OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2023)
The Nominees Were...
Emiliy Blunt, Oppenheimer
Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple
America Ferrera, Barbie
Jodie Foster, Nyad
Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers
My Thoughts: Oscar's taste and mine are, obviously, different. There are certain things and categories we line up on (Visual Effects, in particular, there's a lot of overlap), but others (like Supporting Actor) I usually assemble an entirely different lineup for myself. Supporting Actress is generally a category I can count on some overlap with my My Ballot, though. In 2023, though, that's not the case. We have done My Ballots from 2000-22 on this blog (that's where I pick the winners/nominees without Oscar's help), and in that entire time, 2023 will become the first field where I picked none of Oscar's Supporting Actress choices for my own list, starting from scratch with my five. While I was very different from Oscar in general (only three acting nominees total will overlap with my My Ballot), this is bizarre for me, and a sign that either I was on my own or (in my opinion) Oscar was getting lazy in 2023.
Look, for example, at the nomination of Emily Blunt. Blunt is a fine actor, and one who should've had an Oscar nomination by now (though, as I said here, she wouldn't be someone I would complain about given I only think she deserved one nomination to date). But she's not very good in Oppenheimer. This is a doormat role, one that has little invention beyond darted glances and spilled cocktails. She has one great scene, late in the picture, with Jason Clarke interrogating her, but the rest of the movie she's kind of on autopilot. She doesn't get as plumb of a role as Robert Downey, Jr. or Cillian Murphy, but let's be real-someone like Benny Safdie is stealing scenes with less to do than her. I think this is a pretty generic nomination, and reads as a "getting her off the 'to nominate' list" moment that happens when you're in a Best Picture nominee.
Danielle Brooks is another performer that I think is giving way less than she should. Brooks is a great singer, and gives the best performance in The Color Purple, a misguided & overlong musical that loses a lot of the soul that was part of the original movie. But it's too surface-level. We know the audience is going to cheer for her, because she's that kind of character, but the insane over-reaction that this role got on Film Twitter (some proclaiming her a "lock" for a win...and don't think I don't remember who you are who said it), felt hyperbole and like they were just swept up in a good singer doing a decent job. Comparing this to Oprah Winfrey in the original...you can't, Winfrey's just in another class, and while I judge these in a vacuum, that doesn't apply to remakes-you need to justify your existence if you want to recreate a classic. This film never does.
I kind of have a role that I don't complain too much about actors getting their first nomination unless they're outright terrible (which neither Brooks nor Blunt are), and so I won't complain too much about America Ferrera getting a nomination. Ferrera is a trooper, one who I used to watch & love every week on Ugly Betty in my twenties. But this is a nothing part, more so than even Blunt. She nails the centerpiece monologue enough that it resonated with audiences, but it's not that good, and even if it was, you need more, and there is nothing near that in this film. This is the definition of a coattails nomination, one that is the best example of the Academy actually liking Barbie and not just giving it the required citations.
An actor who is giving more than the script demands is Jodie Foster. This was Foster's first nomination in almost thirty years, and her first in almost 50 years in supporting, and she clearly liked getting back to the Oscars. That honestly could've been enough (sometimes legends say "me again!" and the Oscars say "sure" even if it's for nothing special-look at Robert Duvall in The Judge), but Foster actually adds something to Nyad. She has great chemistry with Bening (you buy them as people who have loved each other for decades, including the sort of competition that can only come from friends that used to date), and adds things that aren't necessary to the story. Look at how deftly she handles Bening's Diana, being able to maneuver around certain arguments while choosing to take others dead-on. I love that backstory work in a character.
Background work is also on display for Da'Vine Joy Randolph. Randolph, like Foster, knows what it's like to be on the sides of her own life. In this film, though, she does a good job of staking what territory in her life is hers versus what she's willing to share, and how much pain that causes when she mixes those two things up in her life. You get the understanding from Randolph's work that not only does she miss her son, she misses being herself, being happy like she was before her son died with one of the only people she allowed herself to be authentic with. It's really measured stuff-I honestly cannot wait to see what she does next, and I hope Hollywood has some good ideas.
Other Precursor Contenders: We had another stampede similar to Supporting Actor, so Da'Vine Joy Randolph gets all of the hardware. For the Globes she beat Blunt, Brooks, Foster, Julianne Moore (May December), and Rosamund Pike (Saltburn), while at the SAG Awards it was over Blunt, Brooks, Foster, & Penelope Cruz (Ferrari). I thought she might lose the BAFTA to Blunt, but no dice, as she took out Blunt, Brooks, Sandra Huller (The Zone of Interest), Claire Foy (All of Us Strangers), & Rosamund Pike (Saltburn) in the UK. I actually called this field exactly right (which few people did), and had three names in the sixth place slot: Huller, Moore, & Viola Davis (Air). I'll be real-any of these still make sense to me, but the one that will get me yelled at the least is Huller, so I'll go with her.
Actors I Would Have Nominated: I hate when Oscar gives a performer an Oscar, and then feels like "we're done" while that actor continues to put in great work. That's particularly true of someone like Julianne Moore, who has spent her post-Oscar years trying a variety of genres (some unsuccessfully), but has never been as good since with her dynamite turn in May December.
Oscar’s Choice: Randolph won by a landslide, probably atop Blunt, who might've been an actual threat for a win if she'd managed to get a single precursor given her narrative as "overdue" (that tactic worked for Christian Bale).
My Choice: Between Randolph & Foster (the two best of this bunch), I will select Randolph, both because I think she has some of the best scenes and (let's be real) she's in the better movie. Brooks is in third, which leaves yet another Barbenheimer matchup for last. Part of the fact that we're 4-0 in favor of Barbie (with only one left to face off), almost makes me want to give it to Blunt, but there were moments in her film I thought she was giving a bad performance even if she lands her one big scene, something I never felt with Ferrera, so Barbie continues its shutout.
Those are my thoughts-what are yours? I joined the season stampede and gave this win to Da'Vine Joy Randolph...was that the right choice? I suspect that of the Barbenheimer matchups this is the one the most people will disagree with me on-anyone else favor Ferrera to Blunt? And was it Davis, Huller, or Moore in sixth place? Share your thoughts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment