OVP: Supporting Actress (2001)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Jennifer Connelly, A Beautiful Mind

Helen Mirren, Gosford Park

Maggie Smith, Gosford Park

Marisa Tomei, In the Bedroom

Kate Winslet, Iris

My Thoughts: We talked a little bit about this in the Adapted Screenplay race, but part of the reason that A Beautiful Mind has aged poorly is not because it was a bad movie, but because it beat better movies at the Oscars.  When this is discussed, the focus is usually on the Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay races, mostly because people do not enjoy being mean about individual actors winning Oscars.  It's weird when there's a star with dozens of characters (potentially in movies you like) behind the win (this is partially why people win in the first place for performances that might not be worthy or are just career-achievement statues).  But that's definitely the case here, as it's hard to look at this list of either actors or performances and not think that the least of them won.  But let's see if that's actually the case?

Jennifer Connelly is an actress I don't get, though I'd never name check her as an actress I dislike.  She's very beautiful, and I think her best role might be The Rocketeer, where she leans in on that, or perhaps Requiem for a Dream (though there she's upstaged by Ellen Burstyn).  This work is solid-I think she understands Alicia Nash, and she delivers her monologues beautifully.  But I believe this falls too often into the trope of "what if there was a wife?", where the role is largely meant to be a reflection of her husband.  That's sometimes called for in a movie, but it's not the type of role I think of when I think of handing someone an Oscar, and that's what we're talking about given the point of this article, so Connelly falls short.

On the flip side, you have Helen Mirren doing everything she can to nail a side character that will come into further focus as the movie churns along.  This was still during Mirren's "acting god" phase, before she won an Oscar & was never quite as good again.  Every line in this is really something from her, starting off as very cross & devoted to her employer, and as we move on we understand there's more to both that relationship and the relationships of those around her than meets the eye.  By the crucial climax of the film, she's done all of the work to get to ace her big monologue, totally devastating the audience as the film closes.

Mirren's definitely going in on all cylinders here, in maybe her best film work to date, and is playing against type as a dowdy maid.  Two other actresses in this race are playing into our expectations of them, but doing so beautifully.  Mirren's costar Maggie Smith is one of them.  I think Smith's role here, which would inspire her part in Downton Abbey, is more substantive than some of her later "comic relief dowagers."  She plays her part beautifully between being someone who is mocked (she's poor, and has to rely on her richer relations for money), but also who has lived this life for so long she doesn't know how to be anything other than what she currently is.  It's a balance she pulls off with a great deal of wit, but the work she's done, like Mirren, pays off toward the end in smaller moments as she becomes relieved that her problems entering the house aren't what they were when she leaves, showing just below the veneer.

The other actress who is leaning into what we'd expect from her is Kate Winslet.  This was during that period where pretty much every Winslet performance was an event, leading up to her inevitable Oscar.  Winslet is marvelous here.  Yes, she's playing another earth mother role that is sexually liberated, but she does so with finesse.  She is given the difficult task of giving us an Iris to mourn as Judi Dench's character shows what has been lost, full of life, vitality, and genius.  Winslet does that brilliantly, frequently shocking the audience but doing so with enough specificity that this Iris doesn't get lost alongside some of her other work of this period.

The final nominee is Marisa Tomei, who at the time felt like she was giving a middle finger to the people who, for a decade, had been talking about her My Cousin Vinny win as if it was a gigantic mistake the Oscars made.  Tomei is smart in this part, playing her role as someone whose motives aren't always clear-does she love Nick Stahl's Frank, or is he just a way out of a bad life for herself?  Is she aware of the danger she's putting Frank in...and does she care if it means that she might get out?  Tomei plays this fluttering beneath her eyes, a sense of a pretty girl who generally can play that card to get out of responsibility.  It's the sort of role that easily could've been played just for sympathy or sentiment, but she makes her steelier, a bit more ruthless, and that helps make the ending (even when she's offscreen) so powerful.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Connelly, besting Mirren, Smith, Winslet, Tomei, & Cameron Diaz (Vanilla Sky).  The SAG Awards put Connelly in lead due to a balloting error, so the winner was Mirren, who beat Diaz, Cate Blanchett (Bandits), Judi Dench (The Shipping News), & Dakota Fanning (I Am Sam).  BAFTA went back to Connelly, topping Mirren, Dench, Winslet, & Smith.  I'm torn on sixth place.  Diaz did the best in the precursors, but Diaz was cited for a lot of precursors during this era (not just for Vanilla Sky, but also There's Something About Mary, Being John Malkovich and Gangs of New York) and couldn't make it for any of them, so I think she just wasn't Oscar's speed.  I'm guessing it was between Dench & Fanning, and I'm going to lean toward Fanning given Dench was already in for Iris...Penn getting in for Best Actor makes me think they liked the film, and children do well in this category.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: This is a very good lineup, the best of the four acting lineups that Oscar amassed in 2001.  But if they could've squeezed in Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, it would've been even better.

Oscar’s Choice: Connelly spent the entire season giving extraordinarily dull acceptance speeches, but Oscar didn't care and gave her the statue.

My Choice: Mirren is the best of this very good lineup-she's not just playing against type, but she's the emotional crux of her film.  Following her I'd go Smith the silver, followed by Winslet, Tomei, and Connelly.  The reputation of this race was right-she was out of her league.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you side with the Academy in giving Jennifer Connelly her only statue, or would you like to join me in the downstairs with Helen Mirren?  Doesn't it feel a bit of a crime that no Robert Altman film ever won an acting trophy given how good he was with actors?  And was it Fanning, Dench, or Diaz in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2001: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

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

OVP: The Wild Thornberrys Movie (2002)

Film: The Wild Thornberrys Movie (2002)

Stars: Lacey Chabert, Tim Curry, Jodi Carlisle, Daniell Harris, Flea, Tom Kane, Lynn REdgrave, Rupert Everett, Marisa Tomei, Alfre Woodard, Brenda Blethyn

Directors: Cathy Malkasian & Jeff McGrath

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Father and Daughter")

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I don't talk a lot about my age on this blog (mostly because the gay community can be rather eyebrow-raising about ageism, and I tend to not bring it up unless I have to by instinct), but there are moments where it's necessary to out myself.  While I was not too old to watch Nickelodeon toons when they became part of the zeitgeist for younger figures (specifically shows like Rugrats and Hey Arnold), I was probably getting to the point of too old to watch a show like Wild Thornberrys when it came out initially, even if I was very aware of its existence (and other kids my age might have watched it).  This is my way of telling you that I didn't know the story of The Wild Thornberrys TV show, and was going into this movie blind.  That's not something I normally do-I tend to make it a point of pride to watch all of the films in a series if we're doing a viewing for the OVP so I have some context on where the series has been beforehand, but full disclosure-even while I'm still stuck inside during this pandemic (though if all went according to plan I should have either gotten my vaccine by the time you read this or will have gotten it within a week or two of you reading this as Minnesota has now opened up for all ages), I'm not investing dozens of hours of my life to a Best Song nominee just to get some context.  Thankfully, the film does a pretty good job of grounding me in the story so I don't feel too lost in this film, even if I'm surely missing out on some fan "winks" in the corners of the picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is focused on a family of nature documentarians, and principally Eliza (Chabert), a young girl who can talk to animals as a magical gift bestowed on her by a shaman, but as a condition of the gift, she cannot tell anyone she can speak to them (otherwise the power will go away).  Eliza's prim grandmother (Redgrave) doesn't think that this life is suitable for a young girl, and wants her to be sent away to boarding school, and after Eliza unsuccessfully fights a group of poachers who kidnap her cheetah cub friend, her parents (Curry & Carlisle) agree with her.  At school, her best friend Darwin (Kane), an eloquent chimpanzee, stows away & they get into misadventures, but ultimately decide they must return to Africa to save not just the cheetah cub, but it turns out a group of elephants and her brother & sister, both of whom have been ensnared in the poachers' (Everett & Tomei) scheme.  The film ends with her powers restored, and her self-involved teenage sister now aware of the magic (which Eliza tells her she cannot reveal or else she'll be turned to a baboon).

The movie is cute, and while it doesn't break any new molds (the villains you can see coming a mile away, and none of the jokes are new territory, either visually or as written), it's fun.  It's the kind of movie that even if you're not a fan of the show you'll like-but-not-love, and I suspect getting to flesh out some of the characters, particularly big sister Debbie (Harris, the best part of a rather impressive vocal cast), was a treat for the diehard supporters of the show, finally given their big screen adaptation.

The movie won one Academy Award nomination.  Paul Simon's "Father and Daughter," unlike a number of the other nominated films of 2002 ("Lose Yourself," "I Move On," "The Hands That Built America") actually is part of the film, played as a musical motif throughout the picture, and again over the final credits, making it the first 2002 film I don't have to steal a point from in my rankings (all end credit songs lose one point for not really being a big enough part of the film, unless they also play as a musical cue through the rest of the picture, since the category should award songs with a stronger connection to their film).  It's a fine song, sweet & lovely (Simon knows his way around a lyric), but it's also the one part of the movie I suspect you needed to watch the TV show to enjoy, as while I would assume the relationship between Eliza & her father is crucial to the actual series (they being so similar), it's not a big part of the actual movie & feels a bit too sentimental for a film whose emotions lie elsewhere.

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.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Film: Spider-Man Homecoming (2017)
Stars: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Marisa Tomei, Robert Downey, Jr.
Director: Jon Watts
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

There are few movies I really wanted less than another Spider-Man picture.  I'm well-aware that Disney/Marvel/whatever else they own by now (I'm writing this in mid-October for NaNoWriMo, so if we've renamed the country after them, I wouldn't be that surprised), needed a way to fold Peter Parker into the Avengers saga, but my thoughts going into this were that the movie seemed so unnecessary.  After a very fine first two films with Tobey Maguire, a third movie with him that was wholly unnecessary, and then a pair of completely misguided pictures with Andrew Garfield (who is too cerebral of an actor to ever be a proper matinee idol), I just didn't need to see them attempt it again.  Unlike Fantastic Four, they got it right the first time, and I just didn't require them to try for a third helping after doing it well to start with.  I even vowed to skip the next movie on principle, but then the previews looked good and the reviews were solid and Tom Holland is so cute...and, well, I'm weak, so I slipped into a theater and caught yet another attempt at trying to revive the Spider-Man franchise.

(Spoilers Ahead) The good news is that the movie itself is actually worth the ticket price.  Gone are the over-indulgences of the Andrew Garfield years (the villains-blech), and for the most part we don't have to relive the origin story for Spider-Man this time, which is so great.  I don't need to see poor Uncle Ben die yet again, with Aunt May mourning and Peter vowing revenge.  I don't need to live through the Green Goblin story once more.  It's nice to see a new villain (in this case, Michael Keaton as the Vulture) enter the picture and for them to skip over this aspect of the story because we know it by heart (note-Batman, you can do this too going forward).  By freeing itself from previous iterations and the shackles that come with them, you actually get a fresher movie, one that seems more attuned to actual teenage life, and not just telling the stories of a decades-old comic book.

The film lives and dies on whether or not Tom Holland's Peter Parker is likable, and honestly-he's my favorite Spider-Man, actually by quite a long-shot.  While Spider-Man 2 is arguably the best of the series so far, Holland is a better superhero than Tobey Maguire.  He's far more age appropriate for the role (Maguire was 27 when he first became Peter, Garfield was nearly 30), and actually seems attuned to Peter as a person and not just a means-to-an-end into becoming Spider-Man.  He's also got a movie star charisma that I hadn't seen before from him as an actor, and connects well with the material.  Holland is the sort of actor who should have followed Maguire, someone who could bring a different, lighter energy to one of the comic book characters who is generally the "most fun."  Holland stands as the main reason to see this film, and why a sequel is likely in my viewing future.

That being said, the rest of the film is somewhat middling.  The plot is easy to catch, even the shock of Michael Keaton's daughter being Peter's prom date (Keaton continues his strong streak of downtrodden, menacing men as the Vulture, the other main reason to see this picture), and the jokes are pretty predictable.  Robert Downey, Jr., is actually the best he's been as Iron Man in a long time, but the in-jokes of the Avengers start to lose their spark a bit as they continue, and even the "wow" of celebrity cameos (particularly Gwyneth Paltrow returning to her role as Pepper Potts), can't quite sustain the film on their own merits as it progresses.  I didn't care for the entire "WINK" (all caps on purpose there) that Zendaya was doing to being Peter's future love interest as MJ (also, why couldn't MJ have been a guy this time around-when are we going to get a gay superhero?!?), and I would be fine if they dropped Jon Favreau's character entirely from the remainder of the Avengers films as his gruff, charmless routine went out-of-style years ago.  But with Holland & Keaton at the center, it's difficult not to like this film, and honestly it's probably my favorite installment in the Marvel Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy, if not Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Don't pretend you haven't seen the movie, so get your opinion on in the comments.  Who is your favorite Spider-Man?  Where do you hope this franchise goes with the sequel?  And what should Tom Holland's next non-superhero career move be?  Share below!

Captain America: Civl War (2016)

Film: Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Stars: Chris Evans, Robert Downey, Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Emily VanCamp, Tom Holland, William Hurt, Daniel Bruhl, Marisa Tomei, Alfre Woodard (seriously-what was the casting budget on this movie?!?)
Director: Anthony and Joe Russo
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I grew up with comic books in my house, and so I've always had a slightly weird reaction to the world of comic books becoming so common-place on the big screen.  Unlike other guys who will spend hours upon hours rehashing different multiverse theories and the intricacies of universes in the current Marvel world, I can't keep up there, but I do still read the occasional comic book (especially after one of these movies I'll sneak out and buy a few from my local store just to check in like fans of a soap opera), and feel a kinship with my youth when my brother and I would spend our allowance at the local Pamida buying up the latest installments.  We were definitively a Marvel household, and so seeing all of these characters come to life on the big screen, all of these Avengers that we had seen dance across the page, it's truly a wonderful experience and I try not to be one of "those guys" who name-checks facts and dates about every character on the screen to their friends who aren't as familiar and just want to go to the latest awesome superhero movie.

What continues to stun me, though, is how the movies have really reshaped in a lot of ways my thoughts on the comic books at large.  After all, the comic books that I loved growing up aren't remotely the same as the movies that I've gravitated toward.  X-Men, probably the comics I have read the most of through the years, never really felt right as they were too focused on a specific mutant at the cinema (Wolverine, then Professor X, and now Mystique), but what made that series so special was that it was a group of individuals, and you didn't know if the next story-line would center on one of the major headliners or just a sideline character getting their moment in the sun (who else is pumped that Jubilee is finally going to be in a movie?!?).  My favorite comic books as a child were Fantastic Four, and yet their movies have been a complete and utter travesty-I'm still flummoxed how they have managed to botch my beloved family of superheroes so often, and how I'll probably never get a definitive motion picture (though I'll eternally be indebted to Chris Evans for bringing my crush on Johnny Storm so perfectly to life).  Instead, the best movies have been centered around arguably one of my least favorite comic book heroes, Captain America.  I always found him to be a bit blase, not as morally complicated or interesting as a Wolverine or Incredible Hulk, and not as much fun as the Human Torch or Black Widow.  And yet, Chris Evans' incarnation of Captain America is such a joy, and his films are the ones that come the closest to reliving that magic of my youth onscreen, the comic books I fell so deeply in-love with and escaped into when I was feeling blue.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is a preamble to tell you that I once again left Captain America's third outing (from the looks of things his final outing as a solo venture) duly impressed.  The film centers around, once again, Captain America's complicated relationship with Bucky Barnes (aka the Winter Soldier), who is once again wanted for murder, this time for blowing up the United Nations building, and in turn killing the king of an African nation.  This is amidst a growing fear of the Avengers, and a powerful retribution for the destruction that they are bringing about to the world.  The idea of holding superheroes accountable for their actions is hardly new, but it's become the centerfold of almost every single superhero picture in recent years so I was curious how Civil War would handle it (there are people in those "Hulk Smash!" buildings, and they aren't just extras anymore).  There's a terrificly acted scene with Alfre Woodard early on in the picture (sadly, she doesn't become one of the Avengers later on), where she essentially admonishes Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark for destroying her world, even as he thought he was trying to save it.  It was arguably one of the most impressive monologues I've seen in a Marvel picture, and kudos to Woodard for not making it feel like a cliche.

Stark's newfound moral compass (though really-isn't Stark always finding his moral compass again and again in these pictures, only to seemingly lose it again by the start of the next movie?) leads to a break between he and Captain America, as Stark wants to be under the control of the UN while Captain America doesn't feel that he can be held down in that manner, despite the consequences.  Battle lines are brought forth, with alliances like Black Widow and War Machine joining Tony Stark while the likes of the Falcon and the Scarlet Witch go with Captain America.  All-the-while, at the center is the Winter Soldier, who is being framed for a series of crimes by an agent-of-chaos (Bruhl), whose intentions quite frankly never feel properly revealed, except that he wants to destroy the Avengers.

The film's best moments, and what was always so incredible about the comic books but hasn't been realized cinematically until now, is that you don't always needs a villain.  Frequently the infighting of groups like The Avengers (or X-Men or Fantastic Four) were the most compelling moments of the written pages, giving us insight into the desires of the superheroes that didn't just rely on them saving the universe.  That is true of Civil War, where we see Steve Rogers stand by his principles and his best friend of a hundred years or so even while Tony Stark, his new commander whose stance isn't without merit, becomes his enemy and they largely split up by the end of the picture.  The movie is, without question, the best Avengers movie that has been created so far.  Unlike the two actual films that claim the group in their title, Civil War feels like an ensemble, one that gives time to each character without it ever feeling like a checklist.  Perhaps because some of this film's stars aren't as large as the likes of Mark Ruffalo or Chris Hemsworth at this point (though it feels like Chadwick Boseman and Tom Holland will soon be able to demand more respect in this regard) you are able to have a tale without an equal amount of story going to a different character, and since you know the central focus will be on Captain America, you aren't bummed you didn't get to have more time with a Thor or an Ant-Man.

The film is not without its faults, of course.  While the central Avengers vs. Avengers battle was truly wonderful, and I loved the introduction of Spider-Man, there are still problems.  RDJ can land a one-liner with aplomb, but his Tony Stark is constantly rehashing the same memories, and I know it's part of Tony Stark's origin story, but this episode felt a little bit too Batman for me toward the end.  For every character that felt fresh (Ant-Man-I haven't seen his stand-alone yet, but it's now on the To Do list) or interesting (the Black Panther was my favorite new character to the series, and I think Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is still the best element of the original core Avengers), you are left with some characters that feel underwritten (War Machine, Scarlet Witch), and too preachy (Vision).  Also, I am still coming to grips with the television-like aspect of these films, which feels cool in the moment but I can't quite get my hands around the fact that it feels never-ending, and while that mirrors the comic books, most stories even there eventually came to an end.

Before I leave, I do want to say one thing because it's been highlighted a little bit in the press tour.  I think it's incredible that we have a major motion picture that has three black leads in the cast (Cheadle, Mackie, and Boseman), but the Marvel movies still haven't quite gotten to the diversity of the actual comic books quite yet.  I'm stunned, considering she's about to get her own stand-alone film that they didn't go for Captain Marvel in this picture.  Maybe they're saving Carol Danvers for a future picture-perhaps Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2?, but it's a bummer that we don't have a Bechdel Test pass for this particular movie.  My biggest qualm, though, is I wish we'd finally see a gay character in one of these movies.  For all of the talk (and there's a lot of it), about how actors and studios want to feature more gay characters in blockbusters, it never actually happens.  I'm sick and tired of clearly homosexual elements in films (come on, Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes are really close for friends), being the only thing that we get on-film.  My vote would be that they make Spider-Man gay or bisexual, even though Sony and Stan Lee aren't there for it, as it would make so much sense within the confines of his character (loner, outcast, really close with his aunt), but really it's time to have a gay character on the big screen that we can root for and not just see at an art-house or as a side character on an ABC sitcom.  The GLBT community deserves a seat at the table, and if Marvel/Disney want to put their (insanely huge amount of) money where their mouth is, it's time to go there.

Those are my thoughts (more of them than I initially thought I'd have) on the latest installment of the Captain America franchise.  What are your thoughts?  What are you hoping for next in the Marvel saga?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Women and the Best Picture Race

There have been a number of conversations about diversity at the Oscars this year, and while I was going to write an article on the subject, Nathaniel Rogers over at the Film Experience beat me to it, and did it so well that I feel that linking is the best way to add to the conversation (though please read through it if you want to have a conversation to improve diversity in Hollywood and not just want to complain about the Oscars).  As a result of this, but still wanting to contribute to the conversation, I decided to comment on something that actually got better this year than last year, though it's not where we want it to be yet (optimism is out-of-vogue on the internet, but I figured I'd give it a shot) and that is the amount of women that are in the Best Picture field.

As you may recall from last year, only one of the eight nominees for Best Picture featured a woman in a leading role (The Theory of Evrything's Felicity Jones), and only half of the films managed to pass the Bechdel Test.  This year we actually have a rosier picture, even if movies like Carol didn't manage to make it into the conversation, as nearly half of the films feature a female lead in their picture.  The rest of the field may have had some room for improvement, but let's take a rundown of the eight Best Pictures and the roles that women played in each of them (Spoilers Ahead for all eight films so if you haven't seen one, skip, only read the rest, and bookmark for a later date)

Film: The Big Short
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1? (I hate the IMDB method of only going with first person onscreen-list by order in the cast credits!).  As a result, I don't know if it was Finn Wittrock or in fact Marisa Tomei or Melissa Leo in the fifth position.  Let's go benefit of the doubt and assume it's Marisa Tomei even though screen-time wise it's not remotely her.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character? Wife
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Absolutely nothing-she becomes a bit of a sounding board for Steve Carell, but really there's little she has to do with the film's resolution.
Does She Have a Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: No, she doesn't-we never see Tomei outside of her life that involves her husband.
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Bridge of Spies
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Amy Ryan)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's in the final scene of the movie if I recall correctly (or at least near it), but she's mostly just there to remind James Donovan of what normalcy is in his world.  Her life has little bearing on the outcome of the picture.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: No, she does not.  Amy's Mary is little more than window dressing in this film, someone who is there to support, occasionally cajole, but ultimately I don't know that she even has any scenes that don't feature her husband (she definitely doesn't have any scenes that don't center upon him).
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Brooklyn
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Saoirse Ronan and Julie Walters)
What Is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: With Ronan, she's actually the main character as this is one of the steps in the right direction in this category.  For Walters, she plays Ronan's landlord.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Ronan is an integral part of the ending of the film, and actually shapes her own narrative even if it is ultimately about deciding on a man (still, it's on deciding specifically which man she wants to be with which is very empowering).  For Walters, she really only features into the first half of the film, so she has no bearing on the ending.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: Again, Ronan is the main character and most definitely has an evolution of her own, even outside of the main character.  For Walters, she does as well-she's been a landlord for years, has scenes interacting with her other female tenants, and while she rarely (if ever?) appears in a scene without Ronan's Eilis, it's clear she has other relationships in the film.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Constantly-the film's first half in particular is all about the relationships women have with each other and the common struggle of female immigrants in particular.

Film: Mad Max: Fury Road
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Charlize Theron and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley)
What Is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: While Tom Hardy's Mad Max may get top-billing and the film uses his character for the title, this is all about the Imperator Furiosa, so this is another case where one of the women is in fact the main character.  In the case of Huntington-Whiteley's Splendid Angharad, she is one of the women that Furiosa is trying to save.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: In the end Furiosa ends up the savior of the Citadel, riding in as their new leader and essentially taking over.  Huntington-Whiteley has little bearing on the ending, but she too manages to at least live until the end and is welcomed back into the Citadel.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: This is true of both women.  Furiosa has been pining to get to her home of the Green Place and Max is incidental to this goal, while The Splendid Angharad has had a pretty crappy life up until this point, but it's clearly established and gets a personality distinct from the other wives.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-it's a little hard to follow on this front because names aren't often given out and when they are they don't sound like names, but I'm fairly confident that the wives and the Vuvalini all get names at some point, and they have multiple discussions about their journey and the Green Place, so I'm going with a pass.

Film: The Martian
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Jessica Chastain and Kate Mara)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: In the case of Chastain's Commander Melissa Lewis, she's his boss and in the case of Kate Mara's Beth, she's a fellow crew mate on his ship.
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While both women are involved in Mark's rescue, in the case of Chastain in particular she plays a pretty integral role as she has to suspend and risk her life in order to save Mark from Mars.
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character?: Again, with Chastain this isn't really well-established.  We see her having interactions with other characters, and her job is clearly important to her, but Mark Watney is her focus for almost the entire film and she doesn't really get a side story.  Mara, on the other hand, gets a romantic interest (and it's Sebastian Stan, no less), and so I'd say yes for her getting a life outside of Mark since she has relationships established outside of his world.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-I had to look this one up as I couldn't remember an instance of this happening, but it does appear that Chastain and Mara discuss decompressing the ship, so this is pass.

Film: The Revenant
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: None-this is the only film (The Big Short is a question mark) where we can unequivocally state that there are no women in the top billed stars.  Grace Dove is the top billed actress for the movie as far as I can tell even though she doesn't have a line, though Melaw Nakehk'o gets a character with a line and a name, it's worth noting.  For the purposes of this exercise we'll stick with the higher-billed Dove as that's who the film spends more time upon.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Dead wife
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While she is in some ways a driving force in the film, that role more accurately falls upon her son, in which case absolutely none.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: Literally none-she's dead the entire movie, and as a result only exists in his own flashbacks and premonitions, so this isn't really an option for her.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Not even close.  Nakehk'o has the only named female character, and she gets one line that is used toward a man.

Film: Room
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Brie Larson and Joan Allen)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: For the third time this year, we have a film where a female character (in this case Larson's Joy) is the main character.  Joan Allen plays her mother.
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Joy's a central part of the conclusion, and the final moments of the film actually return to her narrative, even if we always see the film through Jack's eyes (except in the last moment where Joy has to contemplate what Room was to her).  Allen's role is largely ancillary to the final conclusion of the film.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: This is a complicated question, especially since by limits of geography Joy doesn't have a role outside the main character but she frequently has to deal with troubles that don't involve Jack, and has to sort through her own mental issues after her breakdown during the interview.  Joan Allen's character also has a boyfriend and has dealt with relationships apart from Joy and Jack, so I'd also count her as a yes here.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes, the film has multiple scenes between Joy and Joan Allen's Nancy, including discussions of their relationship and the trauma of the kidnapping.

Film: Spotlight
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Rachel McAdams)
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: I'm going to assume here that Keaton is considered the main character, even though he's not top-billed, in which case her relationship is employee of him.  This is more of an ensemble piece, though, so it's hard to say.
What Role Does She Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's definitely a part of the finale, waiting and answering calls and playing a crucial role in the writing of the Catholic priest/pedophile story.
Does She Have a Role Outside the Main Character?: A lot has been made about McAdams' Oscar nomination and how the role she's playing feels pretty lackadaisical or that she's merely playing "the girl," but it's worth noting that she does have a life outside of the main characters, as her home life and relationship with her family/faith is also discussed in the picture, so I'd say this is a definitive "yes."
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: It's questionable.  McAdams' Sacha does have a conversation with her grandmother about her story, but her grandmother is never given a name other than "Nana" so I don't know that that counts under the rules of the Bechdel Test.  You can decide in the comments below.

And speaking of, there are the eight Best Pictures.  All-in-all, probably not where we'd need to go (it's still be nice to hit 50/50 and to have all passes for the Bechdel Test) but a decided improvement over last year.  Share your thoughts on the Best Picture race and favorite female character moments in them below!

OVP: The Big Short (2015)

Film: The Big Short (2015)
Stars: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Brad Pitt, Melissa Leo, Hamish Linklater, John Magaro, Rafe Spall, Jeremy Strong, Finn Wittrock, Marisa Tomei
Director: Adam McKay
Oscar History: 5 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay*, Supporting Actor-Christian Bale, Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I reacted to The Big Short in the same way I did The Martian a few months ago when I first heard about it: "really, another one?"  Coming so soon after The Wolf of Wall Street (in the same way The Martian felt like a retread of Interstellar) I wasn't sure I wanted to once again get into the bro-tastic world of Wall Street and the financial crisis, even if Adam McKay had hired Ryan Gosling, Brad Pitt, and Finn Wittrock, the first two being two of my favorite actors working and the latter fast becoming one.  Then the shock of the Globes/SAG Awards happened, and suddenly The Big Short had gone from being a retread to a serious contender for the Academy Awards, and viewing it stopped being optional.  Thankfully for at least most of the movie I wasn't punished for my Oscar devotion, as The Big Short is largely quite watchable, and we get some game moments from almost every person on the cast sheet.  However, a third act that feels a little bit too self-righteous steals a lot of the fun and thunder of the first two-thirds, almost vanquishing the movie in the process.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about the housing crisis, and unlike The Wolf of Wall Street it gets technical, frequently throwing around terms that would normally have audiences reaching for the cell phones to look them up on Google, but thankfully Adam McKay found a way around it.  I don't know if other critics have found this gimmicky or not (I don't read other reviews before I see a film, at least once I've decided to see the film) but I loved the fourth wall breaking when it was done by celebrities.  Nothing quite topped Margot Robbie randomly appearing as herself in a bathtub, but later appearances by Anthony Bourdain and Selena Gomez were also hilariously on-point, and weirdly informational.  Note to politicians and professors-get celebrities to record your lectures and you'll get people to pay more attention.

This gimmick and the occasional fourth wall break sets the film apart in some ways (though if I recall correctly Leo did the same thing in Wolf of Wall Street-correct me in the comments if I'm wrong!), and honestly the film is highly watchable up until the actual collapse.  All of the male actors, even those who are overplaying their parts (namely Carell and Bale, both pretty lousy at reeling back their characters overblown tics) have at least one great moment in the film, and frequently seeing the ways that Wall Street/the financial industry (and the government is included in that) were rigged against even those who should have been profiting off of their stupidity is fascinating and frightening at the same time.  The film plays in some ways as a horror comedy, as we watch the foolishness of some people and the greed of others threaten to take down the entire financial system and the world economy.  It's staggering in hindsight, but even more staggering to see how infallible everyone seemed to the effects of the system, and one wonders if this was even underplayed to make the movie appear more believable.

The final third of the film, though, where everyone who has been trying to make an enormous profit off of this stupidity gets their payoff and suddenly grows a conscience, is weak.  We see characters played by Bale, Carell, and even Gosling lose their inner stamina and despite making a career off of the greed of others and winning big, they don't like the way that they made the money and try to be the moral police in all of this when in reality they become multimillionaires off of the anguish of the American populace.  They may have wished the system wasn't the way it was, but the system being broken made them richer than their wildest dreams, and the screenplay can't really reconcile that.  Still, up until that point it's a pretty fun ride, and I particularly loved Gosling (such a welcome presence back on the screen in his "I'm ridiculously beautiful and talented" sort of way), Pitt (the only believable moral police), and Wittrock (who is insanely watchable as a guy trying to find his way into "the game").  All-in-all, it's worth the price of admission but the awards love seems a bit much.

Those are my thoughts-how about you?  Did you like, but not love The Big Short, and if not, where did your opinion differ from mine?  Who was the best-in-show amongst the cast members?  And what'd you think of the celebrity cameos?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Supporting Actress (2008)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2008)

The Nominees Were...

Amy Adams, Doubt
Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis, Doubt
Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler

My Thoughts: In one of those truly rare moments for this category, all five of these women are actually in supporting roles.  Almost always there's at least one lead performance that sneaks in, and quite frankly there almost was with Kate Winslet dominating the precursor awards before The Reader managed to sneak her into Best Actress, a blessing for this category (though less so for Sally Hawkins, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Winslet herself, all of whom were vying for that fifth Best Actress slot), resulting in a very competitive race for the Oscar and women who actually seem like they should be here.  As a result, we'll start out with the woman who benefited most from the Academy's good sense, Penelope Cruz.

Cruz is in the only film we haven't really discussed yet, as this is Vicky Cristina Barcelona's only Oscar nomination.  It seems odd that Woody was able to score an acting nomination when he couldn't for writing (this almost never happens), but it's easy to see what led them to Cruz-the film lives off of her energy.  Here is the Penelope we always dreamed of onscreen, where she casually throws her intense sexuality around, vivaciously owning everyone onscreen, and creating a great, outward performance without ever resorting to scenery-chewing.  I love the way you can see her Maria Elena plotting, thinking-this is a woman who wears everything on her face, and Cruz knows this-she doesn't hide that she's emotional, just what her next move is.  I love the care that Cruz gives her, and I love that she effervesces so much under Woody's minimalist direction.

The same cannot quite be said for Taraji P. Henson.  Henson has become such a treasure both onscreen and off since then (she's always super fun in interviews), and has clearly had talent for years, but this isn't what you'd generally consider her best work, even if it's her most-noted.  Her work is all surface-level, frequently attractive surface-level, but surface-level nonetheless.  The film doesn't really care about her Queenie, and so she has to be gregarious and a bit over-the-top to gain attention in Benjamin Button, but as a result we never really learn much about the woman behind Queenie, and Henson never goes beyond the script here to show it.

Marisa Tomei is in a similar situation with The Wrestler.  This is one of those performances where the critics and I probably differed the most.  I do get the appeal-Tomei is too intriguing of a performer for this not to feel like a particularly interesting role, and I love the way that she alternates between her world one-on-one with Randy and the one that she has in the club.  However, that's about all I have because I thought so much of this felt surface-level as well.  Tomei is too interesting of a performer to not be watchable, but I feel like the film and she are only interested in Randy, and not in her Cassidy.  As a result, there always feels like there's something missing in the film, with Tomei holding back on some key ingredient.

The final two women are the Doubt-ers.  Amy Adams gets the considerably larger role of the two women, but I just don't fly with this particular piece.  I secretly was hoping that she'd have a little more than flighty protest in her, and there's not really a scene where she stands out as a performer, even though it's easy to see how she stands out in her character.  Even in her vain protests about Father Flynn's theoretical innocence, she cannot carry the film against Streep's massive personality, and so frequently in a film filled with bombast, she's on the sidelines, squeaking "me too!"  It's probably in her character, but Adams doesn't find more in the character like she would in a film like Junebug, and this feels too surface-level.  We never understand her motives as a character, and we're left more with Adams' charms as a screen presence, but not great acting.

Viola Davis, on the other hand, proves that there are no small parts, only incredibly talented actors who know their big moment has arrived.  Davis in roughly ten minutes of screen-time completely steals the movie, playing Mrs. Miller as a woman with so many secrets.  Her scene with Streep is so good-at first she's just in a hurry, defensive, and then she slowly starts to play more and more cards.  The way that she has such a complete understanding of her son and the way she says "it's just til June," you get the sense that she knows more of what is happening than anyone involved, and has been desperate for someone to talk to, even though she continually holds back.  It's the sort of work that could have been much bigger or much larger, but Davis knows that she needs to hold back to maintain the questions surrounding Father Flynn's guilt.  There's a reason that Meryl Streep proclaimed, "somebody give her a movie!"

Other Precursor Contenders: Like many of the precursors, the illusion that Kate Winslet was supporting in The Reader stuck here, with her emerging victorious while replacing Taraji P. Henson from the lineup (all of the other acting contenders stuck around).  The SAG Awards also chose her, with Marisa Tomei getting the boot there.  BAFTA had a slightly different take on the matter, though, with Winslet being nominated in lead, so Penelope Cruz was able to take the trophy, but again we were left without Taraji P. Henson and in this case Viola Davis, as Freida Pinto in Slumdog Millionaire and Tilda Swinton in Burn After Reading both were considered.  While it's obvious to assume that Winslet was in sixth place (or, quite frankly she was considerably higher but wasn't eligible despite already being listed in lead), I wonder who else was right behind her.  I suspect that had they expanded the field a little wider it would have gotten several names like RoseMarie DeWitt (Rachel Getting Married) or Evan Rachel Wood (The Wrestler).  Or it would have been my worst nightmare realized and Freida Pinto's awful work in Slumdog Millionaire would have made the cut.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Surely I would have found room for Catherine Deneuve in A Christmas Tale, who brings sublime restraint to her cancer-ridden matriarch, and I definitely would have included Debra Winger's bitter mother in Rachel Getting Married (another role, like Davis, who found a lot to do with very little screen time).

Oscar’s Choice: Without the default answer of Winslet, this was likely a battle between Cruz, Davis, and Tomei, with Cruz having the showier role and Woody's magic with Supporting Actresses, so she won (she also had massive momentum at the time, though she never seems to work anymore).

My Choice: Like Oscar it's a battle between Davis and Cruz, but I'm going to go with Davis who does more with less and gives, in my opinion, the female performance of the year.  Cruz follows, with Henson, Adams, and Tomei behind. With this win Viola Davis becomes our first actor to take two OVP's. 

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone agree with Cruz as Oscar's choice, or are you with me that it should have been Viola?  Anyone want to make the case that Kate Winslet was actually supporting?  And what names other than Kate and these five were close to an Oscar nomination?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2008: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2008

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013