OVP: Supporting Actor (2005)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2005)

The Nominees Were...

George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt, A History of Violence

My Thoughts: We move now into the acting races.  The Best Supporting Actor race wasn't always a drag.  At one point performances like Joel Grey in Cabaret or Robert de Niro in The Godfather, Part II were winning here-performances that might qualify for the best of the year.  In the mid-aughts, though, this changed as we saw leading men slum it in this category to try and score nominations or co-leads get nominated, leaving out some of the more intriguing character work that under-sung actors might enjoy.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in this category, where we have five leading men (some of yesteryear, but still), getting into the category.  One of these men, in particular feels like a pretty big offender of category fraud, even if it's undoubtedly my favorite performance in the lineup.

Jake Gyllenhaal gives a heartfelt, beautiful performance in Brokeback Mountain.  While Ledger gets most of the credit in the years since, it's Gyllenhaal as Jack Twist who receives the most heartbreaking scenes during the relationship.  He finds something so powerful in the way he wants to push for a proper life with Ennis, not just something that he gets to have happen once every few years when they see each other.  Think of the anger & power that he puts into his Jack, especially when he lets rip more at the world than Ennis (but Ennis is the only one who knows), all of the frustrations about living in the closet.  But the thing about Gyllenhaal's performance is...it's 100% lead.  This is a co-lead romantic drama.  I've given one of our trophies to a lead (see here), but I am docking at least a star off of Gyllenhaal's ranking for category fraud so don't assume because I like him best that he's going to win.

Weirdly, George Clooney is, while obviously a leading man, not committing category fraud in his film (at least for my money-some others might consider it borderline), as he's part of an ensemble.  Clooney isn't doing as nuanced of work as Matt Damon is in this film (he's the standout for my money), but this was during that stretch where he was doing proper movie star work in thrillers & dramas (something he seems to have not been able to do successfully for roughly a decade now).  His Bob Barnes is intriguing because he's a man that so easy could do the wrong thing-everything is there, and he feels in attitude the same as the other characters.  Clooney sells him convincingly as someone we will learn to trust, not someone that we trust implicitly.  It feels bizarre that George Clooney's only acting Oscar is going to be for Supporting Actor, but he's one of the highlights of Syriana.

Matt Dillon is also part of an ensemble, though a much larger ensemble so the argument that he's supporting is even more muted.  It's hard to play a truly unlikable character, and there are moments he does it, but the sense of understanding that he gets...it just doesn't feel believable.  I remember the big scene he has with Loretta DeVine, where we're supposed to feel sympathy for his plight, that his father was a "victim of affirmative action," but Dillon's not able to sell the hate in his heart as justified (perhaps because no actor could have pulled off such a character arch), and his later open-mindedness feels off as a result.  Dillon is better than Crash, but Crash gives him a character that is impossible to play, and it's hard for me to give credit for elevating when the actual performance doesn't rise above passable.

Paul Giamatti gets an easier character arch, but he overplays his hand.  Giamatti is a strange actor because he plays the same performance so often, and it rarely requires him to be that "Paul Giamatti" type (and yet he works very consistently).  He is angry, hyper-masculine, and feels more like he's doing a parody of Burgess Meredith here than crafting his own new character.  Giamatti appears to have won this nomination solely based on the assumption that he should have been nominated for Sideways the year before, and as a result this is a career citation that doesn't hold up unless you are considering the bulk of the actor's work onscreen (we're going to hit more of these the further back we go as this was very common in the 1980's & 90's).

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Gyllenhaal is William Hurt.  Hurt, while a leading man of the 1980's, barely registers in this movie (he's in less than 10% of the film), making what amounts to less of a supporting role and more an awesome cameo.  Hurt's character arch is therefore nonexistent, but that doesn't mean he isn't doing superb work.  Think of the climactic "you could die Joey" scene, where he angrily, soullessly goes after his brother.  This role only works with someone of Hurt's caliber-it's the sort of cameo that requires a well-known actor to make it land, but he's superb and a great close to a good thriller.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes gave the trophy to Clooney, and dismissed both Gyllenhaal & Hurt for Bob Hoskins (Mrs. Henderson Presents) and Will Ferrell (The Producers).  The SAG Award went to Paul Giamatti, and here only picked one new name (Hurt was taken out for Don Cheadle in Crash), and the BAFTA Awards went with Gyllenhaal for the win, beating Dillon, Cheadle, and George Clooney (twice-he was cited for both Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck, likely costing him the trophy-he's never won an acting BAFTA as a result).  All-in-all, I know the evidence points to Cheadle, but I'll be real-at the time there was a lot of sentiment that this would be a double nomination year for Terence Howard.  Those happened more often in those days, and so either of the Crash guys probably make the most sense.  That neither made it makes this one of the rare places where the "we should have seen Crash coming" lights weren't flashing.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I shouldn't entirely get mad at Oscar in 2005 for having a pretty lackluster lineup-it's not like this year was crawling with worthy performances.  As I said above, Matt Damon is my favorite part of Syriana, and for sure I'd put him into the lineup.  I'd also have time for Andy Serkis in King Kong, because even in motion-capture he is able to find a soul in the characters he plays.  And finally, I'd add in two unorthodox performances: Brendan Gleeson's genre-lifting Mad-Eye Moody in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Christopher Plummer's Captain Newport in The New World, both of which add a strong element to their movies.

Oscar’s Choice: A genuine horserace between Giamatti & Clooney, but Clooney's boffo year (and the fact that it was clear he wasn't winning any other categories), probably brought it home for him here.

My Choice: As I mentioned above, I'm knocking Gyllenhaal down a star for his category fraud...but that still puts him above the rest.  William Hurt (silver) and George Clooney (bronze) both put in a good fight, but they're not good enough to match Gyllenhaal, who gets my trophy.  Bringing up the rear is Dillon & then Giamatti.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with me in Team Jack Twist, or do you find his category fraud Jack Nasty?  Will George Clooney ever win a Best Actor trophy?  And which guy in Crash was in sixth place here?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2005: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Original Score, Original Song, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2005

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)

Film: Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stars: Tom Holland, Samuel L. Jackson, Zendaya, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei, Jake Gyllenhaal
Director: Jon Watts
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

It was probably a decent idea of Marvel to follow-up Avengers: Endgame, an exhaustive & emotional picture, with something a bit lighter like Spider-Man.  After all, of all of the late-breaking stars, one could make an argument that Holland's is the most similar to earlier Avengers hits that were focused on charm & fun rather than moving into a semi-serious role again featuring Doctor Strange or Black Panther.  The film, though, has some impossible weight behind it-it has to find a way to continue your attention after the megastar showing of Avengers: Endgame while also whetting our appetites for what's to come.  Based on the box office for the movie (about the only consistency in 2019 cinemas is that people do not appear to be tired of Marvel movies), the next phase of the MCU feels ready to attack our wallets, but I have stated before that I was considering whether or not it was time for me to end this franchise (in the way many have for The Simpsons or South Park after too many stories that felt too similar) or not after Far From Home.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie centers in the weeks after the deaths of Iron Man, Black Widow, & Vision (the public seems to think that Captain America is also dead, even though he was seen as an old man at the end of the last picture).  As a result, we're without a lot of obvious heroes, and Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man aka Tom Holland) is kind of done with the idea of being a superhero as well. He wants to go on a class trip with his friends, including the girl he likes MJ (Zendaya), and is ignoring calls from Nick Fury (Jackson).  Eventually Nick Fury finds him, and introduces him to a potential future leader of the Avengers, Mysterio (Gyllenhaal), and we see the two of them attempting to battle the Elementals who have come from a different dimension (which is also where Mysterio has come from), to take over this earth.  Again, we see the world under threat from an alien breed, with a reluctant hero at the center, and he has to team up with another hero to get the job done.

Except, of course, it's not that simple.  Marvel isn't going to just have their villains be CGI-blobs, two of which are almost completely forgotten in the course of the movie, and it turns out that Mysterio is in fact yet another neglected protege of Tony Stark, here to enact his revenge and megalomaniacally take over the world.  It helps that they cast Gyllenhaal, who always looks like a combination of a nerdy boy scout and a puppy as the villain, as he plays well with a bad guy that's clearly over his head. The scene where he toasts and reveals his plan could have been expository hell, but it's actually the best non-action scene in the whole movie as we see Gyllenhaal get his over-actor on.

The problem is that Spider-Man: Far From Home is all territory we've done dozens of times.  Having Peter Parker go after MJ (again) is a total snooze, and I say that with Tom Holland being my favorite of the live-action Spideys.  Of course he's going to get her, of course she's going to find out he's Spider-Man, and of course he's going to still rise to be the leader he was meant to be.  We've seen this story countless times, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe seems to increasingly be a place with limitless budgets & decidedly narrow creativity.  The battle sequences are awesome (particularly the water creature fight in Venice), but there's a sense of, even with good actors and charming movie stars, that this is never going to rise above being dull anymore.

This is a problem for the MCU, and why I'm probably done with the series after this movie, in that the whole point of at least the Infinity Stones storyline was that it had a beginning, middle, and end.  There were stretches that were better (Winter Soldier, Black Panther), there were stretches we'd be better off forgetting (Dark World, Guardians 2), but it was all leading to the final scenes of Endgame, where we had characters like Iron Man, Black Widow, and Vision have real-world implications (they died, and for now appear to be staying dead).  Having yet another round of these stories with similar plot struggles and the same tones...it feels so lifeless and boring.  I've read the good reviews of this movie, and I get where they're coming from, but frequently the good reviews include phrases like "good enough," "comfortable," "charming cast," and "rises above"...indicating that we're all just sort of complimenting the pile of money rather than critically examining that the movies aren't necessary even if they're fine.  The post-credits sequences contained a genuine shock (kudos to JK Simmons for bridging the MCU divide and bringing back J. Jonah Jameson), and then a nonsensical ode to the Skrulls when we learn that Nick Fury & Maria Hill weren't there the whole time, but instead they were shape-shifters.  Perhaps that will be me for the next installment, as unless there's something truly special coming in the next round (and right now none of the announced films scream out "See me!") it'll be a John lookalike that's sitting next to you in theaters.  Endgame was the proper closer to this series, and Far From Home was a reminder as to why it needs to close.

4 Mini Reviews

As I'm working through all of the films I haven't touched on in the past few months, struggling to catch up with my film reviews, I'm going to do something I'm generally loathe to do: do a mini review of the pictures.  I don't like doing this, in part because while this is a generally low-traffic blog for me it's the closest thing I get to a time capsule of my thoughts on a specific picture and what things stuck out to me as soon as I watched it rather than distant memories where so-often you're reliant upon what others called out as important about the film afterwards than what you, yourself liked at the time.  However, these have been distant enough that I won't have that cache, none were nominated for an Oscar so I won't be referencing these films again for the OVP, and due simply to time (I need to get some of these reviews out of my draft folder), we'll be doing four short mini reviews.  If any of these are ones you want to discuss more thoroughly or get my expanded thoughts, I'm happy to discuss in the comments.

(Some Spoilers ahead for Stronger, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, Wonderstruck, and Last Flag Flying-read only the paragraphs where you've seen the films if you have a spoiler allergy)

Stronger (dir. David Gordon Green)

The story of a man whose legs were blown off after the Boston Marathon is shocking in the way that it avoids overly sentimentalizing its main character Jeff Bauman (played by Jake Gyllenhaal in yet another superb performance).  I went into this picture reluctantly, assuming it would be your general true-life story that deserves kudos to the actual person, but which comes across as drivel in the film, but Gyllenhaal plays Bauman as a real person, struggling with the concept of being a hero for basically being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who must admit feelings he has even if he's someone that doesn't have any sort of comfort admitting feelings.  Hats off to both he and the two women in his life, his girlfriend Tatiana Maslany and his mother Miranda Richardson, who find a strong, independent dynamic for their work.  The film's story is too-cliched and hugs the many sentimental traps that it avoided the first half when we get to the ending, but by-and-large this is one of the better "unlikely real-life hero" stories I've seen in a while. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (dir. Yorgos Lanthimos)

I left Dogtooth disgusted and confused.  I left The Lobster confused but getting where this was headed.  Sacred Deer seems to combine the two pictures.  While it's hard to imagine something as disturbing as Dogtooth, I can't deny this is a really nasty movie.  The film follows Colin Farrell, who has essentially been cursed by a terrifying Barry Koeghan after accidentally killing his father, and as a result Farrell's family (including wife Nicole Kidman) are slowly dying.  As punishment from Koeghan's character, Farrell must choose one of his family members to die, or else they all will.  The film is quite literal, even though at first you're meant not to trust Koeghan's character.  This picture is probably one that works best in comparison to Lanthimos's other flicks, knowing that he'll soon hit his near-perfect stride with The Favourite, and realizing that this is him trying out adventures that sometimes work, sometimes don't (the film struggles with its pacing once you realize the curse is real), but it's still a wild, creepy ride. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Wonderstruck (dir. Todd Haynes)

Todd Haynes' films are a hodgepodge for me, where I always respect them, but I don't ever love them (except for Carol).  Wonderstruck, his first film since the Blanchett-Mara duet, is back to "respect but don't love," but there's still a lot to admire here.  The film has a terrific central performance by Millicent Simmonds as a young deaf girl who is trying to find her brother in the Museum of Natural History in New York City (Julianne Moore plays her as an adult).  Told concurrently is a tale about a young man fifty years later who has just lost his mother (Michelle Williams) and is also trying to run away in the Museum of Natural History.  Beautifully shot by Edward Lachman, there are some wonderfully-felt scenes where we explore the Natural History Museum and the Queens Museum (I love museums-this was catnip for me), though the film's ending is a bit of a letdown, and it felt too cold for a movie that is trying to be warm.  Still, worth your time. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Last Flag Flying (dir. Richard Linklater)

Our final film for today is Richard Linklater's latest (at least for a few more weeks): Last Flag Flying.  Starring Steve Carell, Bryan Cranston, & Laurence Fishburne as a trio of former war buddies who are on a trek to bury Carell's son where he wanted to be buried (and not in Arlington), this is a road trip by way of Linklater, so you know there's more below-the-surface that he's hoping will come out through his script and plotting.  Linklater's been on a roll lately (Before Midnight, Boyhood, and Everybody Wants Some! all made my Top 5 of the year), but this was a misfire.  Cranston overcompensates as an actor, and Carell under-emotes, and while there's a lot of meat about politics, aging, death, and friendship in Linklater's script, it doesn't gel.  Here's to hoping that Cate Blanchett gets him back into his groove. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

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.

No Globe, No SAG...No Problem?

Michael Shannon is once again precursor-
deficient, but still in the hunt for Oscar

As per usual, the December hustle-and-bustle got away from me a bit there, and I haven't really talked too much about this year's Globe and SAG nominations, and at this point they feel a bit like old hat (I'll be on vacation during the Oscar announcements, but I'll try and stay more on-top of that when it comes around).  That said, we cannot skip one of my favorite annual traditions-our annual "No Globes, No SAG...No Problem?" piece.

With 2006 more than ten years away, we are now in a position where every single year for the past decade, we have had at least one person each year where they missed for the two most reliable televised American precursors, but broke through when it came to the Oscar lineup:

2016: Michael Shannon
2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy, and Mark Ruffalo
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

The last year that didn't duplicate this feat was 2006, due almost entirely to a truly bizarre Best Supporting Actor race (where the Globes/SAG Awards nominated nine different contenders, basically unheard of since).  Part of me wonders, though, if this is likely to repeat in 2017.  While the year has ended relatively strongly, it's not a standout filmic year overall, and as a result awards bodies are more prone to group-think, and quite frankly in some categories (particularly the male acting fields), there's not a deep bench of competition other than what's already been cited.  Plucking someone out of obscurity is going to be harder than in recent years.  However, one could have said the same thing last year, or in 2009, and yet they managed to find a contender, so without further adieu, here are the ten people I think are most likely to make it on this list in a few weeks despite missing with HFPA/SAG:

(Editor's Note: You'll notice I didn't include a single contender for Best Actress which is a first for this series, and that's on-purpose.  The field seems relatively locked up with Hawkins/McDormand/Robbie/Streep/Ronan all seeming pretty safe, and if one falls Globe-nominated trio Chastain/Dench/Williams will represent the one who picks up the open spot.  Annette Bening & Gal Gadot are both theoretically possible, but honestly, the former is in a film too obscure to pop up with such a late release date and the latter really needed the Globes.  All-in-all, I would be truly stunned if the "No Globe/SAG" nomination were to come in Lead Actress)

10. Patrick Stewart (Logan)

For Him: He's a longtime British actor, perhaps more character when it comes to film than his leading man status in television or theater, but he's a trouper who has been working as a thespian for 50+ years without notice from Oscar.  His surprise BFCA nomination (we don't speak of that awards show on this blog as a rule, because they simply serve as an "Oscar predictions" site at this point, but it's worth noting here as they are particularly good at calling Oscar nominees), surely helps.  Plus, Logan had very good reviews early on in the year.
Against Him: Does anyone remember those reviews?  Logan could be a stealth candidate for Oscar, but Jackman's minimal heat will probably go to The Greatest Showman, and it's near impossible to be nominated for acting in a superhero movie.  Stewart would be a strange inclusion, one almost without precedent, considering he missed major precursors.

9. Catherine Keener (Get Out)

For Her: When you're guessing the "No Globe/SAG" nominees, you want to remember to bet on overlooked players in Best Picture contenders and people that have been nominated for Oscar before (but generally those who haven't won yet).  Two-time nominee Catherine Keener, who is starring in what I consider to be the Best Picture frontrunner, fits that bill to a tee.  She's got a showy part in the film, which has been doing better with acting trophies than one would suspect (note that SAG Cast nomination), and in a lot of ways this pulls a page out of the "Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook" strategy.
Against Her: Will internal competition from Allison Williams (who I thought about for this list, but category confusion probably will hurt her thin chances as it is) be too much?  Williams and Betty Gabriel both get showy parts as well, arguably more impressive than Keener's, and she hasn't been out working the crowds with this part.  Can she be noticed from nowhere?

8. Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread)

For Her: Late-breaking word on this film is that it's good, and that Manville is a major attraction.  That could help-Day-Lewis has assisted supporting ladies in the past (Fricker, Ryder, Field), and British character actors tend to be well-liked when it comes to Oscar.  Another Year showed that she has the goods to land a part if it's written well, and they do get enthused for PTA.
Against Her: Is she famous enough to get a nomination out of nowhere?  Note that most of the people on the above lists were movie stars when they landed the plane.  Manville's going to probably get seen, but she's in the most-crowded field of the year, and will people know her well-enough to write down her name against more traditional options like Octavia Spencer or Holly Hunter?

7. Kristin Scott Thomas (Darkest Hour)

For Her: Considering her role, this is the sort of nomination that feels tailor-made for Oscar.  Quippy, transformed by makeup, and a long-suffering/supporting wife, KST is a former Oscar nominee in a film I think is still going to land for Best Picture citations (after watching it, I find it hard to believe that a film so in AMPAS' wheelhouse doesn't get cited for multiple categories).  She deserves to have more than one nomination to her name, and she's famous enough for a sneak attack.
Against Her: The role is prominent, but not a stretch.  She doesn't really have a "scene" in the way that Oldman or even Mendelsohn do.  Could it be that in a year this competitive for Supporting Actress, old tropes just won't work for Oscar?

6. Ben Mendelsohn (Darkest Hour)

For Him: Unlike KST, Mendelsohn does get a showy scene (toward the end of the picture), and is playing royalty, always a winner with the Oscars.  This isn't a particularly deep bench of contenders (unlike Supporting Actress), so a nomination could be easier to come by, and while he's newer than some of these figures to film success, I have to assume that he's on Oscar's "to honor" list when it comes to character actors.
Against Him: He's not as famous as KST (give her fame to his role and I think we'd have the #1 spot on this list), and Darkest Hour isn't quite hitting the home runs I'd suspect from precursors.  They just honored this role a few years ago with Colin Firth-might it feel too repetitive?

5. Julia Roberts (Wonder)

For Her: She's an Oscar favorite in a crowd-pleasing hit that is actually better than it had any right to be.  AMPAS loves Julia, and has nominated her four times already (lest we forget, it's not just Erin Brockovich), and this feels like the sort of movie that would get watched at the holidays when it comes to screeners.  Could she be a surprise nominee ala Tommy Lee Jones a few years back, scoring her film's sole nomination despite little precursors?
Against Her: It's hard to imagine Julia Roberts getting in with Oscar when she missed at the Globes. This isn't a traditional Oscar movie, as it's very teenage/high school, and she's not campaigning that hard for it.  If there's a lot of vote-splitting, it could happen, but I think it needed precursor love to land.

4. Michael Shannon (The Shape of Water)

For Him: He's done this before, twice.  Shannon is that rare actor who has two Oscar-nominated roles that weren't cited by the Globes (weirdly, the one time he did score at the Globes, AMPAS skipped him).  That proves that they like him, even in non-traditional parts, and his role in The Shape of Water is very showy.  If they really like it (very possible), might this get the double nomination rather than Three Billboards or CMBYN?
Against Him: It feels weird to think he could do this a third time, and Richard Jenkins is getting the lion's share of the credit here for a reason-he has more "Oscar Bait" scenes and doesn't play an odious villain.  Shannon will have others-they may want to share the wealth in a year that really focuses on giving character actors their due.

3. Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger)

For Him: Gyllenhaal is arguably the best male American actor of his generation, and this is a very showy, good role.  It's also well-acted and quite frankly it's a crime that someone who is so consistently terrific doesn't have a second Oscar nomination by now.  They tend to like uplifting real-life stories, and Stronger is surely that.
Against Him: I don't think people remember this movie anymore.  I do feel like Best Actor is rife for an upset, which is why he's in the Top 3 (Kaaluya would be a very unusual Oscar nominee considering the nature of his role (same for James Franco), and Day-Lewis/Hanks/Washington feels both vote split-prone as well as a bit uninspired for Oscar as all have been more celebrated, and recently), but no one is talking about Gyllenhaal despite that Critics Choice nomination.  Do they just not like him?

2. Tiffany Haddish (Girls Trip)

For Her: Melissa McCarthy also was hit-and-miss with the precursor awards and still made it, and it's hard to deny that Haddish has a star-making role in one of the year's most surprising hits.  Her SNL hosting gig proved that she's out there wanting this, and the combination of the NYFCC Award & the Critics Choice nomination prove that she's in the hunt here.  Hong Chau in particular feels like a weak fifth slot nomination, particularly considering the poor reviews her film is getting, and could be vulnerable to someone like Haddish.
Against Her: It's a bawdy role for a conservative AMPAS, and it's worth noting that McCarthy did score the SAG nomination even if she missed at the Globes (which should have been a much easier sell for Haddish).  Chau is still formidable even if she's an odd frontrunner for the final nomination, and even if she falls, that's no guarantee that Haddish can best Octavia Spencer, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Julia Roberts.

1. Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name)

For Him: He's in three Best Picture frontrunners this year, and he's a long-time character actor who has never gotten his due from Oscar.  Stuhlbarg seems popular and has worked with everyone, so this could be a nice way to acknowledge him.  Plus, he's really good in Call Me by Your Name, and it's difficult to imagine viewers not being moved by his big scene toward the end of the picture.
Against Him: Internal competition from Hammer, and perhaps as the weak box office is indicating, not enough affection for CMBYN.  Honestly, though, if one of these nominations happens I think it'll be Haddish or Stuhlbarg, with the latter getting the top position because A) I don't think Christopher Plummer can sustain momentum through voting, and Woody Harrelson's role is so inconsequential to the back half of his movie and B) it's a really good performance from a man they're going to see everywhere on screeners.  I wouldn't bet on it quite yet (I have him in sixth, though in a near tie with Hammer), but it wouldn't shock me.

20 Random Thoughts on the Tony Nominations

Every major awards show there's always so many things that come up that it feels like a wild stream of consciousness.  I say we embrace that manic nature, so here are my 20 random thoughts as I looked through yesterday's Tony nominations, which were announced by Tony winner Mary-Louise Parker and Bruce Willis, who is trying for next year's Tonys later this fall.

1. I think it's fascinating that we've gone from a year where the frontrunner seemed completely up-in-the-air to one where it's clearly Fun Home.

2. I am dying to see The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime.

3. Closing your play doesn't hurt as much when you take the Pulitzer.  It also helps with the Tony.

4. I feel like if an unknown had been cast in the lead of Gigi it would be doing better right now-maybe in the future only bring in the stars to sell unknown plays, and not nine-time Oscar winning productions?

5. It's not the Tony Awards without Scott Rudin, and the 10-time Tony winner got three nominations for Curious Incident, Skylight, and This is Our Youth.  Oddly he also had a shot at two more with A Delicate Balance and The Audience.

6. Will the lack of a play nomination for The Audience hurt Helen Mirren's chances of adding a Tony to her mantle?  Carey Mulligan clearly has a lot of support there, and both sort of give you the movie star status that is really lacking this year.

7. Audra McDonald was not nominated for a Tony this year.  She also wasn't eligible, but it still seemed like a possibility.

8. Bradley Cooper has been topping Jake Gyllenhaal at every awards show this season, beating him at the Oscars and now the Tonys.  Also, Bradley Cooper topping Jake Gyllenhaal resulted in a lot of vivid imagination work for many of you, so I'm going to wait for a second...ready?

9. Alex Sharp goes from Juilliard grad to likely Tony Award winner.  Meanwhile I considered it an accomplishment that I folded the laundry last night.

10. Ruth Wilson goes from the Globes to the Tonys to (more than likely) the Emmys.  Quite a year for a woman who was a character actor you sort of recognized last year.

11. Glenn Close missing has to be the biggest star snub of the year, right?  Her reviews were solid for A Delicate Balance, I am surprised that Geneva Carr managed to trump her.

12. Ken Watanabe gets a Tony nomination to go with his Oscar nomination for The Last Samurai?  Remember when that happened?  That was a really "oh, right, he got nominated" lineup wasn't it?  Djimon Hounsou, Ken Watanabe, Alec Baldwin, Benicio del Toro, and eventual winner Tim Robbins-can you name any of their nominated films?

13. Possibly the biggest question of them all: is this Kelli O'Hara's year?  I would have said yes unequivocally a few weeks ago, but that Drama Desk snub stings, and Chenoweth (who is hosting) and Chita Rivera (who landed the Best Musical nomination almost single-handedly) are both really pushing for another trophy this year.

14. Good lord on Matthew Beard's cheekbones.  Is everyone in Skylight in the perfect skull club?

15. Possibly the biggest nomination you missed: Patricia Clarkson scored her first Tony nomination for The Elephant Man (and oddly got her only Oscar nomination the same year as Ken Watanabe).  This puts her a Grammy loss short of being a Lynn Redgrave in terms of the EGOT.

16. Am I the only person who doesn't like Christian Borle?  I feel like my dislike has something to do with his breakup with Sutton Foster, but I can't really remember the origin.

17. Victoria Clark proved that the Tony committee did in fact see Gigi, they just didn't like it.

18. I had to actually look up who had more Tony nominations: Victoria Clark or Judy Kuhn?  For the record, it was a tie, with both nominated four times.  Also, Judy Kuhn has never won a Tony-considering she's in the likely Best Musical, do she AND Kelli O'Hara both break their streaks this year?

19. Of course combined they can't reach William Ivey Long (see the pun work there?), who scored his fifteenth nomination for On the Twentieth Century.

20. And getting the "only director you've heard of" slot is Stephen Daldry, landing a Tony nomination for Skylight.  He's already won two though so don't feel too badly if he doesn't take it this time.

And those are my stream-of-consciousness thoughts on this year's Tony nominations-how about you? What'd you think of the nominees?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

2015 Tony Predictions

Tony-Winner Mary-Louise Parker and movie star-icon Bruce Willis (who is making his Broadway debut this fall) will announce the Tony nominees next Tuesday.  It's been an annual tradition here at the blog for me to take a stab at the nominations as I love Broadway.  L-O-V-E.  However, I'm not quite as good at it as I was when I actually lived in New York and was seeing all of these shows.  With that caveat thrown out there, let's take a look at the Big 8 categories (ordered from most to least likely to be nominated)!

Best Musical

1. Fun Home
2. Something Rotten
3. An American in Paris
4. Finding Neverland

The Lowdown: Not a particularly robust lineup this year, and while there's no clear frontrunner for the win, Fun Home is starting to fill that void a bit.  It's hard to imagine any of these shows, quite frankly, getting denied-the first two are duking it out for the trophy while the second two, with their movie tie-ins, are going to be easy sells when Broadway tours start hopping (that's when the real long-term investment money comes, and why so many people invest in movie-musicals, since it's easy to market nationally).  The only other show that remotely seems like it's in the running is The Visit, and that seems a stronger contender in Best Actress.

Best Play

1. Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
2. Wolf Hall, Parts 1 and 2
3. The Audience
4. Airline Highway

The Lowdown: The question with the Tonys is always how long is their memory?  Rarely do closed plays get nominated, and that's what's holding me back from predicting Constellations, which had terrific reviews and star-power in Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal.  There's also the Pulitzer Prize-winning Disgraced that could compete.  However, I'm going with a show that's still on Broadway, the Joe Mantello-directed Airline Highway, which might benefit more from the nomination at this point (the other three seem pretty solidly set).

Best Revival of a Musical

1. The King and I
2. On the Twentieth Century
3. On the Town

The Lowdown: It's always hard to know what happens when there's only a slim amount of contenders (this year, only five), but I think it means that we only get three nominees here.  If that's the case, this is almost assuredly the lineup as Side Show didn't come close here and Gigi is probably not going to have the momentum to take down one of these three big shows.  If there are four nominees, however, consider it the lucky last contender.

Best Revival of a Play

1. Skylight
2. You Can't Take It With You
3. The Elephant Man
4. It's Only a Play

The Lowdown: There's always so many contenders in this category it's hard to know where to begin or end (except to know that Skylight will be nominated).  The Elephant Man made WAY too big of an impact not to be nominated, even if it's already closed, and It's Only a Play stars Tony winners Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane (there are probably still Tony voters who are getting residual checks for The Producers).  As a result I'm going for this lineup over The Heidi Chronicles and A Delicate Balance, both of which could definitely be threats.

Best Actor in a Musical

1. Michael Cerveris (Fun Home)
2. Robert Fairchild (An American in Paris)
3. Brian d'Arcy James (Something Rotten)
4. Peter Gallagher (On the Twentieth Century)
5. Ken Watanabe (The King and I)

The Lowdown: This is where I wish I still lived in New York, as right now it's all about the buzz, and the buzz for musical-acting is always about the leading women (it's one of the few categories where every critic pretty much agrees, consistently, that the leading ladies outmatch the leading men).  As a result, beyond the Top 3 (who seem pretty much set), the question is which famous names get selected. I'm going with Gallagher and Watanabe, who are headlining the two main contenders for Best Revival, but Matthew Morrison (Finding Neverland) and Tony Yazbeck (On the Town) would both be solid decisions.

Best Actress in a Musical

1. Kelli O'Hara (The King and I)
2. Chita Rivera (The Visit)
3. Kristin Chenoweth (On the Twentieth Century)
4. Leanne Cope (An American in Paris)
5. Laura Michelle Kelly (Finding Neverland)

The Lowdown: Easily the most competitive race for a nomination this year in the musical categories, the Top 3 seem pretty set in stone (though the Tonys have gone really cold on Chenoweth since Wicked for some reason, so she could well be a shocker snub like with The Apple Tree and Promises, Promises).  I could see either of the two-headed sisters in Side Show (Emily Padgett or Erin Davie) making it on the list, but they won't have the same "share-the-nomination" advantage that happened when the original was run and will probably vote-split.  I also think that we underestimate Vanessa Hudgens in Gigi at our own peril-she's got solid reviews and is a Hollywood name in a year that doesn't have many of them.

Best Actor in a Play

1. Alex Sharp (Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time)
2. Bill Nighy (Skylight)
3. Ben Miles (Wolf Hall, Parts 1 and 2)
4. Bradley Cooper (The Elephant Man)
5. Jake Gyllenhaal (Constellations)

The Lowdown: That Hollywood name idea has me thinking that this might be a really good way to get some ratings (it's also a television show people-it's sadly not always just about the performances).  Jake Gyllenhaal and Bradley Cooper both got raves for their work, and even if the plays are closed they're famous enough to linger in the memory.  As a result I'm skipping Steven Boyer, and am looking forward to what happens when unknown Alex Sharp beats two of the biggest names in Hollywood in a few weeks.

Best Actress in a Play

1. Helen Mirren (The Audience)
2. Carey Mulligan (An Education)
3. Elisabeth Moss (The Heidi Chronicles)
4. Glenn Close (A Delicate Balance)
5. Ruth Wilson (Constellations)

The Lowdown: Thankfully for Mirren and Mulligan, Sandra Bullock is not nominated this year so they don't have to lose as co-nominees again to her like they did at the Oscars five years ago.  Otherwise, this race reads like something you'd see more at the Oscars or Emmys than the Tonys.  There's always the possibility that Mia Farrow (long retired from acting, making a comeback of sorts in Love Letters) or Blythe Danner (The Country House) make the list, but this seems like a pretty strong five.

And there you have it-my guesses for the Tony nominations!  As always, your thoughts are wildly appreciated, so share them in the comments section-who are you cheering for and who are you predicting?

Enemy (2014)

Film: Enemy (2014)
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Melanie Laurent, Sarah Gadon, Isabella Rossellini
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I have become mildly obsessed with the career of Denis Villeneuve in recent years.  As you may remember, I gave him the OVP Award for Foreign Film in 2010 for his riveting work with Incendies, but was largely cool on what was going on in Prisoners (though, again, was obsessed with what I loved and hated about that movie, so the man can make a picture that gnaws).  This is certainly the case with his most recent work, which stars another artist to obsess over, and leaves you with far more questions than answers.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about two men who are completely identical in every way except personality.  Adam (Gyllenhaal) is a college professor with a boring but fulfilling life (he and his wife have a routine but frequent love life if the opening scenes are any indication), who one day stumbles across a man who is identical to him in every physical way.  Slowly they begin to infiltrate each other's lives, with Anthony (also Gyllenhaal, and the other guy) finding this an opportunity for mayhem, while Adam slowly wants nothing to do with the situation.  As the film unfolds, we see Anthony trying seduce Adam's wife, and dying in a car crash as a result, while Adam starts to assume Anthony's life, only to, in one of the oddest scenes of 2014, have his new wife turn into a spider that is somehow afraid of him.

The film is difficult, and not something that you can fully comprehend upon initial viewing, at least in my opinion.  I had to let the movie ruminate a bit before I started to piece together things about the film.  For starters, the spider sequence shouldn't come as a huge surprise, as we've seen two bizarre sequences with spiders earlier in the film: one, in the opening scene, in an erotic club where a woman crushes a woman with a platform heel, and in the middle of the film, when a giant spider is seen wandering around the skyline of Toronto.  Both of these scenes are outside the realm of the actual plot of the film, which is why they're easy to dismiss, but it makes total sense that they meld in the end, likely with us either not realizing that the spiders have taken over the world (perhaps these people assume such things) or because one of our protagonists (Adam) has been the villain all along.

Forest Wickman of Slate magazine talked about how this film in many ways is "what it's like to live in a totalitarian state without knowing it."  I rather enjoyed this reading of the film in some ways, but I think it's worth exploring a bit further: I think that it may be the case that it is not the characters, but the audience who doesn't realize that we're in a totalitarian state (sorry-the film is really short and so reliant on mood and ideas that this review is about to turn into a bit of an academic criticism).  Think about it-Adam isn't at all surprised by the emergence of a spider from his new wife, but we are.  In fact, throughout the film there seems to be little acknowledgement of the spiders that are seemingly bursting forward from around the city, but it's we the audience who ignore these signs.  While it may additionally be a situation where the film is perplexing Adam and his surroundings (we never get a reasonable answer as to why the two men are identical, and it's not long lost twins as they have identical scars, which wouldn't be possible for identical twins), let's not lose that Villeneuve may be pushing us as an audience-giving us the ultimate shock that we've been suckered by this conquered world.

Those are really my thoughts on this complicated, fascinating movie that poses far more questions than answers (though I love those sorts of movies), short though they may be.  What about you-did you love or hate this movie (I could see people being in both camps)?  Does anyone else want to give a gold star to Jake Gyllenhaal's agent for continually making these fascinating movies?  And anyone have guesses on the answers for this film?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

John's Top 10 Movies of 2014

Oscar has done it.  The Globes have done it.  Basically every critic on the planet has done it.  And now it's my turn!  Here are my Top 10 (listed alphabetically) films of 2014!

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (dir. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu)

A meta experiment that examines the way we spit out celebrity, Michael Keaton's game look at a former star that eerily mirrors him in real life is the performance of a lifetime.  Special points go to Emmanuel Lubezki for a terrific camera trick of making the film seem like one long take, and to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu for taking that trick and making the film effervesce.

Boyhood (dir. Richard Linklater)

An experiment in the way we look at the movies, and the way we look at our own lives.  Few films have ever dared to embark on such a long journey (twelve years in the making), and no director can make us examine the fragility of time and the grand scope of life like Richard Linklater.  It's one of those films that has to be seen to be believed.

The Fault in Our Stars (dir. Josh Boone)

Yes, my friends, occasionally teen romances can be truly great movies, but you'd be forgiven from thinking so after the dreck we've had to endure for years.  Yet here we have a romantic drama with a compelling female lead (Shailene Woodley, and thank god for her at the movies this year) and an irresistible Ansel Elgort in a role that likely made him a star.  If you aren't in tears by its end, you have no heart.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (dir. Peter Jackson)

The final chapter in Peter Jackson's six-part look at the Kingdom of Middle Earth rarely lets up, giving epic battle after epic battle, but its power rests in the quieter moments of the movie: Thorin's battle with himself, Bilbo's final moments as he realizes his part of the adventure is over, and the quickening heartbeat of Sauron's evil growing ever stronger.  A David Lean-style finale for the most important filmic series of the past three decades.

The Lego Movie (dir. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller)

The most fun I had at the movies all year.  Yes, it's technically a giant commercial designed to sell billions of dollars worth of the title toys, but it's also complete joy, mixing nostalgia from the audience's youth with a virtual feast of imagery and sight gags.  Plus, it's that rare comedy that actually finds a way to use the skills of all of its cast members, from bit parts by Jonah Hill and Will Forte to Star of 2014 Chris Pratt as our lead everyman.

Nightcrawler (dir. Dan Gilroy)

A terrifying look into the heart of a mad man.  The film relies upon us trusting a person because he looks like a movie star, and then we realize a bit too late that he's not down-on-his-luck, but instead a true sociopath, careening through Los Angeles hell bent on the best story, regardless of what happens to those around him.  This is arguably the best serial killer film we've seen since, well, Zodiac, so clearly Gyllenhaal has found his niche.  And you'll never look at the news in the same way again.

Pride (dir. Matthew Warchus)

Perfect.  That's pretty much the only way to sum up Pride, perhaps the best ensemble piece I've seen on screens since...I can't even remember.  A cast of British veterans and newcomers make you feel for causes you may never have given a second thought, and show perhaps the most damning indictment of the government's indifference to the poor and the sick you've seen.  And somehow it's still a light and spry comedy-gay or straight, if you haven't seen it yet, you're an idiot for not rectifying that situation.

Stranger by the Lake (dir. Alain Guiraudie)

If Alfred Hitchcock and Rainer Werner Fassbinder had a baby, it would probably have come up with Stranger by the Lake, a spooky look into a French cruising beach completely out of time and space.  The movie itself poses many riddles amidst the graphic love scenes, principally "what do we want out of life" and "where is our youth best spent?"  And of course the film has arguably the best ending of any movie this year, petrifying in a way few films dare to be.

Under the Skin (dir. Jonathan Glazer)

In a year where ambiguity reigned supreme over the art house, no film better captured that lack of understanding more than Under the Skin, Jonathan Glazer's long-awaited follow-up to Birth.  The film could be a horror film masquerading as a thriller, or it could be a coming-of-age movie about a woman haunted by some recent tragedy.  Whatever it is, it's a provocative look at what's below the surface in all of us, and how art can continue to change the way we approach the world.  And Scarlett Johansson hasn't been this effective since we first learned of her eleven years ago.

Wild (dir. Jean-Marc Vallee)

Movie stars, despite what the media says, are not dead.  They just don't get the strong roles they used to, and so thank goodness Jean-Marc Vallee can find a way to meld a truly compelling narrative with one of our greatest stars, Reese Witherspoon.  Like Cheryl, Reese has been lost in the cinematic wilderness for years, but you couldn't tell that with the verve and life force she brings to this woman, whose story of trying to find redemption in the wilderness breaks every survival cliche you can imagine, and ends up being a journey through time that we all must endure.

And there you have it-the Top 10 films of 2014!  Any make your personal list?  Any that you haven't seen (in which case-why not?!?!)?  Sound off in the comments!