OVP: Actress (2023)

OVP: Best Actress (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Annette Bening, Nyad

Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon

Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall

Carey Mulligan, Maestro

Emma Stone, Poor Things

My Thoughts: Recency bias is one of the most annoying things about being a part of online social media discussions about the Oscars.  You will hear the most insane hyperbole.  Last season, it was a near constant stream of "Stephanie Hsu losing to Jamie Lee Curtis is akin to a war crime" madness (news flash: Jamie Lee Curtis is nowhere near one of the worst acting wins of all time...she wasn't even the worst acting win that night).  In 2023, it felt like this was directed at Lily Gladstone's snub for Best Actress.  As you'll find out in a second, I really liked Gladstone-I think she's talented, and I think this is the sort of performance that grows on you.  But no nominee in 2023, despite what you may have heard on Twitter, was an "all-timer" in a field of winners that includes Blanche DuBois, Ada McGrath, & Mary Poppins.

Gladstone's work, though, is really wonderful.  I loved the interiority of this part.  She is a woman conditioned to only show her true self to people she can trust, and it's shocking to watch the film and understand how little she actually trusts her husband.  The monologue toward the end, where she starts to interrogate him to understand what was real & what wasn't in their marriage, is devastating less because she's realizing this man she has been with for so many years is a liar, but more so because she realizes that she never was able to trust anyone to begin with.  This is the sort of measured consistency she brings to her Mollie Kyle.

Speaking of Twitter controversies, you'd also think that the Academy had committed one of the ultimate sins by choosing Annette Bening over Margot Robbie in Barbie (spoiler alert for my My Ballot on Sunday: neither of them should've been here).  Bening likely got her citation for Nyad because she wanted it, Hollywood loves her, and there's a general consensus that she should have an Oscar by now, which will require some more nominations to rectify.  But I do think that this is better than the reputation it's earned (even if it's not very good...oh lord, why is Twitter making me defend Nyad?).  Bening's chemistry with Jodie Foster is strong here, and I like the single-minded determination she brings to a champion, but the film's perspective is so dull (not getting into the controversy about Nyad after-the-fact was a choice, and a weird one), and this doesn't have all of the best bite that Bening's finest creations have.  But Margot Robbie is doing fine, so settle down.

Emma Stone's work in Poor Things continues a run since her first Oscar that was inevitably leading to a second, as she's too famous and too good to be ignored.  I loved what she did with Bella Baxter.  So much of this season has been me realizing that Poor Things has aged badly for me, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to its bet asset.  The way that she approaches almost a dozen characters at once (Bella's evolution being so pronounced and exact in each scene, you have to come up with someone new almost every chapter), it's genius.  This is, I'm happy to say, a win that is going to age quite well, as it'll be correctly a definitive performance of her career.

Sandra Huller's work in Anatomy of a Fall could be the announcement of a new international talent (or she could simply be Jean DuJardin, never to be heard of again from Oscar voters).  I think she's much better than a picture I didn't particularly care for (the overlong legal melodrama where they tell you the ending at the beginning is not a genre I want), though I thought she was better in The Zone of Interest.  The work here is layered, with her intentionally not showing too much of her hand (so that the "is she guilty?" question works), though that also holds back some of her performance.  Part of what we need to realize toward the end is if she believes she's innocent, as that's where Huller's performance is going, but we never quite get there.

The final nominee is Carey Mulligan, who like Huller is given a less than ideal vehicle, but one that she makes the best of the situation.  Bradley Cooper's work here is unfulfilled, but I don't feel like his onscreen wife has the same issue.  Mulligan plays the part of a beard, in many other movies a role that would be milked for sympathy or be a joke, as complicated and complete.  We realize that she loved Lenny, but also loved him from a distance because that was the only way she could without abandoning herself to a man she'll never be able to have fully.  I love the brittleness of her work, the way that she also needs to stay "in the closet."  The only thing really lacking is I don't think her ending gives us enough catharsis with her Felicia, but perhaps even that is keeping in character.

Other Precursor Contenders: As you know, the Globes separate between Comedy/Musical and Drama, and for some reason had six-wide fields in 2023, so we have 12 nominees.  Setting up the matchup for the season, we had Gladstone taking Drama over Bening, Huller, Mulligan, Greta Lee (Past Lives), & Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla), while Comedy/Musical went to Stone over Fantasia Barrino (The Color Purple), Jennifer Lawrence (No Hard Feelings), Natalie Portman (May December), Alma Poysti (Fallen Leaves), & Margot Robbie (Barbie).  SAG favored Gladstone atop Bening, Mulligan, Robbie, & Stone, while BAFTA went with Stone against Barrino, Huller, Mulligan, Robbie, & Vivian Oparah (Rye Lane).  In sixth place, it was almost certainly Margot Robbie.  She was in a major Best Picture nominee, playing a title character...that's usually enough to make it (for the record, I predicted Bening correctly which was the nominee most missed if they went with the Barbie actress-I missed Mulligan in favor of Robbie).  Despite what future "precursor only" readers will say, I don't think her biggest competition was Greta Lee or Fantasia Barrino-I think it was Aunjanue Ellis for Origin, which could've been the biggest shock of the morning given its late-breaking buzz (if it had opened two weeks earlier, I think she gets in).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I actually like a performance, in a biopic, and it gets precursor support...and still nothing.  Academy, what are you doing to me by ignoring Cailee Spaeny like this?!?

Oscar’s Choice: In a truly tight race, Stone's position as a producer, her star power, and headlining in a film that the Academy seemed to want to honor more got her a win over Lily Gladstone, one that it was clear she wasn't entirely prepared for (and it's not obvious she even wanted given whom she was beating).

My Choice: I'm going to pick the opposite with Gladstone taking it over Stone (my second place).  I think Gladstone's work is a quiet triumph, whereas Stone's is a loud one, and works more effectively (particularly in both of their films' last thirty minutes).  Behind them, let's go with Mulligan, Huller, and then Bening.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  In the battle of the rolling stones, were you Team Emma or Team Lily?  Are we ever going to see Annette Bening clutching her own Oscar?  And why do people feel the need to throw out such hyperbole about the Academy Awards every season (or in general)?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2023: 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 2023

Past Best Actress Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Actress (2020)

OVP: Best Actress (2020)

The Nominees Were...

Viola Davis, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom

Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holliday

Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman

Frances McDormand, Nomadland

Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

My Thoughts: We are finishing off our acting races with the Best Actress contest.  2020 will remain, forever, a weird anomaly of a year for the Oscars, and one that changed the movie industry permanently(?).  While some of these films were advertised in theaters (I distinctly remember watching the Promising Young Woman trailer in a theater), none of them had much of a screen presence (the only one I remember seeing on a marquee was Nomadland and even that was after it'd won the Oscar).  I saw all five of these in my house, all while I was stuck inside largely quarantined off from virtually all of my friends.  I still wonder if some of these movies would've played differently had I been able to see them my preferred method of in a movie theater.

Promising Young Woman certainly would've gained from an audience.  Watching this ticking clock comedy-thriller come to its inevitable conclusion would've been a jaw-dropper in a crowded theater.  People overuse the phrase "her best work" to describe an actress's most recent excellent work so I won't say that this is the best thing I've seen Carey Mulligan do...but it's close.  While she sometimes struggles to ground Cassie (the script doesn't let us into her & an actor can only do so much), that doesn't mean that she can't find ways to hint at who Cassie used to be, particularly with the great chemistry she has with Bo Burnham.  Mulligan finds a way to make her Cassie both moral and frightening...she finds a way to make us examine our own culpability in a culture that values statis more than changing for the better (even if that's uncomfortable).

Nomadland is the other movie that I wished I'd seen on the big screen in particular (like I said, I would've preferred seeing all of these on a big-screen in a perfect world).  The expanses of America's heartlands would've looked magical shining on a silver screen.  Frances McDormand doesn't upstage these gorgeous views, but instead complements them.  McDormand has built her career playing brassy, scene-stealing characters, but none of that pretense is in her Fern.  Mildred Hayes & Marge Gunderson (her other two Oscar-winning roles) are totally alien to this part-we get a woman who has found a peace in the world that she can't explain, and perhaps doesn't want to, particularly to herself.  She sees herself as a winner even if the world can't comprehend that, and there's something magnificent in the way she centers Fern amongst the wide parking lots & green forests of this film.

Vanessa Kirby was so good on The Crown I was glad she could get a nomination at the Oscars right out the gate, hoping that could catapult her into a different echelon of opportunity as an actress.  But Pieces of a Woman is not a complete performance.  Once you get past the brutal opening scene (with no cutaways, it feels like you're watching a horror movie), there's nothing more added to Kirby's Martha.  We never understand what she wants in her career, what she wanted in motherhood, what she wants in her relationship with her construction worker husband (is the sex just that good, because it's literally the only thing they seem to have in common?).  Kirby needs to give us more to make some of the bigger climax scenes in the movie work out, and they don't.

The same can be said for Viola Davis.  I'm not going to side with the "category fraud" people on this one-she's the title character, she's in a significant chunk of the movie...she's a lead.  The reason she might not feel like a lead is that Chadwick Boseman is significantly better than her onscreen.  While Davis initially plays Ma as an enigma, something that might work if the script were different, as it becomes more crucial to understand Ma, we don't get enough from Davis to really feel like we're in her shoes.  The biggest issue I have here is that Davis doesn't sing the part-there's something lacking in her (obvious) lip-syncing, and we don't get a complete performance.  There's still moments of wonder (it's Viola Davis) but when it comes to Oscar, particularly from a woman of her talent, I expect more.

Andra Day is singing in Billie Holliday, but her problem isn't that she doesn't sound great (she does), but that's not the issue with this performance.  Saddled with a really bad film (something Davis doesn't have to deal with), Day can't find a way to rise above the muck.  Lee Daniels' film is an absolute mess of jumbled ideas & half-baked narrative hooks, and while I try to distinguish individual elements as much as possible with these OVP writeups, I can only do so much.  Day's work is intertwined in Daniels' messy narrative, and you can still see the "tick, tick, tick" of her trying to combine the Billie she's crafting with the one on the page that's lacking.  A more experienced actress might have found a way to just push past the mess & give us her own interpretation of the work, but Day is still a new onscreen performer and doesn't seem to have that skill yet, so anything worthwhile here gets lost in the crowd.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama it was a carbon copy of the eventual Oscar lineup, except Andra Day won while Best Comedy/Musical went to Rosamund Pike (I Care a Lot) in a huge surprise against Anya Taylor-Joy (Emma), Kate Hudson (Music), Maria Bakalova (Borat 2), & Michelle Pfeiffer (French Exit).  SAG gave their statue to Davis, and kept the Oscar lineup save for Andra Day, instead choosing Amy Adams (Hillbilly Elegy).  BAFTA went with McDormand as their winner, here up against Kirby, Alfre Woodard (Clemency-she was eligible the previous year at the Oscars), Bukky Bakray (Rocks), Radha Blank (The Forty-Year-Old Version), & Wunmi Mosaku (His House).  At the time I guessed that Sophia Loren (The Life Ahead) was next up, and I think in a normal year where we would've seen Loren on every red carpet the star power would've been too much for Oscar to ignore (or had the legend gone supporting, which she could've gotten away with), but in 2020 where there were few in-person events her publicists couldn't play that card and so it was likely Amy Adams nearly getting her seventh nomination for Hillbilly Elegy.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: If they were going to cite it for International Feature Film, there's no reason that Oscar should've denied Jasna Duricic's riveting work in Quo Vadis, Aida, which towers over most of these nominees.

Oscar’s Choice: In what was a total coin toss (save for Kirby, every one of these women had momentum going into Oscar night), AMPAS decided to give a third statue to Frances McDormand, who clearly would've preferred anyone else getting the victory.

My Choice: I'm also going with McDormand.  Similar to Anthony Hopkins, this is a performance in a special category, and while (like Hopkins) it's hard to say "best of their career" given the career she's had, it probably earns that title.  Mulligan, Davis, Kirby, & Day follow her.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  With the dust settled, does everyone kind of agree that McDormand deserved this, or do other performances still have their champions?  I think we all kind of assume Davis will become the first Black woman to win two acting Oscars-when do you think she pulls it off?  And Adams, Loren, or someone else-who is your sixth place guess?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2020: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2020

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

OVP: Promising Young Woman (2020)

Film: Promising Young Woman (2020)

Stars: Carey Mulligan, Bo Burnham, Alison Brie, Clancy Brown, Jennifer Coolidge, Laverne Cox, Chris Lowell

Director: Emerald Fennell

Oscar History: 5 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Director, Actress-Carey Mulligan, Film Editing, Original Screenplay*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Few films this year have I watched and thought "this would be a total zeitgeist hit if movies were in theaters" more fully than after I finished Promising Young Woman.  Though it's in theaters, most people are still going to be seeing this at-home, away from water coolers & cocktail parties where it could be the center of discussion in the same way that Gone Girl was a few years ago, and that's a darn shame.  Promising Young Woman is a captivating feature, one that ruthlessly shifts genres from one scene to the other, and is a confident, incredible debut (seriously-how is this a debut film?!?) from Emerald Fennell, best-known to most audiences for her work on Call the Midwife and The Crown.  Few films this year have felt so relevant & iconic as you were watching them as this comedic thriller.

(Spoilers Ahead...and I mean it-don't read this if you haven't seen the movie) The movie is about Cassie (Mulligan) a 30-year-old woman who was once pursuing med school with a strong academic caliber, but now lives with her parents, working at a coffeeshop & regularly visiting nightclubs in a state of inebriation...or so we're intended to believe.  Though this was apparent if you saw the trailers, Cassie doesn't actually visit these nightclubs with the intention of hooking up or becoming intoxicated, but instead into seeing which guy will try to bring her home, and potentially try to have sex with her in her inebriated state (and then shows them afterward to be the creeps that they are for trying to hook up with a drunk girl, and lets them know they aren't "nice guys").

This all comes to a head when she realizes two things.  The first is that a guy from her past, Ryan (Burnham) is back and is interested in her romantically.  Cassie has not been open to dating a man in a serious way, but his charm & candor wear her down, and they begin dating.  Ryan lets her know that Al Monroe (Lowell), a fellow classmate of both of theirs, is back in the country about to get married, and Cassie knows that Al raped her (now-dead) best friend, who is the inspiration for her nightly bar trips.  Slowly, Cassie chooses between enacting revenge on those people who helped cover up for Al (including an old school dean and a former classmate, played by Alison Brie) or letting go of this anger & focusing on her relationship with Ryan.

Promising Young Woman puts a lot of care into every scene & every direction it takes.  Up until this point, it's an odd movie in that it seems to have two different stories that clearly cannot meld successfully.  Cassie has enacted revenge on all of these men, and likely needs to move on from this in order to have a healthy relationship with another guy, but she also has not gotten the catharsis she had from her friend Nina's death.  The movie upends what we'd expect (that she'll let it go, and that Ryan will be the guy who convinces her not "all men are bad") when we see a video of the sexual assault, and it turns out that Ryan was there that night.  Cassie then blackmails Ryan into giving her the location of Al's bachelor party...where she goes intent on revenge, but this backfires with a second twist, where Cassie is murdered by Al, and then eventually burned by Al & a friend before a failsafe plan Cassie had created leads to Al's arrest.

The movie sounds long, but it's not-it uses its screen-time judiciously and in service to its plot.  The care shows in aspects you wouldn't always consider.  The movie's soundtrack is crazy good (you'll want to download Paris Hilton's "Stars are Blind" afterward...this might be the best thing to ever happen to her music career), and the casting is sublime.  Fennell seems to have made a point of hiring "nice guy types" like Adam Brody, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Sam Richardson to play the guys who try to date rape Cassie, to underline how we need to reconsider the benefit-of-the-doubt we give to boys-next-door in these stories.

The story might be offputting to some (particularly if you're invested in Bo Burnham's manic pixie dream guy, the twist with his character is a sucker punch), and there are flaws in the character arch's of this film if you think about it too much (particularly since we have no concept of who Cassie is without her Nina revenge story, other than she was once a "promising young woman"), but I don't think you'll care.  I know I didn't.  The film is so persistent, underlining difficult passages with ease, and is aided by a universally strong cast & script.  As a result, Promising Young Woman is that rare creation indeed-a pop culture phenom that actually lives up to its hype.

Wildlife (2018)

Film: Wildlife (2018)
Stars: Carey Mulligan, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ed Oxenbould, Bill Camp
Director: Paul Dano
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Literally every single year there are about a half dozen actors who take their first shot at the directing chair.  This is hardly a new thing.  Ever since Charlie Chaplin did it some hundred years ago, everyone from Orson Welles to Elaine May to Mel Gibson to Greta Gerwig has taken a shot at the director's chair with varying degrees of success.  2018 has been no exception (I'm even going to see Joel Edgerton's new movie immediately after writing this article), but I was thoroughly curious to see how Paul Dano would be as a director.  An actor that I admired, and have liked in the past (most notably in There Will Be Blood), his work since that picture has felt a bit bombastic as a performer, his instincts feeling too reliant on tics and indulgence than on something sturdy or subtle, which is more my speed.  Wildlife looked incredible in trailers, but I was genuinely curious to see what he'd make of Gyllenhaal and Mulligan, two of the best actors working but two that are chameleons that conform to their directors' visions.  Would Dano's styling as a director reflect his better or stranger instincts as an actor?

(Spoilers Ahead) The film, based on the novel-of-the-same-name by Richard Ford (how is it possible that this is the first of Ford's novels to be brought to the big screen?), is about a young couple who have recently moved to the middle of nowhere (Great Falls, Montana), and are struggling with small town domesticity with their teenage son Joe (Oxenbould).  Jeannette (Mulligan) and Jerry (Gyllenhaal) are the sort of pair that feel thrust together by social pressure (it's never stated, but presumed that this young couple likely had a shotgun marriage of sorts with a son in his teens), and may have once had a strong relationship, but sex & ambition have been put to the wind, to the chagrin of Jeanette.  When Jerry loses his job and Jeanette starts providing for them, he can't handle it and then starts fighting fires in the Montana wilderness, putting his life at risk and abandoning Jeanette, who knows no one in the small town save her young son, whom she becomes reliant upon more as a friend than as his parent.  She starts an affair with one of her clients at the swimming pool named Warren (Camp), and clearly starts to lose her grasp on her sanity, while her son looks on in unnerving horror.  Eventually, Jerry returns and realizes that his marriage is over, with his wife leaving her son and husband to start a new life in Oregon.

My worries about Dano's direction were for naught-he finds a steady voice behind the camera in a way I don't think I've ever seen from him as an actor.  I loved some of the ways that he lets the most boisterous, staggering scenes of the film play out without embellishment or underlining.  Look at the way that Jeanette and Warren, after she gets drunk at a dinner, start making out with young Joe in clear sight of them, not judging anyone but letting your own sense of horror be the only judge in the room.  Dano's "show it as it is" sort of approach to Jeanette's breakdown allows for some really terrific acting from Mulligan.  I wouldn't say this is her best work in a while (because she's always good), but it's very atypical from the strong women we've seen her play recently.  Jeanette proves to be the character in the film we thought we could count on (stern, resilient), and then flounders under her loneliness and desperation as a woman who is approaching forty with no idea where her life will take her.  Gyllenhaal is also great as her husband, a man who must have shown such promise early in life but made the wrong decisions and couldn't learn to check his pride at "the way the world works" and as a result was never going to be invited into the club of success.

The film frequently feels, though, like Dano's too hands-off with the script.  His direction shows a great deal of care, but the story itself gets lost with his hands-off approach.  What is it, in fact, that Joe, our window into is parents' world, wants from this life?  We get few hints at his thoughts about the world around him, and as the film progresses it feels like a problem.  He doesn't have a great deal of friends, and feels like an underwritten weak link in the script.  This isn't Oxenbould's fault (he's very new to acting and shouldn't be expected to fill in the blanks the way his onscreen parents, both Oscar nominees, are able to do), but it makes the climactic scenes where he essentially confronts his father and then forgives him, knowing he's still a better choice for his future than his lost mother, feel less potent.  The movie is all delivery and can't quite get to the end in those final moments, but it shows a tremendous amount of promise from Dano as a director ((I'm in for his next movie), and is yet another look at why Mulligan & Gyllenhaal are two of the most interesting actors of their generation.

OVP: Mudbound (2017)

Film: Mudbound (2017)
Stars: Carey Mulligan, Garrett Hedlund, Jason Clarke, Jason Mitchell, Mary J. Blige, Jonathan Banks, Rob Morgan
Director: Dee Rees
Oscar History: 4 nominations (Best Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actress-Mary J. Blige, Original Song-"Mighty River," Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

For my Thanksgiving movie extravaganza (I planned on seeing nearly a dozen movies over the five day period), I started with a trip into Netflix's biggest prestige drama-to-date.  While Netflix has cornered the market on television awards, with hit series like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, and Stranger Things being trophy magnets, they've largely missed out on nominations from its movie side, except when it comes to the Best Documentary Oscar.  Mudbound was the platform's first real play at nominations in the big leagues, though.  Based on the novel by Hillary Jordan, the film chronicles two families (one white, one black) in Mississippi before, during, and after World War II.  The movie has an all-star cast, and comes from Dee Rees, whose movie Pariah put her on the map as a filmmaker to watch.  Unfortunately, Mudbound falls into some of the worst of Netflix's tendencies toward too many ideas, too little cohesion, and can't seem to find enough to say about its plethora of characters onscreen.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie's central problem, in my opinion, is that it never really translates well-enough from the book.  I haven't read Hillary Jordan's novel, but I've seen enough adaptations to understand a translation problem when I see one.  The movie, to begin with, has too many characters.  You see up-top that Carey Mulligan (who plays Laura) is the top-billed star of the film, and this isn't entirely because she's the most famous actor in the movie-she's also probably in the most scenes.  Yet her narrative gets lost as the picture continues.  It feels like so much of the story is centered around her as a means-to-an-end, getting Laura's brother-in-law Jamie (Hedlund) to eventually meet Ronsel (Mitchell), the actual central protagonists.  The problem with this is that Laura's narrative is interesting, and yet we just sort of leave her hanging unless it's in service to one of these two men late in the film.  There's a jarring moment in the picture where the wife of a field hand whom Laura's husband Henry (Clarke) fired comes to the house, saying that she's going to kill her husband for raping their daughters.  It's the sort of deeply heavy, harrowing plot that is thick in the movie, but we never really go beyond that with Laura-this scene happens, the woman ends up killing her husband because Laura refuses to take her to town as a distraction, but we don't get any sense of what's going on underneath Laura's facade.  This might be a little bit on Mulligan, but it's more on the writers, who don't give her anything to do once Jamie and Ronsel come home except to fall into lust with her brother-in-law.

The movie has a lot of ideas, which is probably why it made a compelling novel, but they aren't picked apart or parceled through enough, just presented as "this is what happened" without cohesion to a larger theme.  Mary J. Blige as Florence, Ronsel's mother, is getting the lion's share of the praise for the film, but this is shocking to me in part because it's not particularly special work, and also because it's a really small part that's not particularly consequential to the film in the end.  Blige's Florence is a fascinating look at a woman who is forced to take care of a white woman's children, despite not wanting to do so like her mother did, almost completely because of the economic and societal requirements that are heaped on her as a black woman that aren't also brought upon Laura.  This would have been an interesting story, but we also have to find time for Ronsel and Jamie's ill-fated friendship, Henry's latent racism and his father's (Banks, who is so hammy you expect your computer to start shooting out bacon) cruel prejudice, and of course the frequent shots of the sepia-soaked fields of Mississippi (filmed with care by Rachel Morrison, but also as if Netflix was trying to prove that nothing is lost by viewing such outdoor shots on your computer screen...but it is, as the scenes are too small to capture the light in the way a big-screen would have, and has a boring sameness that makes me hope this isn't the way Morrison gets her first Oscar nomination after years of more interesting work).

The best performance in the film, and the only one in my opinion that distinguishes itself in this jumble of a screenplay, is Hedlund's.  As a charming, sexy, but damaged former soldier with a progressive streak (certainly compared to the rest of his family), he finds a center at his character that lasts beyond the screenplay, and he has enough attention from the plot to actually stick his arch.  I loved the way that his motives with his sister-in-law remain more of a mystery than his clear admiration for Ronsel (it makes her obvious love of him all the more fascinating-what if she loves the brother who doesn't truly want her?), and Hedlund is able to parlay his absurd handsomeness to his advantage, creating a live-wire dynamic that keeps the film's predictable (is abbreviated) story beats from becoming too plodding.

Honestly, that's about all I have to say about the film.  It always feels weird to rag on a movie with such a heavy (and sadly, deeply relevant) topic, but it's just not a very well-constructed or interesting picture.  If this is what Netflix offers to aspiring narrative filmmakers, I have to say I'm not looking forward to them gaining the same sort of foothold in film as they have in television.

No Globe, No SAG...No Problem?

Last year it was Bradley Cooper-who can get in
without the love in 2015?

This article has become a bit of an annual tradition here at The Many Rantings of John, and since I'm still relatively new compared to some other decade-old blogs on the internet, I feel like I have to carry out the few traditions that I have going.  Every year in the past ten, seemingly without fail with the strange exception of 2006 (which was largely due to the bizarrely robust nature of the Supporting Actor race that year where nine different actors were cited by the Globes and SAG Awards), at least one actor has managed to be nominated for an Academy Award without having previously been cited by the Globes or the SAG Awards for the same performance.  Take a look below:

2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, and Laura Dern

2013: Jonah Hill

2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emannuelle Riva, and Jacki Weaver

2011: Gary Oldman and Max von Sydow

2010: Javier Bardem

2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal

2008: Michael Shannon

2007: Laura Linney and Tommy Lee Jones

2006: Zero (let's pay attention people-we've already been over this)

2005: William Hurt

As is evidenced here, when you've missed at both awards it helps a ton to be in a film that people are actually watching.  Of these fifteen actors, six of them were in films that would also be nominated for Best Picture, and all but Jones and Cotillard had their films nominated in other categories.  It also helps to be a major player at the Academy Awards-only Wallis and Riva had never been nominated before, and they were nominated for leading a Best Picture, so it's quite unlikely at this point in the race for a nominee to pop up out-of-nowhere for a film people aren't discussing elsewhere.  With that being said, I've gone through and looked at the ten actors who haven't received any of the major precursor love yet, and ranked them by who is the most likely to be nominated for an Oscar anyway.  This year was particularly hard because of the erratic nature of the race, especially when you consider so many unexpected names like Bryan Cranston and Sarah Silverman ended up showing up at the awards prior to nominations, leaving a few contenders that were widely expected in the dust to new theoretical nominees.  Share your thoughts on this list and who was left out (and especially who you think will be left in) below in the comments!

Honorable Mention: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the likes of Tom Hanks, Blythe Danner, Ian McKellen, Kristen Stewart, and Benicio del Toro would have normally made the cutoff, but I decided to go with ten per tradition-usually I'm scrounging for contenders, but this year it was a plethora of near-misses so hopefully we get some genuine surprises come Oscar morning.

10. Elizabeth Banks (Love and Mercy)

For Her: It's hard to deny Banks made a huge splash this year onscreen.  After all, her directorial debut in Pitch Perfect 2 went off extremely well, making a mountain of cash (even if the film itself was never quite as beloved as the fans of the first were hoping), while also getting rave reviews for her work in Love and Mercy.  With Paul Dano scooping up a number of awards, it's not like the screener isn't available to Academy members, and though she's never been nominated before you can sort of get the sense that she's about ready for some sort of industry acknowledgement.

Against Her: If they're seeing the movie and voting for Dano, why isn't she scoring at the Globes in particular?  Dano made it, and she's a big enough celebrity for HFPA, so where's the love for her?  Is it simply that they're responding to Dano rather than Banks, in which case she's a have-not in this situation?  The film is really only gunning for Supporting Actor based on precursors, and that's somewhat tenuous as can be evidenced by a film like Rush (where the Academy skips out if you aren't a player elsewhere).

9. Carey Mulligan (Suffragette)

For Her: She's a former nominee who spent most of the year at the top of Oscar prediction charts.  Suffragette is a movie that is clearly relevant and I suspect it's one the Academy would like to put a "me too!" on agreeing with at this point.  Period dramas are catnip for the Best Actress category, and she has to do a lot of deglam.  Plus, doesn't it feel like Carey Mulligan should have a second Oscar nomination by now?

Against Her: No one is talking about this film anymore, and it's mostly out of "really, she's not gaining traction?!?" that I kept this on here as it makes so much sense on paper, even though in reality Mulligan's opportunity seems to have all-but-disappeared.  That being said, I thought the same thing about Tommy Lee Jones in 2007 and he still won a nod so it's not totally out-of-the-question.

8. Michael Caine (Youth)

For Him: He's Michael Caine, beloved actor and Academy Award favorite.  Were he to be nominated, he would become the first actor ever to be nominated in six different decades, and he's a major movie star that has long been hungry for a lead Oscar and is willing to schmooze for it.  Caine's also in a movie that, if they see it, seems like the older Academy members would love as it's about, well, older artists and entertainers.  I suspect that those completely downgrading Caine in their predictions are missing what could be a great surprise opportunity.

Against Him: Since the Globes clearly saw the film (they voted for Fonda in the same movie), why not Caine?  They even went with him for The Quiet American, so you know they're fans.  Youth itself has gained almost no traction this season and may be too out-there for the voting community's tastes.  I think this could happen, but I have no evidence of it so one wonders if Caine will continue to have to find a shot at that sixth decade.

7. Michael B. Jordan (Creed)

For Him: He's a young up-and-coming actor, arguably the best American male actor under thirty in my opinion, and Creed continues to be a great word-of-mouth hit that could score with the Academy as it feels in their wheelhouse.  Let's not forget Bradley Cooper in American Sniper in all of this, as Clint Eastwood's picture went from being a non-entity in most of the precursor awards to being a huge deal at the Oscars, which could well be what's about to happen to Creed (though Stallone did score at the Globes).

Against Him: Jordan's not Bradley Cooper (who had two previous Oscar citations to rely upon), and this film isn't directed by Clint Eastwood-it's a boxing sequel.  Perhaps the Academy can't quite get over that hump (or they just don't love it) and are content to go with Stallone as their way of giving the film recognition.

6. Charlize Theron (Mad Max: Fury Road)

For Her: This is my annual, one-time-only mention of the BFCA Awards, as one might question why I don't include them on this list since they are a televised precursor and of course Theron got nominated there.  I don't mention them for two reasons: one, they have six nominees and that's cheating, and two (and much more importantly) they are far more intent on predicting the Oscars than actually rewarding what they like (compare Rotten Tomatoes scores with who actually gets nominated for a reference point), and that's not an awards show, it's just a Vegas betting board so I shall not mention them again for a year until I write this article again.  That being said, the nomination for Theron has to indicate something, and she's an Oscar-winning lead in a film that increasingly looks likely to be a Best Picture nominee-that's usually a recipe for a surprise nomination.

Against Her: It'd be a nearly unprecedented nomination (with the very glaring exception of Sigourney Weaver in Aliens), and can Theron actually do this without being a huge presence on the campaign trail?  It seems a bit telling that the Globes didn't go for this at all as it seems more in their recent wheelhouse (think Uma Thurman in Kill Bill) but there's clearly at least one very open slot in Best Actress so I wouldn't totally eye-roll here.

4 & 5. Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton (Spotlight)

For Them: I combined these two for two reasons, one of which is that they are both obvious contenders on-paper.  Both men are recent (like, last year recent) nominees who didn't win, which the Academy sometimes feels the urge to correct if you make enough good movies back-to-back, and they are headlining a major Best Picture contender, the only film to score nominations for Best Cast AND Best Drama Picture at the Globes.  That has to matter, and you can imagine these two being on a lot of ballots.

Against Them: The second reason I put them together, though is that they're clearly costing the other one their nomination.  With Keaton going supporting instead of lead (not the worst decision, but potentially costly for Ruffalo who has the more "big moment" role) that means that two men whom the Academy feel are "due" are competing for the same turf.  No film has been nominated for two supporting actors since 1991's Bugsy for a reason-it's because Academy members don't like voting for the same film twice for two male actors.  That's clearly causing some issues for these two as they are competing in a race that is starting to coalesce around other individuals.

3. Tom Hardy (The Revenant)

For Him: He's had an amazing year.  With dual roles in Legend, a title role in Mad Max, and now a significant role opposite the film that's probably going to win Leo his Oscar in The Revenant, Hardy has to be considered for this performance, which also is clear Oscar bait from the trailers (he plays the chief antagonist, a classic Supporting Actor part).  Hardy's been a rising star for years now, and if a year like this doesn't bring him into the fold, I don't know what will.

Against Him: "Why didn't he score at the Globes" is a recurring phrase this year (mostly because I have no idea WHAT was happening at the SAG Awards), but Hardy is hot and could have been an easy arm-candy presenter to Jennifer Lopez at the ceremony so one wonders what the hold-up was there.  Is it a case where he's just not compelling in "the Leo Show?"  He might also be too pretty for Oscar (they like to make the sexy guys wait until the wrinkles come).

2. Joan Allen (Room)

For Her: On-paper, almost everything.  If I was looking at the recipe above, I'd need someone headlining a likely Best Picture nominee (check), someone in a supporting role when everyone is gushing about a lead performance (check and check), and someone whom the Academy has shown a fondness for before but hasn't really been nominated in a little while (and three times-nominated check).  Allen is the sort of performer like Tommy Lee Jones or William Hurt whom the Academy might just want to say "we remember you!" to and her role in Room, while not particularly meaty, isn't without its big moments, and seems more Oscar-friendly than Globes or SAG Awards.

Against Her: It's not a particularly meaty role.  That hasn't stopped people in the past (hello, Jacki Weaver), but with so many lead performers making a play for this category it's difficult to tell whether or not there will be a room for a performance the size of Allen's against the likes of Mara and Vikander.

1. Charlotte Rampling (45 Years)

For Her: She's an acting god who did score a few critical citations so far, and it's worth noting scored a BFCA nomination when Theron was clearly the sixth place finisher in that list.  45 Years has gotten rave reviews, and screeners are a pretty good answer to people saying she won't make it because the film is small (which becomes less of an argument as years go by and the Academy doesn't reflect the Box Office like it used to do).  Rampling feels like she should get a nomination at least once in her career-this could be the moment.

Against Her: She's the exact opposite of Allen in predictive ways, though, and a nomination would be kind of unprecedented in recent memory as she's not in a film that will be nominated somewhere else, she's not a former nominee or winner, and no one thinks of this as a Best Picture contender.  Even Marion Cotillard, who seems most indicative for Rampling, was an Oscar winner when she came out of the blue for Two Days, One Night last year.  Still, records break every year, and I think Rampling is probably the one to do it in 2015.

Suffragette (2015)

Film: Suffragette (2015)
Stars: Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Natalie Press, Anne-Marie Duff, Romola Garai, Brendan Gleeson, Ben Whishaw, Meryl Streep
Director: Sarah Gavron
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I remember the first time I grabbed a sign and stood up in a protest.  It was a thrilling experience, toward the beginning of my college career, and it was over the Iraq War.  I stood on a busy sidewalk, standing there with a few fellow classmates, insisting that people who supported us honk, which a lot of them did (I also heard a lot of "if you don't like America you can leave" and a few less printable words hurled in there too-if you've protested before you know that both sides come out in those instances).  It's something, I think, few people in their lives sort of feel-protesting is something that is frequently done by the young, and even then it's become less common when you can simply cast out a Facebook status and consider your civic duty served.  I kept thinking this with a bit of anger and wonder while watching Suffragette, a film that shows the power and incredible danger that has gone into protesting, and in securing freedoms for women around the world.  The film, particularly taken in light of the recent push for equal pay and better healthcare for women (and on the precipice of the first American woman to be a major party's nominee for president), is a hugely important reminder of the sacrifices that people gave for freedom and equality before, and a reminder that doing nothing is perhaps the greatest slap in the face of all to those brave souls who said a stern-lipped "not anymore."

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows figures both real and fake in the fight for women in Britain in the early 1910's.  Our central figure is Maud (Mulligan), a woman who lives her days working in a laundry in extraordinarily harsh conditions, living only for her husband and son Georgie.  We learn as the film goes on that her life has not been easy, with her parents dying very young and her boss repeatedly raping her when she was a girl.  She notices a coworker Violet (Duff) is involved with breaking windows in hopes of continuing Emmeline Pankhurst's (Streep) movement to get women the vote.  As the film progresses, Maud finds herself wrapped into the idea of equality and the suffragette movement, joining Violet and their leader Edith (Bonham Carter) in increasingly violent acts in order to gain the attention of the press, Prime Minister, and King George.  This comes at great personal sacrifice, with her husband throwing her onto the streets and giving up her son Georgie (whom she has no legal right to) up for adoption.  The film ends with the famous death of Emily Davison (Press), when she threw herself in front of King George V's horse in order to show her "Votes for Women" banner.  The film ends rather well over the credits, showing us how many (and when) the countries did eventually grant the votes to women.

The movie is deeply moving based solely on the subject matter.  There was a moment late in the film when Mulligan has gone through a rather impressive soliloquy that the audience erupted in spontaneous applause, one of the few times outside of Milk I have actually heard that happen.  The film is gut-wrenching when you think about the personal and professional sacrifices women had to make just to create equality, and you leave in tears.  I found myself crying, in fact, in the most random of places more out of shock compared to the disregard people hold for their personal freedoms and civic responsibilities today compared to what, 100 years ago, women had to bleed, endure prison, lose their families, and even die to ensure that they were treated equally.  It made me want to get on a soap box outside the theater admonishing any person who didn't vote in last week's election because they "weren't informed" or "were too busy."

Those sorts of reactions, though, weren't necessarily at the movie but just at the realism on-display, as the film itself is just fair.  The film's camerawork is jittery in the worst ways, particularly in the action sequences where I had to close my eyes the camera was moving so ferociously so as not to get motion sickness.  Even the talking sequences were such short cuts and close-ups that I couldn't help but wish Gavron had hired a better cinematographer and editor.  The performances were pretty good, though again fairly uneven in my opinion.  Carey Mulligan is a marvelous actor, with a collectedness and soothing voice that cannot be denied, but we rarely get to know what is in her heart as the film progresses, and as we start hitting more and more radical methods of gaining the King's attention, we stop seeing her grow properly as a character.  The rest of the cast is given ample opportunity to shine, but none of them take to the characters with anything other than saintly fervor.  Meryl Streep, in a deeply climactic scene (she's only onscreen for roughly three minutes) is brilliant in a fiery moment of terrific stunt casting (you need someone instantly recognizable to live up to the hype the film has given Pankhurst, and it's a very thrilling moment in the movie), but it is indeed merely a cameo.  Worst of all is Brendan Gleeson's villain, who is probably true-to-life in some aspects (chauvinism got and gets this bad, I would assume) but we see almost no humanity in his Inspector Steed.

As a result, I think the film is probably a 3-star endeavor because when you're getting the emotions I felt out, there's clearly something working there and Mulligan is solid, but I can't help feeling like a more introspective story would have added layers to this film (or at least a less erratic cameraman would have made the first hour more pleasant).  It surely would have helped its awards chances.  At least those are my thoughts-what about yours?  Have you seen Suffragette, and did it embolden you politically like it did me?  What role would you like to see the extremely versatile Mulligan taken on next?  And why do people think it's socially acceptable to skip out on voting?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Six Biggest Questions for the Best Actress Race

If there's one thing about this past year and upcoming season of movies that I am thrilled about, it's that the Best Actress field looks amazing.  Seriously-I cannot tell you the last time I was this excited about all of the gourmet prospects set to hit me in the face and the wonderful little movies that I've already had the pleasure of encountering earlier in the year. There's a plethora of names from Oscar-winning stars to longtime character actors getting their due to up-and-coming players to a newcomer that seems to be in literally every film this year.  All-in-all it's a great time if you love women at the movies (and if you don't, what the hell is wrong with you?), but it also begs a few questions.  After all, while great film is by far its own reward, it's worth pondering which of this avalanche of names manages to make it to the Kodak as one of the five lucky contenders for a shiny gold man.  I'm less concerned right now with winners (though it's also exciting that at least as of now there's no one that has clearly positioned themselves at the front of that line either), but more on nominees, which is more exciting anyway (it's only every four years or so that this category is remotely competitive).  The below six questions seem to be the most critical in deciding who will be translating their buzz and reviews into a little bit of Oscar immortality:

1. Who is Committing Category Fraud?

Recent nominees Helen Hunt, Julia Roberts, and Hailee Steinfeld can all agree that getting a nomination is easier if you lie about your role in the film, and despite appearing in a vast majority of their most-recent Oscar-blessed movies, all three of these women scored dubious nominations for their "supporting" work onscreen (Roberts in particular still sticks in my craw since she's in more scenes than Streep who did go lead, gets the final scene, and is one of the biggest movie stars on the planet and could well have gained a lead nomination if she wanted to, letting the likes of her costars Margo Martindale and Julianne Nicholson maybe have a huge career boost from such a citation).  This year seems more than open season for potential category fraud, with the likes of Ellen Page (Freeheld), Rooney Mara & Cate Blanchett (Carol), and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) all oddly positioned to go either lead or supporting, though critics say they should all be competing in the lead race.  Blanchett has a bit of a history with going supporting when she shouldn't (she had nothing to say about such a thing when she did it for Notes on a Scandal), and no film has been nominated twice for Best Actress since Thelma & Louise in 1991 so Carol in particular seems susceptible to fraud.  While I'd love for some campaign to say "screw it" and shoot for the stars (trust me, it would be far better for press for a film like Carol if both Mara and Blanchett were competing against each other in lead, and probably help them much more in gaining actual votes because of the "competition" angle), I'm doubtful.  The question is which of these women decide to go supporting.  In the case of Vikander in particular, this could be a make-or-break moment for women like Kate Winslet, Rachel McAdams, and Jennifer Jason Leigh who are going to be making a play to actually win the supporting trophy (Vikander would start out with a huge advantage considering her film's buzz and the year she's had).  It's also worth noting that a confusing campaign could hurt these women (look at Scarlett Johansson's big miss in 2003) or the Academy could ignore it (Keisha Castle-Hughes and Kate Winslet in The Reader comes to mind).

2. Which Cate do we pick?

Assuming that Blanchett doesn't go supporting for Carol, the Academy is left with its biggest conundrum in this category since perhaps 2001, as Blanchett will have two films that are in contention, not just one.  Both Carol and Truth are star vehicles for Blanchett, who is probably due for an afterglow nomination after her major triumph in Blue Jasmine, but she could end up missing for both because of vote-splitting.  It's worth noting that in 2001 Nicole Kidman was skipped at the SAG Awards for her work in both Moulin Rouge! and The Others, and many people thought that Tilda Swinton or Nia Vardalos might earn a nomination by technicality as Kidman had active campaigns for both films potentially splitting her support.  While Kidman ended up with her first nomination that year, Scarlett Johansson wasn't so lucky two years later.  Blanchett could try the route employed by Kate Winslet in 2008 (pushing one to supporting), but that still only resulted in one nomination for The Reader as the Academy refused such nonsense.  How Blanchett's campaign pans out could play a major role in whether she gets to the Final Five either in lead or supporting (or both).

3. Is the Academy sick of Jennifer Lawrence and David O. Russell?

I can't tell right now whether or not the public is sick of J. Law-it's hard to know, though it's been a while since we have had a movie star that demanded this kind of polarized reactions.  Still, this could be a big moment for the Academy as Joy is clearly designed to continue Russell's amazing consecutive run of Best Picture nominees, and Lawrence could make history as the youngest actor to score four nominations, besting Jennifer Jones.  The question is whether or not this will work for her-if the slight stench coming off the X-Men and Hunger Games franchises (diminishing returns, both commercially and critically) hurts her, she could be in for a surprise snub.  However if she continues to be the star of the moment, it feels like Joy will be yet another chance to reward her (perhaps even with a second trophy).

4. Will the Buzz Translate?

Right now there are four actresses who are clearly critical favorites but who have not had their Oscar moment that could potentially change all that in a few months (again, remember that we don't really have a frontrunner quite yet).  Brie Larson (Room), Emily Blunt (Sicario), Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn), and Carey Mulligan (Suffragette) have not won much in terms of hardware (and only the latter two have scored with the Oscars), but they're all in positions in their career where a nomination could happen, and all have strong reviews coming out of their respective film festivals.  The question here is what happens as a result of that.  People can go from festival buzz all the way to the Kodak (look at Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone or Gabourey Sidibe in Precious) or they can be completely forgotten like Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy Mae Marlene.  The campaigns for these actresses, as well as public reaction to their relatively small films will be critical, but I would be stunned if 1-2 didn't end up in contention later this year.

5. Time for an Oscar Favorite?

Occasionally Oscar gets a little nostalgic or repetitive, and decides it must have a certain former winner back in the fold for whatever reason.  In 2009, despite Emily Blunt making far more sense on paper (up-and-comer, real-life person, never honored, Globe nominee in Drama) for The Young Victoria, the Academy decided that it must have Helen Mirren randomly nominated for The Last Station, a nomination I am guessing even Mirren herself forgets happened.  Marion Cotillard last year trumped Jennifer Aniston for a similar sort of situation, though here she at least had better reviews.  The question becomes which "longshot" former winner might be invited back for another round in the fifth slot?  I am not counting Blanchett and Lawrence here since they seem more-than-likely to be in the conversation regardless and fifth-slots never actually win the trophy (which both of these women seem like strong possibilities to do), but instead Sandra Bullock (Our Brand is Crisis), Julianne Moore (Freeheld), Maggie Smith (The Lady in the Van), and even Cotillard again for Macbeth.  Bullock probably has the best shot considering the prestige behind her project (from the men who brought you Argo), but any of these women could theoretically make it if they get good enough reviews and Oscar's feeling it.  And then of course it's always unwise to totally discount Meryl Streep, whose work in Ricki and the Flash was light, but then again so was her performance in Music of the Heart and that still got through.

6. Will Anyone Get an "It's Time" Nomination?

One of the sadder things about the Best Actress race is that, unlike the Best Actor field where the likes of Gary Oldman, Mickey Rourke, and Frank Langella all managed to score late-in-their-career "you should have been an Oscar nominee by now" sorts of nominations, the Best Actress field rarely does this, going instead for the tried-and-true former winners/nominees and the PYT's.  This year, however, three women could be looking at their very first trophy, two of them their very first nomination.  Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), Lily Tomlin (Grandma), and Blythe Danner (I'll See You in My Dreams) all three have gotten plaudits from festivals and critics, and in the case of Danner she even got a bonafide hit.  If they were men with the careers they had, we'd likely be pushing them hard for nominations, but this year is ultra competitive and this category isn't as kind to "career achievement" style first nominations.  I suspect that all three will get pushes from their studios, but the question is will any of them catch fire?  Tomlin in particular has been having a major career moment what with the Kennedy Center Honor and a recent TV series/Emmy nomination.  Part of me wonders if she might actually be able to win the thing, if she can land the nomination.

And there you have it folks-the six biggest questions for this year's Best Actress race.  What are your answers to these questions and what five women seem most likely to succeed?  Share your thoughts below!