OVP: Supporting Actress (2003)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog

Patricia Clarkson, Pieces of April

Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River

Holly Hunter, Thirteen

Renee Zellweger, Cold Mountain

My Thoughts: We're moving into a better Best Supporting Actress field today after a disappointing Best Supporting Actor field yesterday.  This was a statement I said in 2018, and honestly it could be a matter-of-fact in virtually every year.  Oscar, for reasons unknowable to me, has distinctly better taste with supporting women than men.  But I'll also admit right here that while there are some treasures in this lineup (and lord knows we've got some talented actresses), you're going to see in a week with My 2003 Ballot that I went a completely different direction with 2003's field, and am a bit confused why this was the lineup that Oscar became so enamored with.

Patricia Clarkson, for starters, was better in other actual films in 2003, much less in her long career, which to date has only somehow elicited this one nomination.  It isn't entirely Clarkson's fault-she is instructed to dislike a young woman who spends all of the movie making Thanksgiving, and in the hands of an actress like Katie Holmes (a blank slate of a performer, and not in a good way), that's all she is, which makes Clarkson's animosity feel badly-tuned.  But Clarkson can't find a way to find a prickly chemistry with Holmes, so crucial to the movie, and as a result this feels like (at best) an attempt at a great performance.  It also feels like a situation where Oscar was tired of a beloved character actor not being in their good graces, and gave her a nomination as compensation even if she hadn't earned it (for that specific film).

This might also be how Renee Zellweger won.  It's easier to understand Zellweger's performance and its appeal.  The actress, at the peak of her fame, is given the role of a scene-stealing cowgirl with a soft side, and she lays into it hardcore.  There are moments to like here; Cold Mountain is a very good movie but occasionally a dry one, with Nicole Kidman not always landing her "white tower maiden" role, and Zellweger provides needed comic relief.  The only problem is that she's far too broad, and spends too much time scenery-chewing.  Zellweger at this point in her career clearly was desperate for an Oscar (two back-to-back losses will do that to a person), and you get the sense that her winning here was less on its merits and more the Academy crying "uncle" for a performance which, while not good, was at least memorable.

At the time it felt like Zellweger's biggest competition was probably Shohreh Aghdashloo, who had the critics on her side & was a newcomer in a year that was pretty much all movie stars in contention (which rarely happens).  Her work is okay in House of Sand and Fog, but never all that interesting.  I think part of what got her this nomination at the time was that Aghdashloo has wonderful screen presence, something I'm more aware of now than the Academy would've been in 2003, and I'm used to it so I can see she's given a badly underwritten part and doesn't do enough beyond the page with it (knowing she's had better in the years since).  Within the confines of the OVP, where we only consider performances and not someone's larger career in considering a nomination (them's the rules), this isn't much more than serviceable.

Marcia Gay Harden is the actress who I think best finds what's not on the page & fills in what could've been another "wallpaper role" in this category.  Harden's performance is such a great contrast to everything else in the film-we get an idea of what kind of woman might've fallen for broken Dave, who might not have (despite growing up in a tough universe) realized how cruel the world can be until it's too late.  Harden is excellent as someone slowly understanding how difficult life can be, and how the "hardest parts" of her life (or so she thought) that took place before this movie were in fact the high point.  It's a bitter performance, but Harden, hardly a subtle actor by nature, finds ways to keep her character's realizations inward as she projects a shaky confidence.

Holly Hunter, similar to Harden, has been a reliable screen presence for decades now (for both, this is their most recent Oscar nomination which feels like such a strange place to end their AMPAS careers if that's what happens).  She plays her Melanie as a woman who has not given up on the youth aspect of her life-she's still young in her mind, and frequently treats her daughter & her friends as peers rather than children.  But I don't think she can find the balance as the film progresses of wanting to be the "cool mom" while also clearly developing a concern for the behavior of her young daughter.  She's still Holly Hunter, and she's better than the movie, but it's not what you'd think of as a truly great performance, certainly not one of Hunter's best.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Zellweger as their winner, with Clarkson, Hunter, Hope Davis (American Splendor), & Maria Bello (The Cooler) her competition, while SAG picked Zellweger as well, here over Bello, Clarkson, Hunter, & Keisha Castle-Hughes (Whale Rider, whom Oscar would promote to Best Actress in his lineup).  BAFTA gave its trophy to Zellweger (the stampede was inevitable), over Hunter, Laura Linney (Mystic River), Judy Parfitt (Girl with a Pearl Earring), & Emma Thompson (Love Actually).  In terms of sixth place, I assume it was Bello, an actress the Oscars really never gravitated toward despite several opportunities in the early-Aughts to invite to the ceremony.  I think she's "ehh" in The Cooler but you may recall that I would've totally been onboard with a nomination for her in 2005 and considering her career has now gone the way of CBS serials (she's a regular on NCIS for those under-60), it's a pity they didn't take the opportunity when they had the chance.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I would almost completely rehaul this category, and it's the lineup I'm most proud of (and also, the lineup where I have six names & honestly can't settle on who should be the one out), so I'm going to resist sharing until I know for sure who I'm cutting (because I'm truly honest in the fact that all six are vulnerable-it's that close where the line between winning-and-being-cut is razor thin).

Oscar’s Choice: One wonders if Oscar knew he was going to eventually get to Zellweger with an out-of-nowhere win in 2019 if he might've been more adventurous here, honoring Aghdashloo or Hunter...but in 2003, there was no stopping Renee.

My Choice: For me, it's Harden.  She brings the most from beyond the page, and gives one of her best onscreen performances.  Behind her is Hunter, Zellweger, Aghdashloo, & Clarkson.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you joining me over with Marcia or are you with the collective 2003 awards bodies in thinking this is Renee's for the taking?  When do you think that Patricia Clarkson should've gotten her "career nomination" if she only gets one?  And why do you think Oscar couldn't get behind Maria Bello during her heyday?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2003: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2003

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

Raising Arizona (1987)

Film: Raising Arizona (1987)

Stars: Nicolas Cage, Holly Hunter, Trey Wilson, John Goodman, Sam McMurray, Frances McDormand

Director: Joel Coen

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

As you might be aware I tend to write these articles a bit in advance of when they actually go live, and so I'm writing this before today's Academy Award nominations came out.  Inevitably, people on social media have critiqued what happened this morning pronouncing the Oscars "out of touch," "obsolete," and said they have committed "unforgivable sins"...it's possible even I said something like that (though I don't feel super strongly this year about most of the nominees so I doubt I'm that excitable).  This happens every year-hyperbole goes hand-in-hand with the Oscars.  So today I thought it'd be nice to have for our review a film that is considered by many to be a modern classic, one that features a number of up-and-coming actors in early roles, and one that, well, received no Academy Award nominations, a reminder that Oscar having fickle taste is not new, and that just because he doesn't provide his stamp on a film doesn't mean it won't have legs.

(Spoilers Ahead) Raising Arizona is about a couple, Hi (Cage), a convenience store robber, and Ed (Hunter), a police officer who takes his mugshots repeatedly & falls in love with him in the process.  They find out that they cannot have children, and in their despair, they decide to steal a baby from a couple they don't think can handle all of their children.  The reward that the biological parents put up for the child result in a lot of hijinks & people trying to steal the baby (known as Nathan Jr) for money, for themselves, or for some sort of combination thereof.  In the end, the young couple know that the right thing to do is to give back the infant even if they may never have their own kids (since they'll have each other), though it's heavily implied in the end that they will raise their own family despite the odds.

Made several years after Blood Simple, Raising Arizona is during the period where the Coen Brothers were on the critical map, celebrated by cinephiles everywhere, but before Fargo, when they crossed over into more mainstream awards success (and broke out with mainstream audiences).  It is quirky, sometimes to the point where you might roll an eye or two, but as the film goes by it earns that quirk.  Holly Hunter & Nicolas Cage are both terrific in their lead roles, as newlyweds who cannot have children of their own and therefore kidnap one of a set of quintuplets whom they fall in love with deeply even if they know he can't stay there's forever.

The supporting cast is great, of course (Coen Brothers staples like Frances McDormand & John Goodman appear in key roles), but Hunter & Cage are where it's at.  This is before Hunter took on The Piano (becoming an acting icon) and Cage became something of a national punchline with his indiscriminate choice in scripts.  In the hands of less-gifted actors these roles wouldn't work-Cage would be played as a joke rather than genuinely sweet, and Hunter's crying jags would be ridiculous instead of having the requisite amount of caring to make the movie's final moments, when Hi sees a future where they'll eventually have children of their own but never stop loving Nathan Jr, work beautifully.  The film isn't perfect (the renegade biker bit feels tacked on, as does the cheap jokes about swingers), but it's yet another testament to the Coen Brothers ability to find the emotionally felt in the absurd.

OVP: Thirteen (2003)

Film: Thirteen (2003)

Stars: Holly Hunter, Evan Rachel Wood, Nikki Reed, Jeremy Sisto

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Supporting Actress-Holly Hunter

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

We continue our look this week at the Best Supporting Actress race with somehow the most recent nomination for Holly Hunter, despite the actress regularly appearing in projects that might suggest she would be getting her fifth nomination.  Holly Hunter is one of the best actresses working (and has, for my money, the single greatest voice in movies today), and so getting to watch a piece of work from her is a treat.  However, with my recent re-viewing of the Twilight movies, I was actually more intrigued by what I'd think of Catherine Hardwicke's work here.  Hardwicke wrote & directed Thirteen, penning the script with star Nikki Reed (who co-wrote the screenplay when she was just a teenager, and of course went on to star in Hardwicke's Twilight movies).  I love the Twilight movies, even though I acknowledge they are bad (other than old horror movies, which we spent last month chronicling, this is one of the only circumstances where I allow complete adoration of a series that I know is not good), and so I was fascinated if that love might translate to a much more realistic, critically-embraced setting like Thirteen.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about two young girls, Tracy (Wood), who lives in a single-parent home with her brother and mother Mel (Hunter), and Evie (Reed), a "popular" girl who indulges in behavior with older guys, does drugs, and shoplifts.  Tracy is an honor student, but one who is desperate to be like Evie, and eventually impresses Evie enough that they become friends.  In the process, Tracy's grades begin to slip, and she starts to experiment with increasingly erratic behavior, much to the frustration of her mother, who doesn't understand why this is happening.  Evie moves in with Tracy & Mel, claiming that she has a bad home life, but eventually this comes to a head when Evie's drug use is found out by her guardian.  The end of the movie shows Mel & Tracy reconciling, understanding that they are in a different stage of their relationship but are once again on the same team.

The film is pretty dark, and one of the more intriguing aspects about it is that Reed has publicly stated she regrets writing it since so much of it skewed to her own life (in her case, she was the "Tracy" character), since she was only 15 when the film was released, and said she didn't like that she exposed so much of her family's dynamics to the world in such a way.  It is rough to watch, and doesn't really age well for viewers as the movie progresses.  Some of the treatment of both Tracy & Evie would be considered dated today (particularly the way the script uses Tracy's self-harm as something of a late-stage twist), but it is fascinating to know the strange real-life dynamics of having Reed playing the character who supposedly corrupted her, even if the end result isn't nuanced or fully-fleshed out.

Hunter is good, if not at her greatest, as Melanie.  I get why this was cited-it's a tough, complicated role.  Hunter plays Melanie as a woman who has not given up on the youth aspect of her life-she's still young in her mind, and frequently treats Tracy & Evie more as peers than as children she needs to look after.  However, I think she slightly fails as the movie continues, perhaps abandoning too much of that "need" to be the cool mom (or perhaps part of her wishing she hadn't been a mom at all), when she's forced to conventionally go after Tracy's behavior to save her daughter.  I liked it, but I didn't love it, and Hunter has been better (even if she's once again very watchable).

OVP: Broadcast News (1987)

Film: Broadcast News (1987)
Stars: William Hurt, Albert Brooks, Holly Hunter, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack
Director: James L. Brooks
Oscar History: 7 nominations (Best Picture, Actor-William Hurt, Actress-Holly Hunter, Supporting Actor-Albert Brooks, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

The 1980's will probably always be my least favorite decade of cinema.  The most lasting films of the era are in genres I don't gravitate toward (teen comedies, action flicks, biopics), and the decade seems to have become obsessed with its own nostalgia.  Perhaps it's partially this-the worst of modern-day cinema clearly stems from people still not over the 1980's (look at a film like Ready Player One for Exhibit A in such indulgences).  Whatever the reason, when I saw at a recent "Secret Cinema" night that Broadcast News was playing, I was like "well, at least I need to see it for the OVP" rather than getting genuinely excited about what was in store.  That's a pity, because Broadcast News is the 1980's at their very best-adult, funny, ruthless, but still knowing, and weirdly psychic about the future.  Examining the intricacies of a TV newsroom at the cutting edge of the cable revolution, the film shows the way that our lives revolve around work, and the unintended side effects of letting all of our personal lives slide in pursuit of success.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie's main focus is on Jane Craig (Hunter), a woman who, to quote John Mulaney, "is a busy businesswoman who only likes business."  Her entire persona and life are based around her successful work at a DC news station, where she works with her best friend Aaron (Brooks), a man who clearly views her as more-than-a-friend even though she doesn't see him that way.  They are forced to work with Tom (Hurt), a sports reporter who was hired not because he's a talented journalist, but instead because he's handsome & charming, a sign that the news is becoming less about the facts on the page and more about how pretty the people reading the cue cards are.  This upsets Aaron, who wants the news anchor job for himself, and feels he's earned it through years of solid reporting.  Unfortunately for Aaron, not only does his eventual on-air reporting go terribly, but also he starts to lose Jane to Tom, whom she falls in love with despite not really respecting him.  This all takes place in the backdrop of looming layoffs at the company, which means that many of the people that we see in the background (like Cusack's Blair), will lose their jobs, another sign of the impending downsizing of the news industry.  The film ends with Jane realizing that Tom staged himself crying in an interview with a rape victim to make for better television, and this is a bridge too far for her journalistic ethics.  The three meet years later, with Aaron now a father and Tom a considerably more successful news anchor (and Jane largely where she was, loving her career), watching as time has mended their past grievances with each other, but ultimately acted as a separator as they'll never feel a "part" of each other's lives again in the same way.

Like I said above, this film exhibits the best aspects of 1980's cinema, particularly since the characters are flawed, and don't necessarily need to be likable (even though they are).  This movie pretty much put Holly Hunter on the map (it was her first Oscar nomination, and along with Raising Arizona, made her a household name), and there's a reason for that-Hunter is magnificent as Jane.  The neuroticism feels authentic, the way that she stands by her principles, bending them occasionally, but never breaking them-Jane is the sort of figure you imagine is disgusted by today's news, the rare person who will continue working for smaller-and-smaller outlets just to continue to drive journalism's ethics into future generations, however fruitlessly.  Hurt & Brooks are both fun in her support, but it's Hunter who steals this show (real talk-Albert Brooks is way more a third lead than a supporting player here in a very early sign of category fraud so that the two male leads don't have to compete with each other in the top category).  Even in a year like 1987, it's going to be difficult for me to imagine her not making a serious play for the OVP statue come that year.

But the best part of Broadcast News other than Hunter is in fact its script.  The movie is funny, wry, and knowing, and omnipresent in the way that it treats news as simply another scripted television show rather than a public rite.  It's also telling about the way that the people we work with rarely become part of our actual lives.  I loved the bittersweet nature of the ending, where Jane, Aaron, & Tom all meet, old friends but that's it-just ready to discuss old times, but not really connected to each other's lives.  So often in film and television we get the fiction that close friends will be a part of our existences eternally, rather than just passing ships that meant something to us, but aren't there forever.  Jane has the option of making Tom or Aaron a part of her life forever, and chooses (correctly?) not to include them in her future because she doesn't think they fit...and director Brooks doesn't give us a hint that this will change.  Decisions have consequences, and Broadcast News gives us the reality of this when it separates these three people into their own paths.  Broadcast News is a loving film with a cynical bite, but it's at its best when it shows that we rely upon people for a time, and love them, but ultimately only a few (if any) stay with us for long swaths of time.  This is a smart movie, and one of the best the decade has had to offer in my cinematic sojourns.

Song to Song (2017)

Film: Song to Song
Stars: Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, Patti Smith
Director: Terrence Malick
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Few once-lauded directors have become easier punching bags in modern pop culture than Terrence Malick.  The deeply-private (he doesn't care for being called a recluse, though it might not be far from the truth), director has a style unlike pretty much any other filmmaker's working today, creating complicated, occasionally frustrating but always fascinating visual poems for the screen.  I am an ardent admirer of his work, and am currently in the process of trying to see everything he's ever done (anyone who can point me in the direction of a way to see Voyage of Time is about to become my new best friend), and have not given into the fashion of slamming his three most recent films, considering To the Wonder to be a masterpiece and Knight of Cups to be a fascinating if occasionally (too) boundless movie.  His most recent film Song to Song seems to have been the final in a trilogy of this experimental style (Malick has stated his next picture, which is somewhere in its production, will have a tighter narrative structure, though considering this is Terry we're talking about that could mean anything...it could also mean the movie won't be out for another twenty years, though it's rumored for a Spring 2019 release).  Either way, we do have Song to Song thankfully, and as I finally just caught it, I figured it was due a review on the blog.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like so many of his pictures, trying to define this in terms of actual plot is impossible.  The movie, though it has names for its characters, doesn't really use them-I think the only time anyone uses their name is Rooney Mara's Faye, and it's simply mouthed softly rather than something you can hear.  The movie takes a look at a romance between Faye and BV (Gosling), too aspiring musical artists, the latter of whom is enjoying more success than the former.  They enter the world of a record producer Cook (Fassbender), who promises to make all of their dreams come true and shows them in lavish, impossibly-gorgeous mansions and situations, but instead their relationship starts to drag apart.  In between that time, we see all three explore relationships with other people, with BV entering into an ultimately tragic romance with a waitress named Rhonda (Portman), and Gosling romancing Amanda (Blanchett, who I believe was uncredited despite a pretty substantial role in the film by Malick's standards, certainly more so than Holly Hunter's blink-and-you-missi-it performance as Portman's mother), but ultimately he returns to both his simple life on a drilling rig and Faye returns to him, their love sustaining them in a way their musical careers could not.

Song to Song has considerably more structure than Knight of Cups, so critics being divided on this film while seeming to prefer the former on such grounds feels a bit absurd.  The dialogue here isn't as crisp or as meaningful as his previous pictures, and in many ways Song to Song proves that it was To the Wonder that started a trilogy rather than The Tree of Life, the 2011 movie that restarted Malick's career but has considerably more narrative force than any of his three later (fictional) pictures.  The movie has a heavy use of cameos, including Val Kilmer as a mentally-ill rocker and a number of real-life musicians, including a terrific bit by Patti Smith as herself, inspiring the young guitarist Faye.

The movie's best moments are when Malick is using extended visuals to tell the stories rather than his heavy reliance on narration and shorter film cuts, as it's clear the lack of a traditional screenplay forces Mara, Fassbender, and Gosling to all say things in voice-over that feel like something you'd find on a coffee mug you buy from Hallmark.  Still, there's a lot to offer here.  I think the acting is improved from both of its companion pieces, particularly Mara & Blanchett (until I wrote that sentence it didn't occur to me that this was a Carol reunion...sadly they don't share the screen at all here).  Fassbender's story gets lost, but Gosling & Mara make their relationship work.  This isn't the masterwork that Malick is capable of, but it's not the obvious, easily derided work that so many people thought it was, and Malick is distinctive enough for a proper cinephile to find certain sequences brilliant, particularly when they seem to borrow a visual style from To the Wonder and Knight of Cups to make all three feel like Warhol-esque versions of the same picture.  I do hope that his next film finds something new to say within his distinctive style, but Song to Song, like all of Malick's works, is gorgeous and worth the investment.

OVP: Incredibles 2 (2018)

Film: Incredibles 2 (2018)
Stars: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Sarah Vowell, Huck Milner, Samuel L. Jackson, Bob Odenkirk, Catherine Keener, Brad Bird
Director: Brad Bird
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Pixar was once the gold standard in movie-making.  From roughly 1995-2010, they could do no wrong (well, Cars, but we just pretend that didn't happen).  It was just elegant imagination, and they picked the unlikeliest of sources for their great movies.  From a family of superheroes to a rat wanting to be a chef to an old man attached to a house filled with balloons, they didn't let subject matter get in the way of selling tickets-they just went with originality and nothing more was important.

The studio has seen a shift since then, and it doesn't appear that it's interested in righting the shift, relying heavily on lesser sequels to great movies, as well as continuing the Cars franchise into two ill-advised expansions of the series.  One could make the argument that only three of the studio's films in the past eight years were worth a damn (Brave, Inside Out, and Coco, the latter being the only one that would have still stood out during Pixar's heyday), so I was curious heading into Incredibles 2 what to expect.  After all, The Incredibles was the only film in the franchise that really felt sequel-loaded, as all superhero movies come with the implicit promise that the heroes will return to fight another day.  What I found was a film that reminded you of the obvious charms of the first cast and story, but felt like a bit of a retread, as if the same magic that made the original pop couldn't be mustered in an era where the film also has to be "marketable."

(Spoilers Ahead) We may be 14 years later, but the sequel itself is only taking place just after the initial defeat of Syndrome and with the family taking on the Undertaker.  Like so many superhero movies, the film is less interested in classic "villain attacks city, hero saves the day" and more with the reality of what superheros mean: the fear, the unknown, and the obvious, costly destruction that the incur by slamming into buildings and throwing around parked vehicles.  When a wealthy superhero fan named Winston Deavor (Odenkirk) offers them the chance to rehabilitate their image while also giving them a fabulous mansion in which to reside, they jump at the chance, but Deavor is more interested in Elastigirl (Hunter) than Mr. Incredible (Nelson) because she's not quite as cavalier during a fight about the nearby infrastructure.  This results in Elastigirl becoming a more important celebrity than Mr. Incredible, who is stuck at home taking care of the family and dealing with a world where he's the second fiddle.

The film unfolds in a pretty traditional manner from here.  We see that family is the "most important thing" and that a marriage is a partnership where we don't need to rely upon traditional gender roles.  A Catherine Keener-voiced villain is easy to spot from her early scene as Deavor's sister Evelyn, and the final end sequences are pretty traditional.  All-in-all, the plot, which was pretty inventive in the original picture (at the time the superhero genre wasn't as tired as it currently is and the idea of superheroes being pariahs hadn't been beaten to death in cinema), falls flat here.  It's fun-this is a great cast, but this character's have nothing new to say.

This is, perhaps, the biggest problem with Pixar's output today-it's all "fine."  Incredibles 2 is by no means a bad movie, but it isn't close to great, and that's what I think we expect from Pixar still & it's certainly what critics reward, claiming that this movie is "as good as the original" when it's just a flimsy copy.  Hunter and Bird's (back as the flawless Edna Mode) voicework combined with the spooky Five Nights at Freddy's-inspired showdown with the faux ScreenSlaver (which reportedly triggered seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy) are the highlights, as is the art direction and Jack-Jack.  The rest, though, is pretty blase.  It's not bad work, but it's hard to compare it to the heyday of the first Incredibles, and I wish critics would admit that so that Pixar would be put in a little effort.

John's Top 10 of 2017

The Globes, Oscars, and pretty much every critic on the internet has weighed in with their Top 10 list of the year, and I figure it is time for me to do the same.  Yesterday I went through the Worst of the Year, and I can't leave you there for long, so let's dive into 2017 one last time.  I will admit up-front that this is arguably one of the least years I remember from the past ten years (the last time I only had six 5-star movies was 2006), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some notable gems, particularly the below ten films (listed alphabetically, because why rank when I implore you to see all ten, and with more in-depth reviews linked for all of them, so go peruse):

Beach Rats (dir. Eliza Hittman)

In a year where queer cinema was hitting most of the biggest home runs, this is one that could have easily slipped past my radar.  However, with a spectacular debut from Harris Dickinson & a chilling look inside of a closet that won't open, Eliza Hittman shares an uncomfortable story that is beautifully lensed and impossible to shake.

The Big Sick (dir. Michael Showalter)

The romantic comedy is never actually dead, but it feels like it's in constant need of resuscitation.  This film did it not with a compelling leading lady, but instead two incredibly fun performances from Ray Romano & Holly Hunter as a worn married couple who are trying to cope with their daughter's ex-boyfriend being pushed into their lives.  Please give Kumail Nanijiani another movie, ASAP, but perhaps more importantly-give Romano & Hunter a TV series, as this chemistry should be bottled.

Call Me by Your Name (dir. Luca Guadagnino)

I've seen it twice, and it'll be thrice this week.  A beautiful, haunting movie that just unfolds with the confidence of a classic from its opening scenes, its central romance is forbidden, felt, and dead sexy.  Chalamet, between this and Lady Bird, is a discovery of seismic proportions.  One of those movies I know I'll be watching every year.

Coco (dir. Lee Unkrich)

It holds up on second viewing, and that's about as high of a compliment as I can give a picture I loved so fully.  Charmed with bouncy original music and a gorgeous palette of pink, tangerine, and violet, it also has plenty of heart and is proof that when they aren't churning out mindless sequels, Pixar is still the best game in town.

Dunkirk (dir. Christopher Nolan)

An anonymous, but never emotionless, look at war first-hand.  Astoundingly directed by Christopher Nolan (arguably his most ambitious task to-date), we see war on land, air, and sea in a cast of characters that share little of themselves but instead work as blank canvasses, representing in their stead the millions of men that have come before-and-since.  A triumph.

The Florida Project (dir. Sean Baker)

At once a sprawling documentary and an intimate drama, this film feels so raw and authentic you'll be forgiven for assuming that leads Bria Vinaite and Brooklynn Prince weren't just discovered in the shadow of Orlando.  Combined with a soulful, introverted turn from Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project is an honest look at poverty through the wonderful lens of a child.

God's Own Country (dir. Francis Lee)

Yes, it borrows from Brokeback, but the best films often feel possible because of what came before them.  And surely God's Own Country strikes its own path with its troubled leads, and the revelation of Josh O'Connor's Johnny discovering love, and more importantly, intimacy, for the first time in his life.

Jane (dir. Brett Morgen)

Special effects are fine and all, but perhaps nothing was more shocking this year onscreen than the magic of Brett Morgen's time machine documentary, which takes Dr. Jane Goodall back decades with a gold-hued camera as we discover her love of chimpanzees first-hand.  Few documentaries have been so jaw-dropping, and so devoted to their subject.

Lady Bird (dir. Greta Gerwig)

Actors-turned-directors' first efforts can occasionally feel like a waste of time, indulgent affairs for people whose editors are afraid of pissing off the movie star.  Thankfully Greta Gerwig had no such issues, creating a semi-autobiographical look at the world of mothers-and-daughters, grounded by great work from Saoirse Ronan & Laurie Metcalf.

Personal Shopper (dir. Olivier Assayas)

Part grief drama, part ghost story, all fascinating.  Olivier Assayas's devotion to actresses, and finding the small mountains that his lead characters can experience in the oddest of times, is on full-display as Stewart's Maureen deals with the death of her brother, and possibly his hanging-on as she attempts to move on in every capacity of her life.

OVP: The Big Sick (2017)

Film: The Big Sick (2017)
Stars: Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan, Holly Hunter, Ray Romano, Bo Burnham
Director: Michael Showalter
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

2017 has been, cinematically, a massive letdown in my opinion.  Yes, yes, I'm aware that if you try hard enough you can find good movies in any year, but let's be honest here-even by using that metric it's still been a bit of a heartbreaker at the pictures so far this annum.  That being said, film years always have their ways of throwing in a surprise or a picture that I didn't anticipate enjoying so fully, and this summer that has become The Big Sick, an unexpectedly moving look at the relationships between parents and children, even in the case where they aren't your parents.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about Kumail (Nanjiani, whose name after texting it throughout the summer I think I have finally mastered spelling), a comedian who is stuck between his career aspirations (he seems to clearly be headed to bigger and brighter success even if he's in the "struggling" portion of his run), and his personal life, which is a combination of young Pakistani women that his parents are intent to set him up on a date with, and his true love Emily (Kazan), who as a white girl that was not chosen by his parents, stands against his parents' personal beliefs.  The film takes a turn when Emily discovers that he's been hiding her from his parents and breaks up with him, because she feels he's been leading her on, and then she goes into a medically-endused coma before they can reconcile.  The movie, instead of sticking to Kazan, follows Kumail's relationship with her parents Beth and Terry (played by Hunter and Romano, respectively), which is fraught since they dislike her over his treatment of their daughter, and then slowly they warm to him as they fall in love with the man that he hoped to be for Emily, but never could be.  It's a wonderful movie, one of the better romantic comedies I've seen, and probably my favorite of Judd Apatow's movies (which I always find to be good, but never have the lasting power that this particular film had in my mind).

Perhaps the weirdest aspect of the movie itself is that Emily is really a secondary character, more a plot device than an actual part of the screenplay.  Normally that would be a problem, and it perhaps contributes to the final third of the picture being its least successful part, but it also means that we spend more time with Kumail's relationship with Emily's parents, and with his own parents, which makes for a really interesting new chapter in the romantic comedy.  After all, if you're married you end up spending decades of your life as an additional family member with parents-in-law and siblings-in-law that you never chose for your life.  These people ingratiate themselves in your life in a major way, and yet there are very few movies that explore this weirdly forced relationship in a natural way, rather than just the condescending mother-in-law.  It doesn't hurt that Nanjiani has ace chemistry with Hunter and Romano (who are both wonderful, to the point where I hope this isn't the last time they're together onscreen).  Kumail gets to realize things about himself with them that he hadn't before, and we see him fall in love (platonically, of course) with these people and realize where his love for Emily comes from.  It makes the later scenes where Emily wholly rejects him, making him realize that he'll be losing three people he loves instead of one, all the more devastating.

Like I said, I didn't wholly love the movie (I never felt like Kazan fully understood her character's actions), but it's arguably the sweetest movie I've seen all year, and yet it's still pretty sharp.  There's a great scene with Vella Lovell who plays the only Pakistani girl from a cavalcade of women that his parents try to set him up with that clicks with Kumail later in the picture where she confronts Kumail, realizing that he won't ever love her since he loves Emily, coming to terms with her own loneliness that knocked me off my feet (Lovell, who also plays the hyper-chill Heather on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, shows herself to be a pretty versatile actor completely abandoning what I'd expected from her here).  We also see the cruelty and desperation of being a struggling comedian (there's a running joke about Kumail's roommate not being a good enough comedian to ever be successful even though he hasn't realized that yet, which becomes a bitterer pill later in the picture when we make the connection that since Nanjiani did become successful in real life, there are so many whose dreams are crushed in that pursuit).  All-in-all, it's a movie with layers, where the romance is essential to propel the plot, but arguably the least interesting conversation in which the picture engages.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Did anyone else really like the movie, or are you all still wounded by an Apatow allergy?  Where do you hope that Nanjiani goes next with his career, as he'll likely get another leading role after this movie?  And do you think that Holly Hunter might get her fifth Oscar nomination for the film (or that it could land in Original Screenplay)?  Share below!

Looking for a Sixth Decade...

An Oscar nomination is a truly amazing moment in an actor's career.  For many, it's the moment they have dreamt of all of their lives-the culmination of years of work, determination, and a little bit of luck when just the right fates align and nab them their career high point.

And for most Oscar nominees, that's it.  If I remember my statistics right, it's about 65% of all Oscar nominees for acting will only get that one nomination, that one moment in the sun that will be in the first two lines of their obituary.  And that's great-we'll get to all of you in the OVP (or we've already gotten to you, in which case don't get greedy).

But for other actors, that one Oscar nomination is hardly enough, and they want more.  Some of these actors enjoy quick bursts of nominations like Renee Zellweger, Russell Crowe, or (currently) Jennifer Lawrence, but we're going to focus today on people who have managed to sustain decades of Oscar stamina.

It's actually extremely rare to be able to be nominated at least one time in four different decades, and even rarer to pull it off consecutively.  As there seem to be several actors this year who are looking to get a nomination decades away from their last citation, I figured it was time to take a look at this list again.

Before we start, let's go through the people who have passed on and are no longer in the running but hit 4 or 5 decades (as the title alludes to, no one has hit six...and yes, this is a trivia article so if I missed an actor, share in the comments below).

Five Decades in a Row: Laurence Olivier (1930's-70's)
Five Decades Non-Consecutively: Katharine Hepburn (1930's-1980's, no 70's), Paul Newman (1950's-00's, no 70's as well)
Four Decades in a Row: Bette Davis (1930's-60's), Jack Lemmon (1950-80's), Geraldine Page (1950's-80's),
Four Decades Non-Consecutively: Mickey Rooney (1930's-70's, no 60's), Peter O'Toole (1960's-00's, no 90's)...both of whom never won competitive Oscars though they both won Honorary ones

Again, it's a short list, and one that has gotten considerably longer as the stars of the 1960's have stuck around further than was typical with stars of yore.  We'll start out with those actors that are still living and have already hit three decades.

Waiting for the Fourth...

Of the 18 living actors who have been nominated in three separate decades for acting awards (and for the record, the year the film came out is the beginning of the decade-none of this "Google Search Driving Miss Daisy won the 1990 Oscars" crap), some actually have to wait a few more years before they can try again as their third nomination came in the 2010's and they can't get another decade under their belt for a few more years.  Most of these actors did this in the 1990's, 2000's, and 2010's: Brad Pitt, Judi Dench, Cate Blanchett, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore, and Annette Bening all have nominations in each of the past three decades (it's worth noting that Bening is the only one of these eight actors who doesn't have an Oscar, (though Damon has his for screenwriting) and is one of only two actors who have hit more than three that is still alive without an Oscar-I'm just saying AMPAS, but keep that in mind in a few years when you're handing out Honoraries and Bening is still empty-handed).  The only non-consecutive actor who has scored this decade would be Sally Field, who took a 28-year gap between her second and third nods, and did this oddly with only three nominations (Lincoln, her most recent nod, is her only loss to date).  And though it's hardly worth listing all of the actors who have two decades behind them, there are a few names in this year's mix that could be headed toward a third decade of dominance (Michelle Pfeiffer and Woody Harrelson both spring to mind).

Of the actors who could jump to four decades this year, most of them don't have films out this year, but none of them are in "retirement."  Weirdly a surprising number of actors actually are ones who skipped at least one decade: Jodie Foster (missing 00's), Sissy Spacek (missing 90's), Ellen Burstyn (missing 90's), and Al Pacino (missing 00's).  While all of these actors continue to work, Foster and Spacek in particular don't appear onscreen very often and it's been years since any of them were in the sort of movie that would garner Oscar's attention.  Still, they're all legends so a random showy role could do the trick if they got back in the game in a major way.

The actors who have consecutive nominations are a bit more likely, in my opinion, to make a jump into a fourth decade.  Both Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman continually work in movies, and though I have to admit they both tend to be going for "paycheck roles" more than they should (they seem to be in everything), they work so constantly that a random supporting nomination once more seems probable, if not inevitable.

The three remaining actors, though, actually have films out this year with a lot of potential Oscar buzz.  Toward the top of the list is Holly Hunter, who has a major role in The Big Sick as a mother getting to know her daughter's boyfriend while she's in a coma.  Hunter is getting really solid reviews for the film and could nab her fifth nomination (in a fourth decade) this year if the buzz continues.  While their films haven't come out yet, both Frances McDormand (another five in four) who has a showy lead role in Three Billboards or Tom Hanks who may be in The Papers with Meryl Streep (directed by Steven Spielberg, in a film premise that sounds like it was made in an Oscar bait factory), both could be in the running.  Hanks is strange in the sense that his fourth decade nomination seemed certain with work in Captain Phillips, Saving Mr. Banks, and Bridge of Spies, but Oscar hasn't warmed to him like they have in the past?  Perhaps things will change this year?

Waiting for a Fifth...

Once again, we can start out with six actors who have already scored their 2010's hit and are now just biding their time until they can try again.  Three of these actors have done five decades (shockingly) non-consecutively (which means they very well could have been in the running for six if they'd had a little more luck in a certain year).  Jeff Bridges skipped the 1990's (missing for The Fisher King), Robert Duvall missed in the Aughts (but came damn close for Get Low) and Robert de Niro also missed the Aughts (probably getting closest for Meet the Parents...though admittedly not too close).  The other four actors, though, have hit every decade since the 1980's consecutively: Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, and Daniel Day-Lewis (all, oddly enough, nominated in 1989), and have already gotten this decade crossed off.  Day-Lewis has notably won in three of those four decades.

Another twelve actors have scored four decades and are on the search for a fifth.  They range from actors who are constantly churning out films to actors who have largely retired from the cinema but are thankfully still kicking.  Though many of these actors scored their nominations consecutively, only one of the dozen is currently on a streak: that would be Diane Keaton, who has scored a nomination every decade since the 1970's (and only one nomination per decade, it's worth pointing out).  Keaton rarely challenges herself since Something's Gotta Give, but she's the sort of actor who bides her time until something brilliant randomly comes along and everyone remembers how much they love her-considering the wave of adoration coming from her recent AFI win, this would be the time to strike if she wanted to go there.

Other working actors that could make it include busy actors such as Jon Voight (who skipped the 1990's despite constantly making movies since his big break in Midnight Cowboy), Shirley MacLaine (who, had she scored for Postcards from the Edge as she was expected to and should have, would be a column down), Vanessa Redgrave (her near-miss campaigns for Atonement and Coriolanus actually mean that she could well have had the record by now!), Dustin Hoffman (who continues to make enough films often enough that he should be able to pull this off in a surprise supporting role at some point, despite missing the Aughts), and of course Dame Maggie Smith (who skipped the 1990's, but came roaring back in the past ten years as a genuine box office draw and nearly won a citation for The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel a couple of years ago).  Hoffman probably has the best shot this year for The Meyerowitz Stories, but it's not entirely clear if it will meet release date eligibility.  I'd imagine that Scott Rudin will force Netflix to meet AMPAS qualifications considering his long history with the body, in which case Hoffman is most definitely a threat, but Netflix seems to want to have it available same day as its digital platform.  We shall see, but by my count the only other one of these actors with a major film in contention this year is Redgrave, who is in Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool, though I can't tell how big her role is.

Other actors who are looking for a fifth don't work as often or are notoriously curmudgeonly about working again.  Joanne Woodward (not nominated since 1990, but extending all the way back to the 1950's with her streak, the earliest nomination for a living person in this article) hasn't appeared in theaters since 1993, and Gene Hackman (who missed for The Royal Tenenbaums due to category confusion, costing him his fifth consecutive citation) is happily retired.  Albert Finney (who missed the 1990's) hates the Oscars and only does bit parts these days, though he's the other actor (aside from Bening) who is living and has hit the 3+ decade counter, so he'd also be a decent contender for an Honorary Award (that he'd never show up for it in a million years).  Warren Beatty did finally make another movie with Rules Don't Apply, but it bombed so horribly I'm kind of scared he'll never make a movie again at this point, and he was already dodgy about making pictures to begin with.  And finally there is Julie Christie, who has resumed working if not necessarily in major cinematic work.  She skipped the 1980's and bizarrely has only received one nomination in each decade she's been cited in (much like Keaton).

Waiting for a Sixth...

As the stats above corroborate, getting a sixth is damn hard work, as there's a reason no one has done it.  Kate Hepburn probably could have had she done more significant film work in the 1970's, but she spent most of that time on the stage, and she's probably the only one who has come close until now.  Three living actors have pulled off five decades in a row, and one in particular seems determined to break yet another of Hepburn's records (not settling for a tie).

Meryl Streep is the only actor who has managed to pull off a 2010's nomination already and have five in a row (ever the showoff, she's managed to land four nods this decade).  Streep, it's worth noting, is also the only actor to have more than one nomination in five different decades (Olivier getting Rebecca made a year too late), a record that may stand for infinity.  Streep will need to continue her current stamina to hit the goal, but at this rate she could well take it in the 2020's (she'll only be in her seventies).

That is if one of the two other living actors don't go for the title first.  Both have received consecutive nominations since the 1960's, and at least one is still working.  Michael Caine, an actor you don't always think of for such lists, got his first nomination in 1966, then got cited in 1972, 1983, 1986, 1999, and 2002, and despite being 81, continues to work constantly (he was well-regarded in the recently Oscar-nominated Youth) and has made no secret about his desire to win a third Oscar for a leading role.  Just one nomination would land him the record, and put Streep in a difficult position-2030 is a long way to go to actually beat this title outright.

The other person is the recently retired Jack Nicholson, who made his last film four years ago and claims he is done with cinema, but rumors persist that he might make one step out-of-retirement to do that English-language Toni Erdmann with Kristin Wiig (they've even go so far as to hire Lena Dunham as the writer).  If that actually happens, all bets are off-it's obviously a movie that AMPAS liked (it was nominated), and Nicholson making one last role would be pretty hearty catnip for the Oscars.

And there you have it folks-a morning's dose of Oscar trivia.  Do you think that Streep, Caine, or Nicholson could take the record?  Who will be the next person to score four or five decades' worth of nominations?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Swing Shift (1984)

Film: Swing Shift (1984)
Stars: Goldie Hawn, Kurt Russell, Christine Lahti, Ed Harris, Fred Ward, Holly Hunter
Director: Jonathan Demme
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Supporting Actress-Christine Lahti)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Watching older films always has a bit of a catch, especially in terms of where we're at with progressive politics.  I suspect twenty years from now, in fact, we'll watch films ranging from Legally Blonde to August Osage County (not sure why those were the first two that came to my mind-just go with it) and wonder about specific angles of the film and their portrayals of what is considered politically correct or important at the time.  Swing Shift presented this problem, but in a way I hadn't really anticipated.  As the cinema gets older, and in the 1980's it was pushing ninety in terms of age, it starts to revisit eras where the cinema was already an option.  Indeed, we frequently find allusions to that era in Swing Shift, mentally picturing actresses like Rosalind Russell or Susan Hayward taking on the roles that here are played by Goldie Hawn and Christine Lahti.  The chief problem with the film, which has a host of them, is that even in the 1980's the politics of the movie, and the way they present them, feel regressive.  The film has too many directions it gets pulled, and you can tell that there were troubles behind-the-scenes of the picture as the end product doesn't really know what it wants to be.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film famously hosted a major fight between director Jonathan Demme, then just starting out in his Hollywood career, and Goldie Hawn, who was one of the biggest stars on the planet when Swing Shift was hitting theaters.  The film tells the story of Kay (Hawn), a woman in a happy if a bit stifled marriage to Jack (Harris), who sits around waiting for her man to come home each day and occasionally passes judgment on her provocatively-dressed neighbor Hazel (Lahti) who moonlights as a nightclub singer.  The film takes a turn when World War II breaks out, and Jack is sent to the South Pacific, and much to his chagrin, Kay takes up as a factory worker to fill the gap left by the men going to war.  She slowly befriends Hazel and falls in love with a musician named Lucky whose heart condition keeps him from fighting in the war.  The film ends with Kay going back to Jack, Hazel ending up sleeping with Lucky and then randomly marrying the guy who first promoted her as a singer, and Lucky returning to the road, all the time watching all of the women lose their jobs so that the men coming home could have them back.

The film's tonal problems are what deserve its harshest retribution, in my opinion, as the politics of the 1980's are less familiar to me (though not so much that I don't have some comments on the way that women are portrayed here).  The film cannot decide for the life of itself whether or not it is a comedy or a drama, and that was a direct result of Hawn (who wanted it to be a comedy) fighting it out with Demme (who wanted a more dramatic picture).  The film, from scene-to-scene, underwrites certain elements of the film and you cannot tell whether or not the movie is going to be light-hearted or especially what drives the main character of Kay.  The film gets bonus points for being unpredictable, but that's more due to bad plotting than anything else.  We never really get any insight into Kay, whom Hawn plays entirely surface-level, and whether or not she's upset about losing her job or whether she really wanted Jack back or just settled with him because Lucky left and it was easier this way.  The ending, with Kay and Hazel making up also feels cloying and ridiculous, partially because we never understand why Kay and Lucky, who don't really care for each other, slept with each other in the first place. In the TCM introduction to this film (I want to be Ben Mankiewicz-how do I get that job?) he says that Hawn, after Demme got fired, had the film re-edited, and you wonder if part of Lahti's performance got cut in the dust-up which explains some of her character's more erratic decisions.

After all, it's Lahti who got the praise here.  Despite Hawn being the star, Lahti managed to turn this into a major career move, and in fact won the film's only Oscar nomination.  At first I didn't really get the nomination, as after all this was just Christine Lahti and she has always had incredible onscreen presence (part of me wonders if the nomination was simply a way to tell casting directors "hire her!"), but as the film goes on Lahti makes the most out of a thankless comic side role.  She finds depths in Hazel that no one else is really pining for (watch the way that she has to continually abandon her dreams, and the way she doesn't really know what happiness is-that's not really in the script, but Lahti makes sure you notice it), and she steals literally every scene she's in in the movie.  Lahti would have benefited from a better screenwriter (I wonder if she'd have won the Oscar if we'd received Demme's original vantage of the script), but she's way better than the movie and (in my opinion) one of those rare random Oscar nominations of the 1980's that actually deserved inclusion.

Before I go I would be remiss if I didn't come back to the feminist argument here, as it's interesting to watch this film or a movie like A League of Their Own and wonder how tragic it was that America decided it didn't have room for women in the workplace and the athletic field decades earlier than the Women's Liberation movement of the 1970's (think of what we might have accomplished!).  We get little sense from either Demme or Hawn over the unfairness of the women, who now have more experience in the factory, getting fired just so their husbands can go back to work, or the complicated political ramifications of such a decision (since their husbands were forced to go to war and give up their jobs due to a draft and national pressure).  That would have made an interesting picture, but Hawn and Lahti let on little other than the occasional complaint from a random coworker that they shouldn't have to be fired to give their job to a man.  As a result, the film feels decidedly anti-feminist which is the exact opposite of what it was going toward.

All-in-all, I left this film thoroughly disappointed, save for the excellent work being done by Christine Lahti, and also with a newfound (ahem) appreciation for Ed Harris in a naval uniform.  If you've seen the picture, what are your thoughts-do you agree the film feels disjointed and lacking a clear vision?  Are you also wondering why Lahti didn't become a bigger film star as a result of this movie?  And which of the 1984 Supporting Actresses gets your vote?  Share in the comments!

Emmy Miniseries Predictions

Comcast may be giving me free HBO for a year, but considering I'm weeks behind on my blog posts, haven't had internet service in an eternity, missed the Tony Awards last night (for the first time in at least a decade) and am now behind on all of my shows, I feel like I should be getting Showtime to boot (as well as a guest-spot as Adam Driver's new gay boyfriend, but I digress).  I know have four Bechdel Tests on my home computer, along with a mountain of political writeups and remaining OVP writeups.  I'm going to try to figure out a way to get the Bechdel Tests and poltiical writeups onto the site, but the OVP's, due to the photo montage I need to make, will probably not come until Saturday (if Comcast makes it...I have doubts, I have such doubts).

In the meantime, I wanted to get out a piece on the upcoming Emmy nominations, and in particular, my favorite Emmy category the miniseries.  I know most people gravitate toward the headliners-Comedy, Drama, Reality-but for me the miniseries category is far more interesting.  Why?  Because with the Drama and Comedy categories, the Emmys are SO boring.  Year-after-year shows like Two and a Half Men or The Good Wife continue their dominance (yes, I've heard the latter show is rather good, but the concept of yet another procedural seems so boring to me so I've never partaken-the former I've seen and it's terrible) get nominations and wins and it's so frustrating.  At least at the Oscars, provided you don't loathe Sandy Powell, John Williams, and Meryl Streep, you get a fresh batch every year.  At the Emmys, that monotony can drag for a decade.

The miniseries category, on the other hand, is all new almost every year (again, provided you don't hate HBO, PBS, or Alfre Woodard), and it's typically littered with movie stars, so yeah!  Let's take a look at the Big 5 categories.

Best Miniseries

My Predictions (in order of likelihood)

• Behind the Candelabra
• American Horror Story: Asylum
• Top of the Lake
• Parades End
• Political Animals
• The Bible

Candelabra, Top of the Lake, and Parades End all seem like sure things.  AHS, considering its dominance last year also qualifies, though I still feel that the miniseries designation here is a bit of a stretch.  The final two are just hunches.  Political Animals is one of those series that clearly would have been a regular series had the ratings been stronger, and is now cheating to get here, which the Emmys may punish.  Phil Spector or The Girl make far more sense in this category than the critically-mixed Bible epic, but I just can't get over those ratings, and the Emmys are voted upon by people who run television, and they may want to reward further the massive viewership the miniseries grabbed.

Best Actor in a Miniseries

My Predictions (in order of likelihood)

• Michael Douglas (Behind the Candelabra)
• Al Pacino (Phil Spector)
• Matt Damon (Behind the Candelabra)
• Toby Jones (The Girl)
• Benedict Cumberbatch (Parades End)

Douglas has already cleared some room on his shelf for this trophy, as he's definitely grabbing it.  Damon, despite being second-lead seems a sure thing as well, and Pacino is too famous for them to snub even though Phil Spector seems eons ago thanks to Candelabra, doesn't it?  Jones and Cumberbatch are less certain, but honestly, who takes their place?  Kenneth Branagh in Wallander, again?  That's about the only possibility, but I don't think it'll be enough.  Is this Cumberbatch's first major nomination?  I think it might be the start of a long career of awards shows.

Best Actress in a Miniseries

My Predictions (in order of likelihood)

• Jessica Lange (American Horror Story: Asylum)
• Helen Mirren (Phil Spector)
• Sigourney Weaver (Political Animals)
• Elisabeth Moss (Top of the Lake)
• Laura Linney (The Big C: Hereafter)

Again, I feel like both Lange and Linney are cheating here considering their shows are clearly installments in series, but they're both in the running, and considering their Emmy status, are both in as well.  Mirren always gets nominated, Weaver seems a strong bet (though she never wins the Emmy, and has bad luck this year with her odd Tony snub).  Moss is the only person in this lineup who isn't an obvious "movie star who happens to do television," which may give her an outside shot at the eventual trophy (for some reason she seems incapable of winning for Mad Men).  If there's an upset in the running, it will be either Brenda Blethyn or Hilary Swank in Mary and Martha-both have awards cache, but neither has a lot of buzz, and so while neither would surprise me, I'm not sure which to pick, so I'm going with neither.

Best Supporting Actor in a Miniseries

My Predictions (in order of likelihood)

• James Cromwell (American Horror Story: Asylum)
• Jeffrey Tambor (Phil Spector)
• Rob Lowe (Behind the Candelabra)
• Dan Aykroyd (Behind the Candelabra)
• Zachary Quinto (American Horror Story: Asylum)

Yes, I'm aware that Peter Mullan is a more likely contender than Quinto (and possibly even Aykroyd, though that Oscar nomination always helps with the Emmys, even if it's about to be 25) and yes, James Woods is always an Emmy threat (though again, how big is Mary and Martha), but awards bodies usually go for serial killers, and Quinto most definitely fits that bill.  Plus, the Emmys probably want to reward someone that has been a fixture on TV screens for years now and is managing a great bit of success between the big and small screens, and it's no fun to predict all of the frontrunners.

Best Supporting Actress in a Miniseries
My Predictions (in order of likelihood)

• Holly Hunter (Top of the Lake)
• Sarah Paulson (American Horror Story: Asylum)
• Alfre Woodard (Steel Magnolias)
• Ellen Burstyn (Political Animals)
• Imelda Staunton (The Girl)

Lily Rabe should probably be in the running here, but, despite her recent Tony nomination, she's not a known commodity in the way these five women are, and it's hard to believe that anyone who watches AHS all the way through wouldn't favor Paulson (though she's most definitely the lead, which is a quibble of a different order).  Otherwise, while Staunton is vulnerable, aside from Rabe I don't know who could take her out, and they do love Oscar nominees at the Emmys (as I've mentioned before).  Hunter is a mortal lock (and probably on-track to win), and betting against Alfre Woodard or Ellen Burstyn at the Emmys is a fool's errand (between the two, they have 23 Emmy nominations).

And those are my guesses.  If I can figure out a way to post all of my Bechdel Tests this week, I'll definitely try.  Otherwise, we'll be looking at one post a day until Saturday, when we will finish up the 2012 OVP and start on all of the fun of June (Comcast willing).