkovich.  She's playing a role that would be a staple in her catalog (the gorgeous, smart, impetuous bitch), and she nails it.  Keener would later be typecast in these sorts of roles, but here you understand that there's something special to what she's specifically bringing.  Look at the way she is totally comfortable stepping on John Cusack's character to get what she wants, which is something better than him.  It's basically said out loud, but you understand because she's so enthralling why Cusack is willing to put up with it.  In a film teaming with really interesting character decisions, hers is the best and I'm glad if only one person got that nomination, it was her.

We end with Chloe Sevigny, one of those stars that just has such a unique screen persona it's inevitable that she would land an Oscar nomination at some point, but likely not much more because she is not in traditional Academy fare.  Sevigny can be a good actress, but she goes all-in with all of her characterizations, and I think her work here needed some more breathing room.  She plays well off of Hilary Swank, but it's more predictable and close-to-the-vest in her approach, giving the audience less glimpses inward rather than just what we get on the surface.  This isn't a bad performance, by any means, but when you're judging on a curve (i.e. giving out an Oscar), you have to be pickier, and I think there was room for something more fully-fledged here.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Golden Globes went with Jolie as their victor, here taking out Morton, Keener, Sevigny, Natalie Portman (Anywhere But Here), & Cameron Diaz (Being John Malkovich).  SAG also picked Jolie, beating Diaz, Keener, Sevigny, & Julianne Moore (Magnolia), while BAFTA gave their statute to Maggie Smith (Tea with Mussolini) atop Diaz, Cate Blanchett (The Talented Mr. Ripley), Thora Birch (American Beauty), & Mena Suvari (American Beauty).  The clear sixth place based on precursors is Diaz, and that probably makes the most sense.  Moore was in the running, as were Blanchett & Gywneth Paltrow for Ripley (they likely split their vote), and as I mentioned above there were some who thought Jean Smart might surprise given her reviews for Guinevere, but Diaz was likely in sixth even if that feels weird given Oscar didn't care for her.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: This was in the era before Nicole Kidman was an Oscar staple, but that doesn't mean that Oscar was making the right decisions by her, as she was still doing the work.  Look at what she does in Stanley Kubrick's final film, a prickly, tough performance as a neglected wife in Eyes Wide Shut...she was Oscar-worthy well before Moulin Rouge!.

Oscar’s Choice: There was some buzz building at the time for Collette to win in an upset, but not enough to topple Jolie from her perch.

My Choice: For sure Collette.  This is on a different level from her competition, even if Catherine Keener would've made a respectable winner as well.  Behind them (in order) are Morton, Sevigny, and then Jolie.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone want to stay with Jolie, or would you like to see dead people with Toni & I?  Which of these actresses (their first glance for many cinephiles) is the strongest thespian in the years that followed?  And is sixth place as easy as just "it was Cameron Diaz" or does someone want to push for someone more traditionally in Oscar's wheelhouse?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 1999: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously, in 1999

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

Dream Horse (2021)

Film: Dream Horse (2021)

Stars: Toni Collette, Damian Lewis, Owen Teale, Joanna Page, Nicholas Farrell

Director: Euros Lyn

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

After a year where I literally said at least once-a-day, sometimes to great chagrin "I want to go to the movies," I have made a firm commitment to myself that I will go to the cinema, in theaters, to see a picture at least once a week for the rest of the year, unless illness, travel, or money prevents me.  As a result, we're seeing a movie this week that I might have skipped in the before times, but I went to (at my local AMC!) because I'm sticking by this pledge, not just to support theaters but also (hopefully) to catch a few hidden gems I might have otherwise never caught (also, because I am never taking going to the movies for granted again).  Dream Horse, while a nice way to spend an evening, is not one of those gems, though, covering known territory without having much else to say.

(Spoilers Ahead) Jan Vokes (Collette) is a middle-aged woman working several jobs who makes little money in her Wales community.  The only thing that stands out about her is the numerous animals her unemployed husband Brian (Teale) keeps in their small home.  After meeting Howard (Lewis) at the pub she bartends at (where he brags about his former glory with horse-racing), she decides to buy a mare with a winning lineage & breed her to have a foal that might be able to be a racer.  While the mare dies in childbirth, the foal that she sires, Dream Alliance, shows promise as a racehorse.  His owners, because of the poverty that Jan & Brian live in, aren't just the Vokes, but also Howard and a number of figures in the village who are treating Dream Alliance as a lottery ticket that might change their lives.

As you can imagine, both because this is based on a true story & because it's a movie at all, Dream Alliance defies the odds and becomes a major figure, eventually winning the Welsh National after recovering from an injury.  He also brings some light to the darkness of Jan's life, reigniting her marriage with Brian, and giving her a sense of purpose that she feels is lacking in a life where she simply exists.  This is a great source of material for a movie, and Jan of course has a fine actress to transform her; movies about ordinary people who are on auto-pilot and suddenly find a newfound spring in life are something I enjoy if I'm going toward schmaltz, if only because we can always do with a little blind hope.

But that's not really what this movie is about.  The humor is sophomoric, and the film doesn't really know how to treat Jan as the picture continues.  There are times when Jan doesn't really respect the financial sacrifice the other owners are taking in investing in this horse.  Yes, it's initially treated as a lark, but he's also a ticket out for many of them, into a better life, and when she refuses to sell the horse, this is swept under-the-rug by the writers when it should be at at the forefront of the decision (poverty, and the chance to escape it, is a serious issue, and perhaps should be equalled to the amount of heart that Jan invests in Dream Alliance...I have become more sensitive in the past year to the idea of romanticizing loyalty at the expense of profiting off of a system that keeps poor people poor).  More so, the film hits such familiar territory in the last thirty minutes that you could walk out of the theater & guess exactly what happened.  This isn't necessarily bad, but it's also kind of blasé.

I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020)

Film: I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020)

Stars: Jesse Plemons, Jessie Buckley, Toni Collette, David Thewlis, Guy Boyd

Director: Charlie Kaufman

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

The films of Charlie Kaufman are, for me, a mixed bag.  I saw Adaptation at likely too-young of an age (when we get to 2002 for the OVP, I'll be re-watching that to have a more recent understanding of the nominated performances), but overall I've only really liked Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which he did not direct).  His movies are too much of an intellectual exercise, and frequently are difficult to watch.  This occasionally makes me feel like I'm stupid, as obviously these are celebrated by cinephiles & it's perhaps a sign that I'm just not getting it.  Or, perhaps with I'm Thinking of Ending Things it's a case where we're forgiving one man's previous genius when he's giving us an absolute train-wreck of a movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film wanders quite a bit, and it's very difficult to sum up, so I'm going to try but I'll have to take some liberties.  There is a young woman (Buckley), initially called Lucy but eventually called other things throughout the movie, who is on a road trip to meet the parents of her boyfriend Jake (Plemons).  She is having doubts about whether she should stay with him or not, and is not happy about going on the trip but he is insistent.  When they get there, his parents behave in a bizarre way, with their moods alternating back-and-forth, and at first call Lucy by the wrong name.  As the night wears on, though, the parents start to age, to the point where they're clearly about to die, and Lucy's identity shifts.  She begins to not acknowledge that those around her change her name & occupation.  All of this happens with cuts to a lonely janitor cleaning a school, whom Lucy & Jake eventually meet on their ride home.  As the film closes, it becomes increasingly apparent that these figures (Lucy, Jake, and his parents) are an illusion, figments of the janitor's imagination on a night when he's going to kill himself, which it's heavily implied he does over the silent end credits.

Honestly-this is giving the film more credit than it deserves in terms of plot, and I'll admit that I had to read a synopsis of the book Kaufman based the film on in order to ascertain that Jake & Lucy were figments of the janitor's imagination (and I only include that part because it's the only logical read on the film in hindsight).  You don't get that from the film, and I don't think this is a case like Last Year at Marienbad or Celine & Julie Go Boating where the movie is simply above many people's heads...I think it's just a mess.

The movie doesn't establish enough in the final moments what's going on, and while it's apparent that we're meant to interpret Jake's (or the janitor's) obsession with film & books as part of the story, it's not  clear enough why we're getting references to Robert Zemeckis or A Beautiful Mind-these feel random & chaotic, and the movie doesn't establish why it's so cruel to its characters, its obsession with morbidity, and really give us a perspective on this wandering, potentially sociopathic janitor.  I honestly hated this movie-it was so gross & needlessly complicated (there was nothing to gain other than confusion from certain chapters, particularly the woman who worked at the ice cream shop).  I normally would refrain from giving a film like this one-star, because there are elements, like the acting & especially the cinematography, that I liked, and because I might be able to understand it better upon a repeat viewing, but I had such a visceral disgust to the picture that I'm giving it my worst grade.  The movie tries to be intellectual, but putting up haunting images and random pop culture references does not make a film high art because it looks like high art, and it is a movie that feels like it doesn't have a perspective, and if it does, it's one that's poorly executed.

OVP: Knives Out (2019)

Film: Knives Out (2019)
Stars: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield, Christopher Plummer
Director: Rian Johnson
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I love Clue.  I know that like everyone loves Clue, but I LOVE Clue.  I like everything about Clue, and not just the movie (which I've seen more than any other film, once watched with my brother I think every day for a month-for two cinephile brothers, I think that's the only film we ever did something like that with, and that includes Disney films, and have a poster of it in my basement).  I collect Clue board games; I have 20 versions of the game in my hobby room closet, as well as three knockoff mystery games (13 Dead End Drive, I see you), and am hoping to make it 21 this Christmas as I have "Clue Guess Who" prominently featured at the top of my Christmas list.  I've read all of the Clue books, watched the Clue VCR game, have the Clue Christmas ornament, I buy the Clue board game chocolate every year that Target has it...I love Clue.  And as a result, I'm about as good of a candidate for something like Knives Out as you can find-a silly murder mystery with a large, talented ensemble cast is exactly what gets me to a movie theater.  Even with a plethora of more plausible Oscar contenders out (though kudos on the trio of Globe nominations!), I couldn't resist last week when I had a two hour window to go and catch Rian Johnson's latest in theaters.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is not, of course, Clue, but it's obvious that Johnson has had a similar adoration for the franchise.  We start with Harlan Thrombey (Plummer), a wealthy mystery novelist, dying of what appears to be suicide in the opening moments of the film.  He had just finished celebrating his birthday party, one that had quite a bit of calamity with his family, and this opened the door for Benoit Blanc (Craig, sporting a ridiculous Southern accent), a noted detective, to be hired by an anonymous figure to investigate what could be a murder.  The film hosts a variety of suspects, from driven businesswoman Linda (Curtis), Harlan's favorite child, to her husband Richard (Johnson), who is having an affair, to his less successful son Walt (Shannon) who is mad that his father is driving him out of the business.  Add in a failed "Goop"-style guru daughter-in-law Joni (Collette) and a spoiled playboy grandson Ransom (Evans), and about the only person you don't suspect is Marta (de Armas), Harlan's nurse & caretaker.  Which means, of course, that Marta is both guilty and we're about to find out why she's guilty.

The best parts of Knives Out are arguably the parts I liked the least while watching it, because I am a mystery fan at heart, and love figuring out the clues as I'm going along.  We find out about a third of the way through what "actually" happened (it's a mystery-there's going to be a twist eventually) with Marta mixing up the morphine vile with Harlan's medication, thus accidentally killing him, and depriving her of her inheritance (Harlan decided to leave all of the money to his caretaker, cutting his family out of the will as a result).  We then see the steps that Marta will take to keep Benoit from finding out, knowing that if she had anything to do with Harlan's death, she'll lose the fortune which will go to Harlan's greedy & unworthy family.  As a result, this becomes more of a thriller than a mystery, as we're meant to take on the role of Marta as an audience rather than Benoit.

Upon reflection, this change in format generally works.  Johnson upends the mystery genre by giving us what we think is the answer, in the process showing what it's like to be an unreliable narrator, but in doing so the ending and the humor don't really resonate by putting someone as morally upstanding as Marta so central to the story.  The movie's best parts should be Curtis, Stanfield, and Collette, all having a blast with their characters, but they're forced into the sidelines to focus on sweet-as-pie Marta and over-acting Benoit, and since the only character whom we spend enough time with and is dynamic enough to be the eventual culprit is Evans' Ransom, we know eventually that it'll be revealed that he's the killer (by switching the labels on the bottles).

The film is fun, no question, but the entire time I saw it I kept thinking "this should be more fun."  It runs too long, isn't snappy enough outside of the initial interrogation sequences, and because it takes away the enjoyment of solving the mystery, it doesn't make us vested into the stories of the eccentric relatives.  As a result, we get relatively two-dimensional performances from people capable of so much more, and while de Armas has ability, she's kind of boring as Marta when you keep wanting to go back to the fun promised in the trailer & the movie's opening chapters.

No Globe? No Sag? No Problem!!!

Lesley Manville didn't get invited by SAG or
HFPA, but she was good enough for Oscar anyway.

There are a lot of things to say about this morning's SAG Awards.  For starters, there is no universe where Bohemian Rhapsody qualifies as a strong ensemble.  I didn't even like Crazy Rich Asians, but I understand the pull to nominate it here, but Bohemian Rhapsody is completely & totally Rami Malek, and the supporting cast is a bunch of one-dimensional, lackluster performances that are entirely in service to Malek.  Nearly as absurd is thinking that Emily Blunt is a supporting performance in A Quiet Place.  I enjoyed Blunt in this film, and am excited she's clearly headed to her first Oscar nomination, but no one would consider this a supporting performance if Mary Poppins Returns wasn't an option this year.  NO ONE.  Nicole Kidman has to be looking at this year right now and wishing that she'd gone supporting for Moulin Rouge! in 2001 because apparently she could have gotten dual nominations that year, no trouble (and yes, it's absurd to think of her as supporting in Moulin Rouge!, but is it any more absurd than Blunt or Chalamet or Ali?).

But that's a gripe for a different day, because today we get to do one of my all-time favorite traditions at TMROJ: our annual "No Globe/No Sag/No Problem!" article.  For those unfamiliar, every year we take a look at one of the more under-reported aspects of the awards season, that despite people pretending like anyone without a Globe or SAG nomination is DOA when it comes to Oscar, almost always there's at least 1-2 actors who randomly get nominated without either of these precursors.  Even in an era of group think with the Academy, we have not had a year where no one is a "new name" since 2006, which was largely due to the bizarre Best Supporting Actor race that season (nine different actors were cited in those categories that year between the Globes & SAG Awards).  For reference, in the past ten years these have been the "No Globes, No SAG" victors with AMPAS:

2017: Lesley Manville
2016: Michael Shannon
2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy & Mark Ruffalo
2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, & Laura Dern
2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emmanuelle Riva, & Jacki Weaver
2011: Gary Oldman & Max von Sydow
2010: Javier Bardem
2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal
2008: Michael Shannon

As you can see from the above, the "No Globe/No SAG" contenders usually fall into one of two camps.  Either they are previous nominees/winners who are making a late play for the Oscar nomination, as they're already established enough with the Academy that they don't need precursors to get their screener into the DVD player, or they are "halo" nominations from films that are doing well in the Best Picture or other acting races that sneak onto enough ballots to get a fourth or fifth place nomination.  It's worth noting that none of these actors usually end up winning (I believe the last time that someone pulled off an Oscar win without either precursor nomination was Marcia Gay Harden in 2000), but it's too soon to count the following ten contenders out of Oscar's big night:

10. Toni Collette (Hereditary)

For Her: She received raves for her work in Hereditary, which is a genre film but has the prestige-horror angle that Oscar sometimes goes for (look at Get Out last year), and she's a previous nominee.  Collette has been working the rooms hard for this citation, and is the sort of actor most everyone has worked with & acknowledges is one of the best, but her nominations count doesn't really speak to that fact.
Against Her: It's a rough year for Best Actress outsiders (there is a lot of consensus forming around the Close/Gaga/McCarthy/Blunt/Colman quintet), so she'd likely have to take out either McCarthy or Blunt for their nominations, a tall order considering the former is one of Hollywood's most bankable movie stars and the latter most agree is overdue for this nomination.  Plus, it's still genre and she might have needed more critical hosannas to land this spot.

9. Nicole Kidman (Boy Erased)

For Her: Kidman is consistently one of the best actors in cinema, and this is exactly the sort of role that gets you nominated (long-suffering, long-supporting mother).  Lucas Hedges did get a nomination for Best Actor at the Globes, and as a result this is probably more in the conversation with AMPAS than most critics have been giving it credit for, and Kidman's exactly the sort of matinee idol that gets nominated for work such as this.  If people ignore her on their Best Actress ballots for Destroyer, perhaps they'll want to include her here?
Against Her: She's looking at likely vote-splitting for her work in Destroyer, even if it's in a different category, and she's got The Favourite women taking up two of the nominations already.  Will Oscar have room for an actual supporting performance if they already have 40-60% of the category filled up with leads?

8. Steve Carell (Vice)

For Him: Carell seems to be pulling a play from Michael Shannon's book this year, where you just appear in as many films as possible and see what sticks.  He likely doesn't have to worry about vote-splitting with Beautiful Boy and Welcome to Marwen, but a trio of films could make the Academy give one of its occasional "they were in everything, so let's nominate them" citations.  Carell's got a showy role in a movie that feels like a Best Picture contender, which always helps-could this be a "halo" nomination of sorts?
Against Him: Best Supporting Actor seems to be solidifying (again, lead performers Timothee Chalamet & Mahershala Ali both make it harder for a turn like this to make the cut), and if anyone from Vice makes it, won't it be recent-winner Sam Rockwell, who got the Globe nomination?  It's hard to envision the Academy loving this movie so much that both of them get into the lineup.

7. Linda Cardellini (Green Book)

For Her: I can't decide if this should be #1 or if I'm crazy for including it on this list at all.  Cardellini's role in Green Book is a trifle, nothing really impressive about it and lacking even a really juicy scene that might get her into the conversation in a different year.  But she's also playing the supportive wife (one of Oscar's favorite roles) in a probable Best Picture contender, and romancing a surefire Best Actor nominee in her film.  Is this a Jacki Weaver-type nomination?
Against Her: She's not as famous as most of the people on this list (though she's worked in Hollywood a while), which makes standing out more of a challenge, and it's a pittance of a part.  With category fraud so rampant this year, how will there be room for a genuine supporting part to sneak in like Cardellini's?

6. Ryan Gosling (First Man)

For Him: I get the feeling that First Man is going to do much better with Oscar than it had any hopes to do with some of the precursor awards, considering it has very showy tech attributes that go a lot further with AMPAS.  That should help Gosling, a two-time nominee who has never won, who gives an introverted performance here that has gained a lot of critical praise.  If AMPAS wants subtle, he's a pretty strong option.
Against Him: If John David Washington is genuinely getting his nomination, that leaves very little room for a Best Actor nominee to sneak in, as Gosling would have to take out Viggo, Bale, Malek, or Cooper, none of which feel movable at this point.  Oscar only occasionally goes for subtle-this might be too subdued for them, and the SAG miss for Claire Foy makes me wonder if no one is feeling this work this year.

5. Yalitza Aparicio (Roma)

For Her: The work in this film is showy and impressive, and you can't help but connect with her Cleo.  For actor-fans of Cuaron's film (there will be a lot of them-expect this to be a Best Picture nominee), they've got no other place to show their enthusiasm other than Aparicio, and Globe/SAG are more into stars than Oscar is (because you become a star with that Oscar nomination).
Against Her: It's a director's film, and while the cast is an undersung hero of why it works, the combination of it being a visual rather than actorly showcase and that it's in a foreign language (already a hiccup with Oscar), means that Aparicio is going to need Oscar to love it a lot in order to get her into the race.

4. Julia Roberts (Ben is Back)

For Her: She's one of the country's most recognizable movie stars, and as a result can make a late play in a way that few others would be able to pull off (if Clint Eastwood's work in The Mule is good enough, he should be on this list as he's in the same boat, but the lack of a critic's screening makes me think that is entirely a commercial play).  Ben is Back is getting great notices for Roberts, and it hasn't opened yet so it could be a strong commercial play (plus she'll be on red carpets already thanks to Homecoming).  While there are a lot of Globe/SAG-nominated performers who could break up the quintet I've listed above, my gut says that if one of those names isn't on the list, it'll be Roberts that comes out of nowhere & scores for her work here.
Against Her: She needs strong box office & she needs to oust someone who is already a big part of the conversation.  She can do that, but Roberts has never pulled off an Oscar citation without serious Globes support heading into the night.

3. Michael B. Jordan (Black Panther)

For Him: He's a superstar actor (he must be getting a nomination at some point, right?), who has the most obvious, nominatable performance in a film that is a serious threat to win Best Picture.  It's relatively rare for a Best Picture winner not to have at least one nominated performance, and villains do well in Best Supporting Actor.
Against Him: The Return of the King was a much surer Best Picture victor, and it missed completely for nominations.  It's entirely possible that the Academy will skip this considering they don't go for comic book performances (Heath Ledger being the obvious exception), and he's been skipped over before for more obvious work.  Maybe they just aren't fans?

2. Ethan Hawke (First Reformed)

For Him: Hawke's work here is remarkable, a tour-de-force triumph that will be catnip to anyone who sees it.  Oscar loves very physical performances, and ones with lots of great monologues.  It's easy to see him making it on #1 ballots if enough people catch the film...
Against Him: ...but will they?  Schrader is probably looking at a Best Screenplay nomination here if Hawke can also pull it off, but this is a rough movie that people are going to have to start catching around the holidays, and it was released months ago, so the buzz is going to be tough to maintain as Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody continue to be a big presence in theaters.  Might it just be one of those performances the Oscars wish they'd nominated after-the-fact?

1. Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians)

For Her: Everything.  She's a well-known actor (check) who is appearing in a showcase supporting role (check) in a populist film that everyone saw (check) that is increasingly likely to win a Best Picture nomination (check).  Plus, in an Academy increasingly focused on diversity with their acting nominations, Yeoh's an easy way to honor one of the most important Asian women in cinema.  I had toyed with putting Hawke or Jordan at #1, but the SAG nomination for Best Ensemble combined with the dual nominations at the Globes makes me think this is probably going to happen.  Also, Supporting Actress is the only race where the fifth slot doesn't have a clear favorite so she has room (Adams, King, Stone, & Weisz make it, but Foy is slipping, Robbie is out-of-nowhere, and Blunt will get in for Mary Poppins instead).
Against Her: It's a relatively slight role, and it's entirely possible that the Academy (allergic to comedies) won't love CRA the way the general public did.  But I think this is happening-it's the only one on this list that I'd have listed on my official Top 5 predictions at this point.

Hereditary (2018)

Film: Hereditary (2018)
Stars: Toni Collette, Alex Wolff, Milly Shapiro, Gabriel Byrne, Ann Dowd
Director: Ari Aster
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I live by a maxim that I will see any movie at least once, and by-and-large I stick to that credo.  I literally love movies more than any other way to pass the time, and given the opportunity, I'm up for pretty much anything.  That being said, if there's a genre I struggle with the most, it's horror films.  I genuinely get scared during the film (I live alone in a crowded apartment building-I am prone to loud noises in the middle of the night), and since I like the escapist angles of movies, it's not really feeding into my baser love of cinema when I have to repeatedly say "it's just Toni Collette, she's on a sound stage in Vancouver...just picture Muriel's Wedding and you'll be fine."  However, my date wanted to go, and because I'd seen the reviews (and because he's so damn cute), I didn't follow my usual horror movie credo of waiting for my brother to tell me if it's too scary for me to see.  In an ominous sign, moments before the film my brother texted "It was creepy AF, the best of luck to you" so I knew I was in trouble.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers, at least initially, around Annie (Collette), a miniaturist artist, who lives with her nuclear family in the middle of nowhere (you get the sense this is Canada or Wyoming based on how spread out things are and both hilly/flat).  Her mother has died before the film began, and her family is reacting differently to it, with her daughter Charlie (Shapiro), taking it the hardest.  Charlie is odd, clearly suffering from some sort of social anxiety, and the sort of "creepy kid" we've come to expect to be weary of in horror pictures.  We learn through an anonymous support group that Annie's childhood was fraught with mental illness, her father dying when she was young, her brother killing himself and blaming her mother, and her mother suffering from dissociative-identity-disorder.  In a tragedy that comes as a true shock (and throws your preconceived notions of the film into orbit), Charlie dies a third of the way through the movie, when after suffering an allergic reaction to peanuts, she is decapitated when her brother Peter (Wolff) is barreling down the highway at 90 mph and her head hits a pole.  It's a jarring scene, one that shows you are no longer in control of the film, and none of them easy.

We're conditioned at this point, in the era of The Babadook and mother! to be looking for metaphors, and if you try hard enough, you can find them.  There's clearly a fascinating take on motherhood, perhaps postpartum depression, grief, women's roles in the family, the destruction of the nuclear family as a whole...but honestly, what I think makes Hereditary so interesting as a picture is that it works really well as a straight horror film.  You don't need a metaphor to make this film truly terrifying, and perhaps the metaphors are situated as a red herring.  You're meant for most of the picture to question whether or not Annie and her son Peter are falling prey to the same mental illness that has ravaged their family.  After all, that's what we'd expect in another picture, but this just serves as a red herring.  The reality is that what's happening, is, well, actually happening.  Charlie is trying to return, perhaps to warn her mother, perhaps to aid her into giving up her son, and this is a family that has devoted its life to a King of Hell named Paimon, who has possessed Charlie since her birth, but really wants a male body and so is looking to inhabit Peter.  Upon re-watching the film, I suspect you'll find a lot of clues that this was always the intention, but because we assume it's all mental illness (it makes sense the opposite direction), it plays a bit with our assumptions about recent horror movies that it's entirely a metaphor, when really Hereditary works best to be taken literally, and that makes it all-the-more-horrifying, because there's literally nothing any of the characters can do to stop their fates-every one of them is doomed the moment the opening credits begin.

A lot has been made in the past two decades about how Toni Collette is under-utilized in modern cinema, and Hereditary proves that is correct.  An Oscar nominee for The Sixth Sense and a Tony Award-nominee for The Wild Party (who can sing, casting directors!), she never really became the headliner the woman who beat her with AMPAS (Angelina Jolie) did.  Collette clearly relishes this role, not playing with the horror movie tropes we'd expect, making her Annie a fully-fleshed human being.  Collette said in an interview that she doesn't watch horror movies, which may be why she's so damn good here (no shade intended to horror film acting-put the pearls down).  Her performance is based more on what we'd expect from a heavy drama, a woman bereft with grief and coping with fear, practically begging us to find a metaphor, and as a result she feeds the red herring while also giving her best work in decades.  Her costars are all up-to-the-task as well.  Wolff gets the film's most challenging part, a physical feat where he occasionally has to mimic his sister, a demon, while still being a pretty blank-slate stoner for his mother to both hate and have a resistant love toward, but he pulls it off.  And Ann Dowd, taking on the part of the Ruth Gordon character from Rosemary's Baby (the clearest predecessor to this picture), is sensational as a "friend" of Annie's who is also struggling with grief, but is there to lure a mourning mother into darkness.  Dowd is so good so often it's easy to take for granted, but the way that she unpacks what could be a to-the-rafter style character is delicious.  I loved the scene in the parking lot, where her Joanie knows the importance of that moment and keeps underlining her "script," something fed to her by Annie's mother.  It feels so kind and genuine initially, and then as the film progresses we look back on that scene for the nastiness that it contains.  That's a great summary, in fact, for Ari Aster's film-as-a-whole, and I can't wait to see what he has in store next.

Best Picture & Best Actress: Oscar Trivia Time!

Considering that we went through the list of women this morning who had received crucial roles in Academy Award Best Picture nominees, I thought it might be fun to make it a day of actresses and Best Picture, and take a look at the extremely strong correlation between Best Picture and Best Actress.  As I've mentioned before, whenever a Best Picture features a woman in a crucial lead role, they nearly always get nominated.  I have my own theories as to why this occurs (though sexism rears its ugly head a bit, in my opinion, and certainly the dearth of good roles for women is also a factor), but nonetheless it's a very common occurrence, even in the expanded field.  In fact, this year marks the first time ever since we went from 5 to 5+ nominees in Best Picture where an actress, Charlize Theron, is actually the lead of a Best Picture nominee but didn't receive a corresponding Oscar nomination (the other two female leads in Best Picture nominees this year, Saoirse Ronan and Brie Larson, are both nominated).  Since we now have Theron on the list, I figured it would be fun to count down the Top 10 most-recent actresses to star in a Best Picture nominee but not get a corresponding Oscar nomination.  Let's take a look, shall we?

(Note: I am giving the film a pass if it managed a nomination for Best Actress but had two leading ladies.  However, if I didn't make that exception, Emma Stone in The Help and Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right would be seen below.  Also, I'm making a few judgment calls regarding lead and supporting for films like Jerry Maguire and The Cider House Rules-the comments are there to correct or disagree).

1. Charlize Theron (2015)

Film: Mad Max: Fury Road

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 10 nominations, though none for acting

Her Oscar History: Theron has been nominated twice, for Monster and North Country (does anyone remember that movie?), and won of course for Monster.

Precursors Won by Theron: Relatively minor-Theron received a BFCA nomination for Best Actress, but largely disappeared from the conversation despite Mad Max remaining a steady presence.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Action films almost never can land an Oscar acting nomination, even with a female lead and when they are hailed amongst the best ever (see also Number 6 on this list).  Even still, I was partially wondering if Theron might make it to the Dolby if only because it truly had been seven years since a lead actress had last missed for a Best Picture nominee and I was starting to wonder if it was still possible (I came very close to predicting her).

2. Cate Blanchett (2008)

Film: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 13 nominations, including two for acting

Her Oscar History: Blanchett is an Oscar favorite-she had a trophy and five nominations at the point of this snub, and has since won another Oscar for Blue Jasmine and is up again this year for Carol.

Precursors Won by Blanchett: Blanchett did score a BFCA nomination, but was absent for most of the rest of the season which focused on Brad Pitt and Taraji P. Henson.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Blanchett's work in the film was solid and filled with a lot of Oscar bait (including prosthetics), but she had just been nominated twice-in-one-year for I'm Not There and Elizabeth: The Golden Age, the latter of which was an eyebrow-raising citation.  I'm guessing the Academy needed a break.

3. Keira Knightley (2007)

Film: Atonement

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 7 nominations, including one for acting

Her Oscar History: Knightley had received her first Oscar nomination two years earlier for Pride and Prejudice.  She has since received one nomination for The Imitation Game.

Precursors Won by Knightley: The Globes, BAFTA's, and Satellite Awards all nominated Knightley.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: First off, it's important to remember that 2007 was not one of Oscar's finest years for this category-Cate Blanchett's work in The Golden Age still being a bizarre inclusion and Laura Linney's excellent work in The Savages being a highly pleasant but unexpected one.  I think that youth (she'd just been nominated) and overall apathy toward this film (which was a far bigger hit with the Globes and couldn't get Joe Wright a Best Director nomination with AMPAS) meant that Knightley was probably in seventh (with Angelina Jolie in A Mighty Heart the biggest surprise miss with Oscar).

4. Toni Collette (2006)

Film: Little Miss Sunshine

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 4 nominations, including two for acting

Her Oscar History: Collette has one Oscar nomination, for The Sixth Sense, which at the time was a bit of a surprise (most thought it would be Cameron Diaz for Being John Malkovich), but now we assume it made complete sense.

Precursors Won by Collette: Collette was nominated for Best Lead Actress at the Golden Globes, and then to add to the confusion she was cited for Best Supporting Actress at the BAFTA Awards for the same performance.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Category confusion is always a rough go-with Collette landing in both categories, she's splitting what was already likely a weak base of support in what was a very strong list of female performers (Collette, though regularly a talented actor, would have been ousting a considerably better performance had she made it in the Best Actress field).  Plus, with only four nominations and nothing in Best Director, this was not a film with a wide range of support (it's the sort of film we'd assume wouldn't have made the Top 5 in the post-2008 era, which proves such postulations may not always be accurate).

5. Scarlett Johansson (2003)

Film: Lost in Translation

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 4 nominations, including one for acting

Her Oscar History: Johansson has been favored by the HFPA and the BAFTA Awards, but Oscar has yet to call despite plenty of opportunities.

Precursors Won by Johansson: Johansson won the BAFTA for her performance and picked up a nomination at the Globes.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Unlike Collette, I think that Johansson had a real shot at an Oscar nomination this year, but the Best Actress field was ALL over the map (for you AMPAS youngsters, think 2012 and add a bit more category confusion crazy).  Johansson also had a muddled campaign with two major strikes against her: one, that she had another award-worthy performance that year (her Golden Globe-nominated work in Girl with a Pearl Earring) and someone decided at the last minute to campaign her as supporting to not compete with the other performance, despite the Globes and BAFTA (and common sense) dictating this was a lead performance.  Strike either of those two issues, and you probably would have seen a nomination in one of the categories.  Instead, it's twelve years later and ScarJo is still waiting for that invitation to the club.

6. Michelle Yeoh (2000)

Film: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 10 nominations, though astoundingly none for acting

Her Oscar History: Michelle Yeoh has never been nominated for an Oscar.

Precursors Won by Yeoh: Yeoh received a BAFTA nomination for Best Actress.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Like 2006, this was a very tough Best Actress lineup to break, and if it was going to go, it was probably going to be Renee Zellweger in Nurse Betty who was going to do it (she won a Golden Globe nomination over an Oscar nominee, a pretty rare occurrence).  However, Yeoh's problem may have been both that foreign language films have a notoriously rough go with the Oscars (as opposed to the BAFTA Awards, where actors are much more readily embraced) and action/fantasy films rarely can make it in leading categories (in this way Sandra Bullock is in an odd exception to the rule for Gravity recently).

7. Andie MacDowell (1994)

Film: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 2 nominations, none for acting

Her Oscar History: Ms. MacDowell had a brief moment of major fame in the early 1990's, but couldn't parlay any of her three Golden Globe nominations into an Oscar citation.

Precursors Won by MacDowell: MacDowell won a Golden Globe nomination, but lost to Jamie Lee Curtis.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Trying to figure out what was happening in the 1994 Best Actress race is one of the great mysteries of life.  Honestly-you have the Academy skipping Meryl Streep for a performance both the Globes and SAG Awards nominated her for (only time ever that's happened), you have Jamie Lee Curtis winning the Globe over the star of a Best Picture nominee, and you have Jennifer Jason Leigh enjoying what would be one of several Academy snubs in the mid-1990's (her curse finally being lifted this past year).  Plus, there was that whole scandal about Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction being disqualified because the movie aired on HBO before it was in theaters.  Even though we know Jessica Lange won, it's hard to figure out who on earth ranked 2nd-5th (because I'm a sadist, I'm guessing Sarandon, Foster, Richardson, and Ryder).  As I mention in the linked review, I didn't care for MacDowell at all in this film (the worst major performance in the movie), but that hasn't stopped Oscar before, and lest we forget she was a fairly big name in movies at the time.  Who knows, I guess.  Forget it Jake, it's 1994?

8 (tie). Annette Bening (1991)

Film: Bugsy

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 10 nominations, including three for acting

Her Oscar History: Bening has received four nominations, one of which came the year before Bugsy (which you would have thought would have built her some goodwill).  I've long believed that Bening has the terrible fate of probably being in second place all four times that she was nominated.

Precursors Won by Bening: Bening was nominated for the Golden Globe

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: Of all the ten women on this list, this is probably the hardest to explain.  From what I understand, the Silence of the Lambs sweep was not expected, and Bugsy was actually a frontrunner for the Best Picture trophy.  Considering it was 1964 when a Best Picture winner had their leading lady skipped last, Bening's snub seems that much stranger.  Also, Oscar loves afterglow nominations and she had just lost the year before for The Grifters, and was married to a very popular member of the Academy.  However, whether out of genuine love for the performance (which has been called "tepid") or out of personal popularity (most likely) Bette Midler translated a Golden Globe win into a fifth place Oscar nod, keeping Bening out of the field.  If we want to postulate further, considering that Davis/Sarandon were splitting their votes and Laura Dern was in a little seen film, one could also make the argument that Bening would have ended up getting yet another second place for Bugsy, so perhaps this was for the best?

8 (tie). Barbra Streisand (1991)

Film: The Prince of Tides

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 7 nominations, including two for acting

Her Oscar History: Streisand has an interesting history with Oscar, but she does have five nominations in various fields (including two for acting: The Way We Were and her winning role in Funny Girl).

Precursors Won by Streisand: Though she was cited at multiple awards shows (including the Oscars) for either producing or directing, from what I can find she wasn't nominated for any for her acting.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: As we've discussed on this blog before, Streisand has a pretty sketchy history with Oscar for someone who has two trophies.  Most people don't really seem to talk about her lack of a nomination for acting here; rather the focus is on how she missed in the Best Director field despite a citation from the DGA Awards.  This was a period, though, of pretty high profile snubs in the Best Director field, with Bruce Beresford and Rob Reiner also missing in widely-discussed instances.  I think that if we looked at the sixth or even seventh places in 1991 we'd surely find Bening's name but not Streisand's.

10. Demi Moore (1990)

Film: Ghost

Number of Nominations the Film Picked Up: 5 nominations, including one for acting

Her Oscar History: Demi Moore has never been nominated for an Oscar.

Precursors Won by Moore: I'm as surprised as you to find this out, but Moore did get a Golden Globe nomination for Ghost.

Best Guess as to Why She Was Skipped: I'm trying really hard not to editorialize with these different nominations, but does anyone actually think that Demi Moore deserved an Oscar nomination for Ghost?  The Academy chose one woman from this film to nominate, and I think we can all agree they chose the correct actress.  Moore also doesn't have a traditionally lead role in this film-that's definitely Swayze, and not only was she competing with Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Anjelica Huston, Kathy Bates, and Joanne Woodward (one of the extremely rare years where all five nominees either had or were going to have Academy Awards) amongst women who actually got nominated, but outside the nominations were Michelle Pfeiffer for The Russia House, Andie MacDowell for Green Card, and Mia Farrow in Alice.  Moore didn't stand a prayer.

Those are the Top 10 most recent actresses to miss when their film made the top prize lineup.  Which do you wager was the closest to making it (my money's on Bening)?  Which do you think was furthest away (my money's on Collette)?  And which deserved it most (I've seen eight of these, and Johansson is certainly my favorite)?  Share in the comments!

2014 Tony Predictions

There is no time of the year that I miss New York more than April.  The city is just starting to bustle from the long winter, with the park glowing and coming to life, and everyone out enjoying the weather before it becomes unbearably hot (New York in July is like the fifth circle of hell...if the fifth circle of hell also sold you $17 movie tickets and smelled like garbage when it rained).

But the real draw for me is the opening of all of the Broadway musicals and plays-honestly, I don't understand how people can pass up the chance to see so much vibrant, wonderful theater if they live there (except, you know, the cost), and it makes me want to figure out some way to skip paying rent for a month just so I can see people sing to the rafters and soliloquize raw pain on the stage.

This all said, I was going to give a list of some of the shows that I most wanted to see, but then I realized that the Tony nominations were already going to be announced on Tuesday, and though I sadly haven't seen any of the shows (argh...why do I not save my money better?!?), I figured I should give my two cents on what will be nominated in the big eight categories.  While I'm going through these, I'll tell you what I would see if I managed to win the lottery tomorrow (actually, if I won the lottery tomorrow I'd see them all as I'm a theater-junkie, but I digress).

Best Play

All the Way

Casa Valentina

Mothers and Sons

The Velocity of Autumn

Tyne Daly in Mothers and Sons

The Nominees: Can we first off just say thank god that I'm only predicting the nominees right now?  In the many years since I started following the Tony Awards, I have never seen a race this wide open for both Best Play and Musical.  Usually there's a War Horse or Book of Mormon waiting in the wings, ready to take everything in sight-this year, though, there's not a lot of frontrunners.  Velocity of Autumn and All the Way have that nice combination of critical acclaim and prestige, and surely are going to be included.  Casa Valentina has the magnetism of Harvey Fierstein and Joe Mantello, both of whom are frequently a fixture at the Tony Awards and makes me think this is included.  There's a few other plays that spring to mind (Outside Mullingar, Act One) that could make the cut, but I think absence makes the heart grow fonder for Terrence McNally, and his Mothers and Sons is my upset surprise.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Mothers and Sons seems the most interesting to me, and seeing Tyne Daly on a Broadway stage is a magnificent thing.

Best Musical

Aladdin

The Bridges of Madison County

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Rocky

Kelli O'Hara and Steven Pasquale in The Bridges of Madison County

The Nominees: I believe theoretically both of these races could go five-wide, but the field typically stays at four, so I'm going to stay there.  Aladdin is probably the surest thing of the bunch, even if that doesn't necessarily translate to a win-Disney has a major push, the show has gotten much better notices than it did in previews, and it's certain to be the biggest hit of the bunch.  It's hard to believe that If/Then isn't there, even if it isn't AMAZING in the reviews, but the tepid response (despite boffo box office thanks to Idina) has me place it at fifth place.  Rocky is probably the biggest news of the year (people will not stop talking about it), and will make it.  The final two I'm basing off of reviews-Kelli O'Hara's getting excellent notices in Bridges (and she's the Midas touch of nominations, even if she can't win a trophy to save her life) and Gentleman has been far more successful than I initially expected.  Throw in the jukebox hit Beautiful (featuring the music of Carole King) and you probably have some combination of the four nominees.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: I would give it to Bridges...it was going to be Aladdin but you just know that one's going to go on tour and Kelli O'Hara having steamy sex tops boxing any day of the week, in my opinion.

Best Revival of a Play

The Glass Menagerie

A Raisin in the Sun

Twelfth Night

Waiting for Godot

Cherry Jones and Zachary Quinto in The Glass Menagerie

The Nominees: Rule Number One of the Tony Awards is to not discount Scott Rudin, so A Raisin in the Sun, despite it just being revived, will surely be back for another go-around, though Rudin will have to accept his loss to The Glass Menagerie, one of the only sure things about this year's Tony Awards.  Other star-encrusted shows like James Franco's Of Mice and Men and Rachel Weisz's Betrayal will probably take the backseat to more celebrated works like Twelfth Night and Waiting for Godot, though this being the Tony Awards, they could have one of their celebrity mood swings and try to put a movie star in the audience.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: It would have to go to Glass Menagerie-Tennessee Williams can be breathtaking on-stage, and I've heard it was a miracle to behold.

Best Revival of a Musical

Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Les Miserables

Violet

Sutton Foster in Violet

The Nominees: An exceedingly light year for this category, the only other production that could be in contention would be Cabaret, which is getting a lackluster response and seems very similar to the 1998 production of the play.  Violet and Hedwig are both making their Broadway debuts, but have been around long-enough that they will probably go with this much easier category for a nomination.  Who wins is a great question-does Les Miz get in based on box office, or does that still seem "been there, done that" after it hauled off at the Oscars so recently?

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Violet, hands down-Sutton Foster is perfection.

Best Actor in a Play

Bryan Cranston, All the Way

Ian McKellen, Waiting for Godot

Mark Rylance, Richard III

Patrick Stewart, Waiting for Godot

Denzel Washington, A Raisin in the Sun

Mark Rylance

The Nominees: Mark Rylance's performance in Jerusalem remains the most impressive thing I've ever seen on a Broadway stage-thinking about the final moments of that play still sends shivers down my spine.  He is the Daniel Day-Lewis of the theater, and I doubt that he misses this year, even if that means he gets nominated twice (he could make it for Twelfth Night for featured).  Honestly, this lineup seems relatively set.  Tony Shalhoub's work in Act One is a possibility, but I think that Denzel with his movie star appeal (and Scott Rudin pushing) will be able to trump him.  And James Franco-sorry dude, but picking fights with critics isn't going to help you one bit.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: It's hard to pass on Rylance, but Professor X and Magneto on the same stage-that's impossible to turn down.

Best Actress in a Play

Toni Collette, The Realistic Joneses

Tyne Daly, Mothers and Sons

Cherry Jones, The Glass Menagerie

Audra McDonald, Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill

Estelle Parsons, The Velocity of Autumn

Audra McDonald

The Nominees: I'm still not entirely sure how Audra is in a play with the entire Billie Holiday discograpy playing during Lady Day, but that's a discussion for a different time.  As it is, she will go for her record sixth Tony win likely against a woman who has never managed to pull off a trophy despite four nominations and decades in the theater, Estelle Parsons.  I am going to guess that sentiment (and the sure realization that McDonald will have others) will give this to Parsons (keep in mind they gave Cicely Tyson the trophy last year), and that they will be joined by Tyne Daly and Cherry Jones, both getting strong notices.  The last shot is a hodgepodge, but I'm going to go with one of my brother's favorite actors, and a movie star to boot, Ms. Toni Collette, an actress the Tonys honored with a nomination some fourteen years ago for The Wild Party.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Audra, forever and always.

Best Actor in a Musical

Jefferson Mays, A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Neil Patrick Harris, Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Ramin Karimloo, Les Miserables

Andy Karl, Rocky

Steven Pasquale, The Bridges of Madison County

Andy Karl

The Nominees: It's unfathomable that after all the years he's spent promoting Broadway and championing the Tony Awards that NPH's comeback to the Great White Way wouldn't be honored in some fashion-I find it difficult, quite frankly, to see him losing though Jefferson Mays is a constant presence on Broadway and hasn't won in a decade.  Andy Karl (who like a certain leading lady in the Best Actress category, was part of the wonderfully charming Mystery of Edwin Drood revival recently) should get his first nomination as Rocky Balboa, and Steven Pasquale's sexy and brooding leading man in Bridges should also make the cut.  For the final slot, I'm going with the tried-and-true Jean Valjean, which won Colm Wilkinson a nomination in the original production and probably can do the same for Karimloo.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: The more I read about it, the more, honestly, that I kind of want to see Rocky, which isn't remotely my cup of tea.  The heart wants what it wants, I guess.

Best Actress in a Musical

Sutton Foster, Violet

Marin Mazzie, Bullets Over Broadway

Idina Menzel, If/Then

Jessie Mueller, Beautiful

Kelli O'Hara, The Bridges of Madison County

Idina Menzel

The Nominees: Like the Oscars, the Tony Awards have their frequent favorites, and two of them happen to be Sutton Foster and Kelli O'Hara, who rarely miss (O'Hara is in the hunt for her first Tony win, whereas Foster already has two).  It seems unthinkable that Idina Menzel would miss on her big, splashy return to Broadway, even if her show doesn't seem quite there for a nomination for the big prize (then again, this is the Tony Awards...this category is probably the "big prize").  Jessie Mueller is on a roll lately in a similar way to last year's winner Patina Miller (everything she touches turns to gold), and I couldn't be happier for her (she was the best thing about Mystery of Edwin Drood, and as I mentioned above, that's a play filled with best things).  The final nomination I'm going with Marin Mazzie, another Tony nominee-but-not-winner favorite (three nominations in this case, so Kelli doesn't have to start sweating yet), as reprising the role that won Dianne Wiest the Oscar surely has to count for something.  If the Tony Awards try to go big and movie-star like, Michelle Williams tepid performance in Cabaret could be the stunner, but they've avoided stars in poorly-reviewed vehicles before (Julia Roberts, anyone?), so I think the five Broadway divas will be sufficient.

If I Had a Golden Ticket: Easily my favorite category of the night, so I will cheat and say all of them.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Who are you rooting for on the 29th?  Should I pull the plug and do my NYC trip and give in to temptation?  Share in the comments!