 |
| Yalitza & Marina: Always the Bride, Never the Bridesmaid |
Yes, it's time for 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 1-3 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:
2018: Marina de Tavira & Yalitza Aparicio
2017: Lesley Manville
2016: Michael Shannon
2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy & Mark Ruffalo
2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, & Laura Dern
2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emmanuelle Riva, & Jacki Weaver
2011: Gary Oldman & Max von Sydow
2010: Javier Bardem
2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal
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:
Honorable Mention: I genuinely thought about including Margot Robbie for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as that's a nomination I could totally see happening, but it also doesn't really go with the spirit of this article since Robbie has received attention from the Globes and SAG this year for her work in Bombshell. However, if she gets in on Once (totally plausible if Oscar doesn't have the crush on Bombshell that the precursors did), that would technically count here even though it's not really the same thing as some of the past actors listed above.
For Him: He's been a critical darling all season (NBR Best Actor prize), and he's made a lot of Academy members rich through the years. The reviews on Uncut Gems are solid-it could honestly surprise in Director or Screenplay at this point-better than any film that Sandler has made since Punch-Drunk Love. He seems to really want the nomination, and has been out on the campaign trail pushing for this hard.
Against Him: If Sandler was going to score in a major awards ceremony, it was the Globes, right? He's a movie star, a recognizable name, and would show up-shouldn't the Globes have eaten that combination up? Best Actor is littered with names this year, and Uncut Gems looks dark & seedy from the trailer. Considering they're already going that route with Joaquin Phoenix, will they really want such a downer this close to Christmas?
For Her: McKenzie best fits the mold of "major performance in a likely Best Picture nominee" better than most on this list. Her work here is arguably the most traditional for Jojo Rabbit to get recognition, as a young Jewish woman forced into hiding during the Holocaust. It's a big role, bordering on lead, and she was in the conversation last year for Leave No Trace-could she have residual goodwill here?
Against Her: Scarlett Johansson also has a bait-y role to award Jojo with in Best Supporting Actress, as a sympathetic, long-suffering mother, and she's having the bigger year (and has more star power in a category that increasingly doesn't have time for newcomers). Double nominations in the same category for the same film are rare this century-can McKenzie buck someone like Annette Bening or Kathy Bates to get this citation?
For Him: He's a legend, one who has never won an Oscar despite being nominated a couple times, wearing a mountain of prosthetic to play the film's villain. Lithgow is the sort of actor who sometimes scores here-he's worked with everyone, and he's playing a key role in a movie that's gotten a lot more heat than you'd expect (that SAG Ensemble nomination should raise eyebrows for people who had been dismissing this as a Best Picture nominee possibility). Oscar loves a transformation.
Against Him: I haven't seen Bombshell, but it seems odd that Lithgow wasn't cited by either of these bodies with such a plum (on-paper) part. Is Roger Ailes largely sidelined, or does he make this too hammy (occasionally a problem for the theatrically-suited actor)? Kidman, Robbie, & Theron keep getting in for Oscar-why isn't Lithgow?
For Him: Alda's only other Oscar nomination came in a form similar to this, where he managed to avoid all precursors but get in on a supporting role for a major Best Picture contender (The Aviator). Here he's playing a memorable bumbling lawyer who has both seen the world and also needs to find a way to be personal and cutthroat at the same time. His chemistry with inevitable nominee Adam Driver is strong-could that translate?
Against Him: If you've seen the film, it's hard to come away liking Alda's character even if you like Alda himself in the role. I suspect many (particularly male) members of the Academy won't want to issue such an endorsement to him; that feels like the most likely reason that a legend such as Alda is missing for what could have been a plum role.
For Him: Waititi is best-in-show in Jojo Rabbit, a movie that has solid buzz for a Best Picture nomination. It's hard to imagine someone wanting to put this in the Best Picture field and not also citing this comedic detour (if you think Jojo Rabbit is one of the year's finest films, you're going to think the same of Waititi). He's the only person (kind of) playing a real life person in the movie, which always helps with Oscar.
Against Him: Is he famous enough for people to get him in on strength alone? He's a director, which rarely translates when they try to act (it's more common to reward the reverse), and there are those who could view his portrayal as insensitive. Plus, it's a proper supporting part competing against a lot of leads and near-leads, which puts him on uneven playing ground.
For Her: Pugh is having the kind of year where you randomly get an Oscar nomination. She's gone from critical darling a couple of years ago with Lady Macbeth (so good!) to proper leading woman this year with Midsommar. The Ari Aster film is too out-there for Oscar to give his approval, but Little Women is supposedly a plum showcase for her, and if there's momentum for the film with Oscar, she could sneak in as a result.
Against Her: Is Little Women going to be considered too feminine for this male-dominated Oscar race? I'm getting that vibe, and while Pugh is supposedly the standout, Amy is not really the role that gets people's attention in past tellings of Alcott's story. Could she also be suffering from internal competition as there's at least four other actresses (Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, Eliza Scanlen, & Emma Watson) in the film with significant parts?
For Him: Rockwell has been on something of a role with the Oscars lately, winning in 2017 and then getting an "afterglow" nomination for last year's Vice. Rockwell again is in a significant role in a late-breaking political contender this year with Richard Jewell, and Clint Eastwood is very good at getting people nominations for his movies. Considering that at least the fifth slot for Best Supporting Actor is a loose race, could Rockwell sneak in again?
Against Him: The reviews on Richard Jewell are mixed, and the film's treatment of Olivia Wilde's character has already attracted Eastwood's movie outraged reviews, with some calling the film anti-feminist. Rockwell has gotten in for controversial movies before, but they had Best Picture buzz, which Richard Jewell doesn't seem to do. If Bates is a stretch, can Eastwood really extend a second nomination on such a short leash?
For Her: It's hard not to love Zhao in The Farewell. She's the heart-and-soul of the picture, and in many ways she reminds me of someone like June Squibb, an older character actor that would delight Oscar voters on the red carpet. The Farewell got attention at the Globes, so it's probable that Oscar voters are going to be putting the film in their screener pile.
Against Her: Supporting performances in foreign languages are a tough sell with Oscar, and Asian actors have a criminally-short history with Oscar (only six actors of Eastern Asian descent have ever been nominated for an Oscar). Will The Farewell have enough of a cache with Oscar to overcome both of those barriers? It probably needs a Best Picture citation and maybe even a nomination for Awkafina to get there-can that happen?
For Her: She's a legend in a category that is in need of one this year (Woodard is the only plausible nominee who is over the age of 50 in the Best Actress race). Word is very strong on her performance here (pretty much everyone who has seen it has her on their personal Top 5), and Best Actress seems the most fluid (only Zellweger feels like a proper lock). If you look above people like Charlotte Rampling, Emmanuelle Riva, and Lesley Manville all got in largely on being longtime character actor legends.
Against Her: If Clemency had come out in October, I think Woodard would have been nominated for the Globes & the SAG, and be a sure bet for Oscar this year. It's not though-Neon foolishly is putting its release date after Christmas, thus depriving Woodard of momentum. She could still make it (she's an awards darling & could coast in solely on her name recognition/respect in the industry), but this should have been an easy call in a year as eclectic as 2019 for Best Actress.
For Him: He's Robert de Niro, and he's in a Best Picture nominee. That's almost always a recipe for success-in the seven years where de Niro was in a Best Picture nominee, he's only missed out on a nomination once (for the curious, 1986's The Mission). Plus, it's easy to see why he missed with precursors-the Globes dislike de Niro after he disparaged them when he won the Cecil B. DeMille (he also missed for Silver Linings Playbook, for which he scored an Oscar nod), and he's already winning the SAG Lifetime Achievement Award so there wasn't as much pressure to nominate him there. It'd be so strange for de Niro to miss for a movie that looked so strong to win Best Picture.
Against Him: De Niro is a legend-petty road blocks are things HFPA and SAG theoretically would get by to get back to the movie star worship. His role isn't as showy as Pacino's or as out-of-character as Pesci's, and arguably he's hurt the most by the de-aging visual effects. While male movie stars missing for Best Actor for a Best Picture winner is rare, it does happen (Argo, Chicago, Braveheart)-could The Irishman be in this club?
No comments:
Post a Comment