OVP: Actress (2003)

OVP: Best Actress (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Keisha Castle-Hughes, Whale Rider

Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give

Samantha Morton, In America

Charlize Theron, Monster

Naomi Watts, 21 Grams

My Thoughts: I sometimes feel like an old man (which depending on your birth certificate, I may well be) when I talk about old Oscar races, but it's hard to impress how wild of a ride 2003's Best Actress race was.  Even compared to recent fields (like this year's crazy, frontrunner-less year), 2003's nominations got bonkers with only two names showing up in most of the precursors (and not a single name landing in all of them), and the remainder feeling totally influx throughout the season (just wait until we get to the precursors below).  We'll start with the two names, though, that never felt in doubt with Oscar all year long.

Charlize Theron, it's hard to remember in 2003, was not considered a particularly compelling actress.  Beautiful, yes, but she had largely stuck to "girlfriend/wife" roles until that point, and when she saw her break playing totally against type in Monster, she took it.  Theron has been called one of the great performances to ever win this award, and to some degree I find that to be hyperbole.  I think she's excellent, inhabiting Aileen Wuornos & humanizing her in a way that probably works better in fiction than in a biopic (the sympathy for serial killers angle always feels like a tightrope considering the lives they ended up destroying even if they started out from sheer horror like Wuornos clearly did).  I don't think she lands the romantic arches with Christina Ricci (there's not enough chemistry there), and I also feel like some of her shock appeal is the makeup doing heavy-lifting because we know what she really looks like, but this is a worthy nomination, even if I don't think it's an all-timer.

Diane Keaton was having yet another comeback in 2003 (her last, to date, with Oscar), and like Theron, there are moments where it doesn't quite work.  I don't know that she had enough chemistry with Keanu Reeves late in the movie for my taste, never quite making it work the same way as with Jack (and there are moments it feels like she's playing Diane Keaton more than her character).  But this is minor quibbling about a terrific performance.  Playing a woman who has found immense success in every avenue of life except love, and then having that be a bumpy, fraught, vulnerable journey for her rather than a simple rom-com...Keaton sells a woman who had settled for her life, even if she always knew there could be more.  It's great stuff from one of the best of her generation.

I feel a little bad ragging on child performers, particularly since I know my brother reads this blog & will be guarding his beloved Whale Rider with mama bear arms, but Keisha Castle-Hughes doesn't work with me.  There's naturalism in a performance, and then there's just not emoting enough, and I think she's more in the second half.  It doesn't help that her script is hackneyed and filled with coming-of-age cliche that even the most skilled of performers wouldn't have been able to bring to life, but I wasn't into this the way that so many were...bonus points to the Academy, though, for putting her in the correct category as this is 1000% a lead performance.

Samantha Morton is better with naturalism in In America.  She plays her mother as a real, complicated figure, someone who can have horny sex with her husband (strong chemistry between Morton & Paddy Considine), while also having great anger toward him later in the movie & still make it feel believable.  Morton's work is informed by grief, her Sarah knows that she can never fill the void left by the death of her son, and just wants someone to blame because blaming no one is the worst punishment.  Morton was capping off a truly impressive run in the late-1990's & early-2000's with this her second (and final) nomination, and while it was a surprise, it was a pleasant one from Oscar.

Our final nomination cannot get the same compliment.  Naomi Watts has been nominated for a My Ballot Award before for King Kong and was in sixth place for The Painted Veil-I consider myself a fan.  But she is actively terrible in 21 Grams and I will never understand why Oscar chose this as the moment to honor her, one of the worst performances of her career.  She is constantly screaming, constantly angry, acting as if there's nothing underneath her hostility toward the world, nothing that existed prior to the confines of the movie.  This, like her nomination for The Impossible, feels like they're nominating the role more than the actress, and that these movies (and not something unique & film-fitting like Kong) are where she got her nominations will never not confuse me. 

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have eleven women nominated for these awards.  For Drama it's Theron besting Cate Blanchett (Veronica Guerin), Scarlett Johansson (Girl with a Pearl Earring), Nicole Kidman (Cold Mountain), Uma Thurman (Kill Bill: Volume 1), & Evan Rachel Wood (Thirteen), while for Comedy/Musical it's Keaton over Jamie Lee Curtis (Freaky Friday), Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation), Diane Lane (Under the Tuscan Sun), & Helen Mirren (Calendar Girls).  SAG gave us Theron as the winner over Keaton, Watts, Wood, & Patricia Clarkson (The Station Agent) while at the BAFTA Awards it was Johansson (Lost in Translation) winning over Watts, Johansson (for Girl), Thurman, & Anne Reid (The Mother) (due to release schedule issues, Theron wasn't eligible until the next year with BAFTA, which used to happen a lot more there than it does now, and she was nominated but lost that season).  All of this is to say-who the hell knows who was in sixth place...there are thirteen names just listed and only three of them made it with Oscar, and that's not counting that for much of the race Jennifer Connelly (House of Sand and Fog) was considered something of a favorite.  If I had to guess, thanks to Johansson's campaign being royally botched, it was probably Wood, but this was a bizarre race & one that I still can't figure out.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Similar to our comments for Return of the King, it's hard to know where to put Uma Thurman's work in Kill Bill exactly since it's one great performance split in half, but it's a darned shame that Oscar didn't make room for her in either 2003 or 2004.

Oscar’s Choice: There was no beating Theron-that trophy was undeniably hers...Keaton didn't stand a prayer, and she was obviously in second.

My Choice: I'm going to go with Keaton, who gives the stronger character arc without the need for prosthetics to enhance the performance, against Theron (I also, to be fair, like Keaton's movie way better as I didn't like Monster at all and in a close race, that matters).  Morton is third, with Castle-Hughes & Watts falling behind.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Are you with Oscar & Theron, or do you dare to be different with Diane & I?  Why do you think that Oscar has the worst taste in Naomi Watts movies?  And who the hell was in sixth place here?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

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

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

OVP: 21 Grams (2003)

Film: 21 Grams (2003)
Stars: Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Naomi Watts, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Danny Huston, Melissa Leo
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Actress-Naomi Watts, Supporting Actor-Benicio del Toro)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

We're continuing on with a throwback to 2003 again (as you might have seen this morning, 2003 is where a lot of my viewing focus is right now in terms of the movies that are coming from Netflix DVD), with 21 Grams, the other Sean Penn movie from 2003.  That year, Penn got all of his movement for Mystic River, and from that movie he finally won an Oscar.  I kind of wondered, though, if it was just the "time" for Penn to win, and if he'd have just as easily been the victor for 21 Grams, which obviously didn't slouch in the acting nominations, scoring for Naomi Watts (in Best Actress), and to fit our theme, Benicio del Toro (in Best Supporting Actor).  Before we discuss the three performances, though, let's go into the movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is, much like AGI's later film Babel, a tale of intersecting stories that eventually start to merge.  Unlike Babel, though, the film is told completely out-of-sequence, so as an audience you come to realize that you're seeing pictures of three central characters lives that will eventually merge together in a distinct order.  You have Paul (Penn), who is dying of a heart condition and is trying to create a child with his wife Mary (Gainsbourg) before he dies, Cristina (Watts), a former drug addict who now lives a suburban life with her husband (Huston) & two children, and Jack (del Toro) a former convict who becomes a born-again Christian and lives with his wife Marianne (Leo).  All of this falls apart when Jack accidentally kills Cristina's husband-and-children in a car accident, a car accident that eventually leads to her husband giving his heart to Paul. All three figures lives fall out-of-control, with Paul having an affair with Cristina, and Jack wanting to turn himself in despite Marianne's protestations.

Things get worse for all three before ultimately two of them (Jack & Cristina) find some redemption while Paul ends up dying (which is what he wants at that point in the film, to be honest), but you get the idea of what we're dealing with here.  AGI is arguably the most "important" modern filmmaker whose work I do not get.  I have liked exactly one of his movies (Birdman), but otherwise it always feels like he's making us watch people be tortured with little narrative payoff.  21 Grams might hit a new low on that front, to be honest.  The movie borders on torture porn the way that it grimly portrays all characters involved, and because of the (nonsensical-I don't understand this creative decision at all) scenes being out-of-sequence, we never get any sense of what these people's lives were like when they were happy.  The only character that gives any sense of normalcy in the film (and is my favorite part of the cast) is Melissa Leo's Marianne, who feels like a real person and not just a vessel for these people's woes to flow through.

Del Toro is the best of the central three figures.  This isn't in the same league as his strong work in Traffic, but it's at least an interesting characterization.  There's something there, even if the script is drowning out the character, and you always feel like given more room to breathe he'd find his way...though it's hard to give too much credit for a performance that is theory rather than practice.  Watts, though, is...bad.  I know that's mean (and I love her in other things like The Painted Veil or King Kong), but I don't get this at all.  This feels like the sort of nomination that happens when an actor has been a big deal for too long and the Academy is starting to look foolish for not nominating them at least once, but there's so little range in her emotions as Cristina.  Watts' portrays her as constantly screaming, constantly angry, as if there's no "formerly at peace" person underneath, despite that being a part of the script.  The movie does her no service, it's true, but I feel both she and Penn are giving in to the anguish of the script without adding any sort of texture to their work.

Luce (2019)

Film: Luce (2019)
Stars: Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, Kelvin Harrison, Jr., Tim Roth
Director: Julius Onah
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Is anyone else struggling with finding the quality films of 2019?  I have been trying (largely in vain) in the past few days to get to a couple more 2019 movies, particularly arthouse films that are under-the-radar in hopes of getting some stronger year-end honors, especially in acting categories.  Considering the trailers were eerie, and that Octavia Spencer is one of my favorite actors working right now, Luce felt about as good of a reason to go to the movies as I had thought, but about two-thirds of the way into the movie, I realized that I was watching a movie that I didn't really know how it was going to end...and not in a good way.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on Luce (Harrison), an all-star athlete who is supposed to be 17 but could only pass for such on Dawson's Creek (Harrison is a handsome man, but is 25 in real life and that's about how old he looks in this movie).  He seems to have the perfect life-wealthy parents, a great track career, exemplary grades...the kind of kid you want to root for, and the fact that he grew up in a war zone and overcame such obstacles makes everyone in his world, particularly the white authority figures at school go out-of-their-way to encourage him.  The only person who doesn't seem to celebrate Luce is his teacher Harriet Wilson (Spencer), a single woman who teaches him history and is disturbed by Luce writing a paper where he has to take on the characteristics of an historic figure, and he chooses one who advocates violence.  Harriet brings this to Luce's mother Amy (Watts), who at first thinks that Harriet is over-reacting, but then starts to reconsider as she begins to navigate the son she might not know as well as she thought.

The film deals with a lot of major issues, and this is arguably what attracted such impressive talent (Spencer, Roth, & Watts are all Oscar nominees, after all) to the picture, but it's also the film's downfall.  The movie tries to function under-the-guise of a thriller, but in doing so it makes the depictions onscreen problematic, and frequently going into the intensely offensive.  The movie has subplots that include having a black woman, playing someone struggling with mental illness, storm nude into a school (she's the sister of Spencer's Harriet) as a way of trying to bring down Harriet, and it's largely implied that Luce is helping to instigate this humiliation...yet the nudity and humiliation feed little plot purpose.  Later in the film, we see a young woman who may well have been sexually-assaulted (the film isn't clear here), but also lies about her assault as a way to discredit Harriet, all while trying to help Luce gain points on her.

As a result, we are left with a film that heavily implies that a woman will lie about her own assault just to take down another woman to help her boyfriend, and that a couple of white parents will destroy the life of an innocent woman of color while also letting another woman of color bear the burden for a sexual assault that, if it happened, almost certainly involved their son.  And we're not really supposed to care too much about either of those two actions if we also buy the movie's final moments.  The film tries to have it both ways, making us challenge our assumptions about what we think about Luce, but also making him almost certainly do things that we would universally consider to be bad (without punishment).  The film ends with Luce running, potentially feeling either relief or joy for having removed Harriet from his life and letting unspoken realities of his home life (where his father, at the very least, didn't really want him) surface, but I just left thinking this was a spaghetti-against-the-wall strategy-where you throw in enough social issues that the audience gets confused into thinking they're watching an important issue film when in reality they're just watching squandered talent pitch a movie whose script makes little sense.  Spencer & Harrison are both good in their roles (Spencer gets a part that's very atypical to what she's usually thrown, and aces it), but it's hard to recommend either of them when a movie is such a giant, borderline-offensive mess.

The Best and Worst Dressed at this Year's Oscars

While I will be continuing on with the OVP for 2015 and finishing up a few reviews from some of the nominated films (including the Live Action Shorts, of which I did catch Monday to continue my streak!), this will be the last review regarding the actual Oscars themselves.  If you missed it earlier this week, here was my review of the ceremony in general, but now we're going to dive into that other aspect of the Oscars everyone loves so well, the fashions.  This year, while it wasn't nearly as exciting for me fashion-wise as it usually is (despite having some of my favorite fashion plates there), there's always something to love (and something to eyeroll) so let's take a look.

Best-Dressed

10. Cate Blanchett in Armani Prive

I know this was one of those love-it-or-hate-it dresses, but I was in the former's camp.  I loved the coloring, the way that Blanchett is constantly just going for broke in terms of fashion (name me anyone else who could pull off a dress this complicated so well on the red carpet), and her continual push to break up the solo-shade, strapless army of dresses that cascade through the red carpet.

9. Tina Fey in Versace

I'm going to be honest here, I don't recall ever putting Tina Fey on a best-dressed list, as usually her red carpet looks aren't my style, but this va-va-voom dress (of course from Versace) is a treat and a great way to stand-out since it's so a-characteristic of Fey's usual.  Bonus points to making the necklace pop with an up-do.

8. Kate Winslet in Ralph Lauren

The other love-it-or-hate-it dress that I was enamored with, Kate Winslet's "oil-slick" dress, as others were calling it out, was eye-popping and may have been the first time in years that an unadorned black dress on the red carpet actually worked for me.  I love the long tresses in a year where up-do's were everywhere, and the color in the earrings popped nicely against the neutral coloring of the gown.

7. Priyanka Chopra in Zuhair Murad

Chopra made a splash in her first Oscars appearance.  The white translucent gown is gorgeous and ties neatly with the costume-jewelry style rings, but I think what really sets this apart for me is the belt.  I'm not wild about belts and gowns intertwining, but it's so striking and doesn't feel added-on but as part of the dress that it was a big win for me.

6. Margot Robbie in Tom Ford

I'm in love with this Margot Robbie gown.  Combining "hey Oscar notice me!" gold with a gorgeously sexy cut ala Dynasty, and then tied together with a handbag that has a sleek black trail. Black-and-gold is such a tough combo to tackle without looking gaudy, but for me this was a romping success.

5. Brie Larson in Gucci

I know some have called this a prom dress, but teenage girls should be so lucky.  The skirt is elegant and I love the way it feathers, the belt ornaments the dress nicely and keeps it from not being washed out, and I like that we actually get straps here as I feel like no one goes there anymore.

4. Jennifer Garner in Atelier Versace

Looking good is the bet revenge, and every year we see at least one jilted actress on the red carpet get a chorus of "what was he thinking?" and this year it was Garner, who looked sexier than I've ever seen her in an asymmetrical Versace.  Bonus points for the jewelry, which make the look even more regal.

3. Dev Patel in Burberry

Proving that, yes, men should also be asked whom they're wearing Chris Rock, Dev Patel took male-best-dressed in this sleek and modern Burberry.  I didn't quite think that I'd love the suit not matching the shoes, but the tie keeps a great balance and I'm obsessed with the more unkempt hair and beard.  I have no idea why Patel was at the ceremony this year (does he have anything to promote coming up?), but he at least looked the part.

2. Isla Fisher in Marchesa

Gorgeous.  The makeup is perfect, easily the best of the night, and I loved the vintage-meets-princess sort of styling of the dress, which matches Fisher's rom-com sort of persona.  Bonus points for going with a pattern in a night where almost no one else attempted one successfully.

1. Naomi Watts in Armani Prive

Perfection.  The chic box handbag with the intense diamond necklace are grand accessories to Watts' flowing indigo-and-magenta gown.  If you're not a nominee or a presenter and want to stand out on the red carpet, take a risk, and that's what Watts does flawlessly here.

Worst-Dressed

5. Amy Poehler in Andrew Gn

Every year there's at least one person who wears a dress that makes it look like it was made from your Great Aunt Ruth's curtains.  That would be Amy Poehler this year, who also picked a dress that made her look heavier than she is, which is hard to do for someone so pixie-like.

4. Olivia Wilde in Valentino

One of my most-hated morning-after dress comments is "she looked beautiful" because this is Hollywood-everyone is beautiful in an almost impossible way, and that's more than true for Olivia Wilde.  However, the dress is hideous and looks like it is put on backwards with the high-waist and J. Lo-style decolletage.

3. Kevin Hart in Dolce & Gabbana

Kevin Hart looks like he borrowed this from an old Siegfried & Roy act.  The shiny shoes on-top of the shinier lapels is a gigantic swing and miss.

2. Heidi Klum in Marchesa

Klum, no stranger to worst-dressed lists went for a prom dress that looks like it went through a deli slicer when it was tailored.  Even the coloring is bad, considering how it washes out the blonde supermodel.

1. Jared Leto in Gucci

Never, ever, EVER should a tie be substituted for a fake mum.  Never.  This is the most hideous thing I've seen a guy wear on a red carpet since...well, probably Jared Leto last year.  The hair is also a gigantic miss, as it is pulled back so tightly it calls into question his botox usage.

Women and the Best Picture Race

Felicity Jones, the only lead actress in a Best Picture nominee this year

I am constantly fascinated by the subject of film when it comes to gender, and particularly whether gender is fully represented at the movies.  The stark reality is that every year we re-learn a more and more a resounding truth: that women are wildly underrepresented onscreen, particularly in mainstream Hollywood films, despite being 50% of the population.  This has become a cliche to complain about, but it's a problem that never seems to get any better, and no matter what angle you take with it, the reality is that the problem always rears its ugly head (I become incensed with people who roll their eyes when people complain about perpetual problems, because cynicism is an answer to nothing).

This year, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at the Best Picture races, and in particular the way that they treat female characters and stories.  Despite the year having a number of strong films starring women (Under the Skin and Wild spring instantly to mind), only one of the eight Best Picture nominees has what could be genuinely considered a female lead (Felicity Jones in The Theory of Everything) and none of them have only female leads.  As a result of this, we're going to look more at the ways that supporting roles by women are treated in the eight films nominated for Best Picture instead.  Below I will be dissecting the eight films nominated for Best Picture, and look at the women who feature amongst the top five billed stars of each motion picture, and how they relate to the overall plot and, most importantly, the ultimate message of the film.  This is a grey area, so please join in the comments if you concur or disagree, and we'll start out alphabetically with American Sniper. (Spoilers regarding all eight films so if you haven't seen one, skip, only read the rest, and bookmark for a later date)

Film: American Sniper
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Sienna Miller); you have to go outside the top ten to find the next highest-billed female character, which would be Bradley Cooper's first girlfriend Sarah (Marnette Patterson), who is essentially billed as a slut.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's probably what you'd consider the catalyst for Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle trying to find his way back to civilization, but she doesn't actually contribute to him doing so (he does most of that growing on his own).
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character: No, she does not.  The entirety of Sienna Miller's role in this film is based on her being charmed by Chris Kyle, then constantly calling him to come home-there's absolutely no indication of her wants other than those in relation to her husband.
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Birdman
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Emma Stone and Naomi Watts)
What is Their Relationship to the Main Character?: Daughter and Costar, respectively
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Stone's character actually gets the final shot in the movie, as she's lured into her father's world of make-believe.  She's also a large part of his driving force, or at least the idea of family is, so she's not just a family member here.  Watts' character has little to do with the overall resolution of the movie.
Do They Have a Life Outsider the Main Character?: Yes.  Stone is frequently talking to other characters, including her father's costars, and is trying to find herself throughout the movie, and Watts is a struggling actress trying to make it on Broadway and crash her nerves against the new big break that she's experiencing.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes, it does (Andrea Riseborough and Naomi Watts discuss Watts' career and work in the play).

Film: Boyhood
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 3 (Patricia Arquette, Lorelai Linklater, and Libby Villari)
What is Their Relationship to the Main Character?: Mother, Daughter, and grandmother, respectively
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: None-despite the film occasionally checking in on both Arquette's Olivia and Linklater's Samantha, the film is mostly about Mason, Jr., and the eventual end of the film and the bulk of the film is based on his journey.
Do They Have a Life Outside the Main Character?: Yes, they do.  Despite the film being entirely from Mason Jr's point of view, we see Olivia experience multiple relationships and a change in career, and to a lesser extent we see Samantha blossom into a young woman independent of her brother.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-Olivia and Samantha discuss Samantha's homework and other aspects of her life throughout the movie.

Film: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 0 (to be fair part of the cast list is alphabetical though, so we'll include Tilda Swinton and Saoirse Ronan for the sake of argument as they are both billed above the line)
What Relationship Do They Have to the Main Characters (it's a dual-lead film)?: They are their respective love interests
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: In actuality, very little.  Both women play a crux in the plot (one gives a main character the hotel, the other is the reason that he keeps it), but both have very little screentime and ultimately the film's plot is based on Zero and Monsieur Gustave, rather than either of their female companions.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: No, they don't-we learn a bit about Madame Celine (Swinton) in the end, but at that point she's been dead for the bulk of the movie and Ronan's Agatha is only a reflection of Zero.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: No-no named woman ever talks to another woman in the film.

Film: The Imitation Game
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke)
What Relationship Does She Have to the Main Character? Coworker and eventually fiance
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Hard to tell-the problem with The Imitation Game is proving what the reason for the film is.  If it's to prove the cruelty to Alan Turing as a gay person, then nothing.  If it's his discoveries as a code-breaker, then somewhat-she's the reason he eventually works with his team and she keeps him grounded.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: Not in any significant way-she's always talking about Alan when she's onscreen, and even when she does get married, this is not a point-of-interest of her character.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: No-the only time women speak to each other (Joan and her friend at the bar), it is in regard to Joan's male coworkers.

Film: Selma
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Carmen Ejogo as Coretta Scott King)
What Relationship Does She Have to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Do They Have to to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Very little, to be honest.  This is a film about the masses moving toward a cause, and about one man's crusade to reach that cause-Coretta Scott King is an important historical figure, but here she's relegated to domestic scenes only and having concerns over the safety of her family.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: No, not really.  The entirety of her plot is based on her relationship with MLK.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-there's a scene about halfway through where Coretta and Lorraine Toussaint's Amelia Boynton Robinson discuss Coretta's role in the movement.

Film: The Theory of Everything
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Felicity Jones as Jane Hawking and Maxine Peake as Elaine Mason)
What Relationship Do They Have to the Main Character?: To be fair, Jones is a main character of this film.  To be more fair, though, no one refers to this as "that movie about Jane Hawking," so she's not the main character, in which case she plays his wife, as does Peake.
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While Peake's part is pretty ancillary, Jones has something of a drive in the eventual conclusion of the film, with Dr. Hawking realizing the importance of his love for his wife in relation to his work, and how reliant he was upon her for his success.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: Yes, in the case of Jones (not in the case of Peake).  Jones has a relationship with another man, struggles with giving up her career, and has an affair.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-Jones and her mother Beryl discuss her joining the church choir.

Film: Whiplash
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Melissa Benoist as Nicole)
What Relationhip Do They Have to the Main Character?: Girlfriend
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: None-the entire film is about Andrew and Fletcher's rivalry coming to a head, and at that point Nicole has just been a casualty of his drive to succeed.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: Nope-the only thing we know about her other than her infatuation with Andrew is that she works at a movie theater.  Otherwise her role is simply to be "the girlfriend."
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: No

And there you have it-a pretty damning indictment of the films nominated this past year.  I mean-look at the evidence.  Only Boyhood has more female actors in the Top-5 billed than males.  Only half pass the Bechdel Test.  Only in The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, and Birdman does the female character play any significant role in finalizing the plot.  And only one film has a principle female role that isn't romantic or familial (Naomi Watts in Birdman).

Compare that to the male roles in these films-all eight main male characters have male friends or enemies, and have lives outside of the female characters.  All eight easily pass the reverse-Bechdel Test, and all eight are critical to the eventual conclusion of the film.  This is a pretty damning indictment on the way the cinema treats women as a whole; when the supposed best of the best can't even find room for women, what can we expect from the rest of the cinema?

Ten Thoughts on the SAG Nominations

It's always hard to decide when to declare it the beginning of "awards season," but the first awards nominations that are clearly meant to be parceled through, both because you'll actually be watching the ceremony and because the Oscars are definitely paying attention, are the SAG Awards, who had their nominations this morning.  I could spend this article going through the TV awards, but I generally find those to be pretty boring (honestly, this show is more predictive than anything-the only thing that's usually entertaining is the Life Achievement Award, which is going to Debbie Reynolds this year...the Globes it ain't).  You can find a full list of the nominations here (including TV), but I'm only going to pay attention to a couple of nominees both who made it and didn't.  Without further adieu, here are my ten random thoughts about this morning's nominations.

1. Naomi Watts for Birdman...wait, St. Vincent...wait, what, Naomi Watts?!?

The biggest surprise in any category this morning was surely the surprise nomination for Naomi Watts in the Best Supporting Actress category for the comedy St. Vincent.  Watts was a key player in the Best Picture frontrunner Birdman, but was a total shocker for this film, and quite frankly the only place anyone expected to see her name was in the cast nomination for Birdman (which she also got).  While I doubt that this means she's getting a third Oscar nomination this year (the film is small, she's splitting her vote with Birdman, and the SAG Awards sometimes do kooky things like this-remember Cloris Leachman for Spanglish?), this may indicate stronger support for St. Vincent than expected.  While it's widely believed that Bill Murray would score a Globe nomination tomorrow, this could mean the film could score a Best Picture or Actress nomination (which would be Melissa McCarthy's first nomination with the HFPA, if you can believe it), and perhaps even a writing nomination somewhere.  It's worth noting that this is one of Harvey Weinstein's movies, so if there's momentum he'll take advantage of it.

2. Get On Up gets on up into the Stunt Category

Close behind Naomi's nomination in terms of crazy and unexpected was Get On Up in the Best Stunt category.  This ranks right up there with All is Lost in terms of this category, principally because Chadwick Boseman, the star of the film, did his splits and own dancing, so where precisely were the stunts?  It likely won't win, but it's still an unusual overall nomination.

3. Did Jake Gyllenhaal Knock Out the Wrong Contender?

There's no question this morning that Jake Gyllenhaal had a marvelous morning.  A nomination was hardly certain for his terrific work in Nightcrawler, and this citation will keep him in the conversation for the rest of awards season.  However, you have to wonder if he may have just put himself in sixth, but not the more vital fifth.  That's because the missing "frontrunner" is not presumed fifth place contender Steve Carell (for Foxcatcher), but David Oyelowo for Selma, which didn't get a strong push with the SAG Awards but is expected to do considerably better with AMPAS.  Carell got the same sort of push that Gyllenhaal did this morning, which may keep Jake just at bay, even though he's clearly a stronger part of the conversation after this morning.

4. Three Men Enter, Two Men Leave in Best Supporting Actor

It's long been assumed that Ethan Hawke, Edward Norton, and JK Simmons would be getting three of the nominations in Best Supporting Actor.  This morning we saw two of their potential rivals make major stakes in the race: Robert Duvall in The Judge (review to come later this week) and Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher.  Both men were sort of on the sidelines in terms of nominations waiting to be called in, but no longer.  This race is begging for contenders, and when that happens for this category specifically, it usually means a lockstep situation so if Duvall or Ruffalo nab a nomination at the Globes tomorrow, expect them to also be at the Dolby.  In fact, the only other man I see as being a real threat for AMPAS is Selma's Tom Wilkinson, who is an Oscar favorite and could gain if that movie continues to grow in buzz.  That essentially leaves three men fighting over two slots-which one do you think will be the discarded?

5. Jennifer Aniston, Oscar Nominee?

We talked about this a bit earlier this year, but Jennifer Aniston's little engine that could push for a nomination (she's been talking to everyone about this film and trying to land a Top 5 slot) had a HUGE win this morning, getting the fifth slot in what is looking like a race where there's only one opening (Reese Witherspoon, Felicity Jones, Rosamund Pike, and Julianne Moore all seem pretty locked into place).  Aniston's personal popularity and the "I can't believe she could do it" aspects of the work could be the key to her becoming the most surprising Oscar nominee since Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side (and lest we think it ends there, let's not forget what happened to Sandy when that happened...).

6. The Imitation Game is Still in This Thing

Over the past few weeks Oscar pundits have been cutting the fat a bit, proclaiming Birdman, Selma, and Boyhood the frontrunners for the Best Picture race over this biopic, but Harvey managed to land his contender in the field just in time, scoring three nominations, including one for the Best Cast category (which frequently serves a proxy for Best Picture).  This should help it if it does equally well with the Globes to stay afloat amidst surging competitors.

7. Michael Keaton Has Won Best Actor

Birdman has become basically unstoppable this year in terms of the critics, the SAG Awards, and likely the Oscars.  It has to win something, and something big.  With JK Simmons certain to win supporting, the film being a bit "out there" for Best Picture, and Emma Stone in a position where she's not quite important enough to the narrative to actually win the trophy (which is looking more and more likely to go to Patricia Arquette), that leaves Keaton to carry the banner.  It helps that he's absolutely certain to win the Globe, and he's facing off against two actors with similar profiles (Eddie Redmayne and Benedict Cumberbatch: young, British, and playing real life men in period films).  This appears to be nearly as certain as Simmons right now.

8. So, Where Are We at with Best Supporting Actress?

Naomi Watts name is now, of course, a part of the conversation even if she doesn't actually make it to the Dolby, but where does this put us for Supporting Actress?  We may be in a position where Meryl Streep, Keira Knightley, Emma Stone, and Patricia Arquette, long assumed to be the four frontrunners, are in fact living up to the hype, but there's still one more slot.  Watts will now mount a campaign, I'd imagine, but you also have Laura Dern, Jessica Chastain, and Carmen Ejogo all making serious plays for it (Dern and Chastain, in particular, have been hitting the pavement something ferocious).  This all means...

9. We Know Who Needs to Land the Golden Globes

Certain people can rest easy tomorrow.  The likes of Robert Duvall, Jennifer Aniston, Mark Ruffalo, and Emma Stone can rest easy tomorrow knowing that if they score a nomination, it's just gravy but they're still in the race for the Oscars.  However, a few other people should be sweating nervously.  Laura Dern, Hilary Swank, Marion Cotillard, and everyone involved with Selma, American Sniper, and Unbroken had better be hoping for a big showing tomorrow, or they will be in a severely weakened position for the remainder of the year.

10. Did the Best Picture Field Just Expand?

One of the biggest conversation pieces this year is if we will finally have less than nine nominations in the "in flux" Best Picture race.  Since this voting rule began, all of the Best Picture fields have had nine films, but many thought that this year, with so few movies gaining traction, that it might end up being less (perhaps only the frontrunners: Selma, The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, Boyhood, and Birdman).  However, this morning we saw a stronger push for Foxcatcher and The Grand Budapest Hotel, both of which could capitalize on major wins today to land a citation in the Best Picture field (though Budapest's biggest and most important producer, Scott Rudin, is likely pre-occupied considering the PR nightmare he's currently in).  Throw in Whiplash, Unbroken, and American Sniper who all may do well tomorrow at the Globes and you may add up to nine just yet.

And those are my thoughts this afternoon about the SAG Award nominations-what are yours?  What had you spitting out your morning coffee, and who gained/lost the most?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Film: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Stars: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifanakis, Amy Ryan, Andrea Riseborough, Merritt Wever
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Oscar History: 9 nominations/4 wins (Best Picture*, Director*, Actor-Michael Keaton, Supporting Actor-Edward Norton, Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Cinematography*, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars (I just couldn't go to five stars, and you'll see why in the review, but if I had halves this would be 4.5 and you should definitely see it-this is one of those films that could get to 5 stars in a month or so once I've processed it a bit and see how it ages)

I don't like the films of Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu.  I have not seen all of them, but of what I have seen (Babel and Biutiful) they are boring, constantly dry, and without personality, constantly throwing death in your face as you endure great actors who are almost always sucked of all of their charisma.  He's also on an incredible streak right now: every single one of his films have become part of the OVP in some way, blessed with that "Oscar-nominated" tag, and as a result I have to see all of his films for the project.  That being said, I was genuinely excited about the directions this movie was going in-I had heard rumblings from critics who dislike Gonzalez Inarritu as a rule, but thoroughly enjoyed this film, and the casting alone was so much genius that I had to catch it for myself.  Thankfully, I was rewarded with a flick that, while occasionally stretching into territory that seemed arbitrary or ancillary, as a general rule rewarded its viewer with a dazzling series of beautiful images, challenging and inventive editing, and a rough, nail-biting look at modern celebrity and Hollywood.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about a washed-up actor named Riggan Thompon (Keaton) who is trying to reinvent himself.  Twenty years ago he was one of the biggest names in Hollywood, a giant movie star principally known for his role as Birdman in a trio of major action pictures.  Now he is trying to gain legitimacy with an attempt to show the world that he can act in an adaptation of a Raymond Carver play on Broadway, but consistently finds that his mental state has deteriorated to the point that he is constantly communicating with the character of the Birdman, and occasionally thinks that he has actually become his most famous role.

The film doesn't mince words when it comes to the clear meta-triumph of casting.  Michael Keaton, like Riggan Thomson, is of course a washed-up former movie star, principally known for his role as a superhero, and like Thomson, he left that role at the height of his fame when he could have made a fortune by continuing to play the character.  Keaton has never been thought of as a particularly strong actor, and the fact is that Birdman serves in many ways as his Carver play-can this man pull a performance in the way that Mickey Rourke did a few years back in The Wrestler, essentially playing himself onscreen, while still creating a compelling character?

The thankful answer to that question is that Keaton can, and this is a truly terrific look at what Hollywood can do with one of their former stars when they get a bit out-of-their-head (I wish just once that they would do this with a woman in the lead role-getting someone like Ellen Barkin or Demi Moore into the front of a picture like this and seeing what happened-I mean, we all remember Darryl Hannah in Kill Bill and how marvelously that worked out for her?).  Keaton owns this movie, frequently finding avenues to skewer the way that Hollywood both worships and spits out its own (the film in many ways is Sunset Boulevard for the modern era), and I loved the delusions that drive Thomson's ego (the scene with the $1 billion "comeback" reads as if it was a pitch from an agent, and at this point Thomson probably only believes his lawyer (Galifanakis) over anyone else in his life).  The film could fall into an "isn't-this-awesome" style trap, but the writing of Thomson's scenes and Keaton's faded movie star glory keep the adrenaline at top-speed, being a high wire that never loses its potency.

The remainder of the film falls into the shadow of Keaton's showy lead work, but that doesn't mean it isn't compelling in its own right.  Edward Norton is an actor that I don't always fall for (too hammy, too methodical), but that doesn't mean that he doesn't get big laughs occasionally playing himself, though a Broadway version of it-a man who clearly isn't meant for stardom in the proper sense like Keaton has endured, but instead must settle for the glittery lights of critical prestige and enduring, constant praise.  Norton's relentless, occasional method acting is great, even if I think that the "I'm playing someone overacting" trope occasionally results in him actually overacting, particularly in the initial table-read scene.  His relationship with Naomi Watts, though, is wonderful.  He's the star in that relationship, and she's the long-struggling actor, now in her 40's and totally insecure because she never became a big name proper, finally landing a role that could at least get her a resume worthy of her dreams.  Watts, in my opinion, is the unsung hero of this movie, acting-wise; while Keaton, Norton, and Stone all look destined to score accolades up the wazoo, Watts, the two-time Oscar nominee, is left in the dark when she shouldn't be: her still-aspiring actress is wonderful, and a damning commentary on Hollywood's obsession with women as sex objects.

I am not entirely sure how I feel about Emma Stone's Sam, but it's generally on the positive side.  The editing helps her tremendously, giving her long sequences of dialogue even if her character seems to be unimportant in the larger context of the film (quite frankly, the biggest flaw in the screenplay is that I genuinely don't think that Thomson gives a damn about whether he was a good husband or father, but just whether or not that was another performance where he didn't meet expectations).  She's very green in her dramatic work (this is her first serious attempt at drama), but the scenes on the rooftop are sublime, as she both plays with her meta-aspects in the film (we all want to see her, the young new movie star, and not necessarily the tired aging stars that litter the rest of the film) and with the self-obsession that hampers modern youth.  While I will admit that I think Stone occasionally gets held back by clearly not agreeing with Sam in real life (obscuring the authenticity of what she's doing onscreen), when she's on its marvelous (the way that she clearly knows that everyone in the movie is dying to get her approval, and the giddy joy she takes in occasionally bestowing it).  I also think that this slight lack of authenticity hurts the ending, and I also think that the meta/reality takes a bit of a hit with that final glance skyward, as it makes Sam's reality warped when she's the only character who has, throughout much of the picture, remained inside the audience's version of the truth.

Overall though, this is a glorious triumph from a director that I truly couldn't stand going into this picture, and now want to know where this sharp lens and terrific screenplay came from.  The movie is a wonderful reminder that you can make something tough and bitter, yet spectacularly watchable and entertaining.  I cannot wait to see what Gonzalez Inarritu does next, and am so glad that Michael Keaton was willing to lend himself to this particular vision.

St. Vincent (2014)

Film: St. Vincent (2014)
Stars: Bill Murray, Melissa McCarthy, Jaeden Lieberher, Naomi Watts, Chris O'Dowd, Terrence Howard
Director: Theodore Melfi
Oscar History: It got nods at both the SAG Awards and the Globes, but it couldn't cinch it at the Oscars
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Bill Murray is one of those celebrities I frequently find myself just at my saturation point regarding.  There are certain celebrities that I think are wildly overrated (Hugh Jackman, Jamie Foxx...I could list people like the Kardashians and the Real Housewives, but that's like the Free Space in Bingo) and then there are actors I think are wildly underrated (Marcia Gay Harden, Laura Linney, most actresses over the age of forty in Hollywood).  Murray is right at the saturation point.  Don't get me wrong-he's a terrific actor.  I am already dreading the Penn/Depp/Murray OVP decision of 2003 (and I haven't even seen Ben Kingsley yet!), and Broken Flowers has that devastatingly heartbreaking scene toward the end of the picture (if you haven't seen it yet, please make the point to), but like Steve Martin and Matthew McConaughey, the internet has put him in a class that approaches godlike status, and I just can't get there with him.  Too few films that deserve the kudos, too prickly of a personality outside of his work to truly appreciate him in that regard, and clearly stuck on himself quite a bit (though admittedly this is true of most actors).  That being said, I went into St. Vincent fairly charmed by the trailers and loving both Murray's part (perfect casting!) and the supporting crew, and had an open mind.

(Spoilers Ahead) Unfortunately for me, that open mind wasn't truly necessary.  This isn't the sort of film that really requires you to stretch, and aside from a couple of interesting flourishes, isn't the sort of film that required the screenwriters to use much muscle either.  The film is about Vincent MacKenna (Murray) a man who spends most of his days living in debt, switching his time between a prostitute named Daka (Watts) and nights in a bar.  All-in-all, he's the sort of down-on-his-luck curmudgeon that we've gotten used to every actor of a certain age playing (seriously-name me a famous actor over seventy that hasn't played this role in the past twenty years).  However, after a fateful day where a moving van runs into his car, he meets a newly-single mom named Maggie (McCarthy) and her precocious son Oliver (Lieberher), and suddenly becomes an unlikely friend for Oliver.

Watching the trailers for this film, I figured there must be something unique about the movie that I was missing.  Murray, notoriously prickly and usually only taking this style of film when he's decided he wants an Oscar (something he's clearly had his eye on since losing to Penn in 2003...how else to explain Hyde Park on Hudson?) must have seen something interesting in the script.  I mean, I get why the rest of the cast and director signed on (you get to work with Bill Murray!), but Murray himself indicated there was something more here.  Sadly, there isn't-this film was made dozens of times since the 1980's, and we'll see it yet again by Christmas, this time with musical numbers in Annie.  The film has the requisite "teaching him to fight" scene, the requisite "child who unexpectedly swears scene," the requisite "take child to inappropriate locations," scene...it's a series of horrible filmic cliches.

The best thing I can say about the film is the cast, but not necessarily the cast you're thinking I'll celebrate.  Murray occasionally has moments of brilliance-there's no denying that comic timing, and there's a madcap moment of slapstick brilliance over the end credits that you'll be absolutely enthralled by, but by-and-large this seems like he isn't really stretching.  Yes, it's good, but it's not great, and from the man who haunted my filmic dreams in Lost in Translation, I wish some director would truly pull him outside his comfort zone again like Sofia Coppola did.

Melissa McCarthy, in my opinion, is doing the best work here.  The most frequent complaint you hear about McCarthy is "why can't she be more like Sookie again?" (I say this with love, as multiple members of my family and friend group have said this to me whenever the actress is discussed).  That entire argument is a conversation for a different article entirely, but suffice it to say actors go through stages in their careers, and McCarthy is currently in a broader, more slapstick aspect of hers right now.  Still, this is the closest she's been to playing "Sookie" in a while, a harried mother who has to deal with the dissolution of her marriage and her anger toward her cheating ex-husband (and trying to hide that anger from her son, which she does a lousy job at), and making ends meet.  Life hasn't been fair with her, but she handles it in the way most of us would, rather than letting everything slide in a "screw you world" way that Vincent does.  Her performance is tempered with realism (her breakdown scene looks like something that would actually happen when she goes to the priest's office, and not just an expositional tool to give us background on the character), though she still lands all of her laughs and does her job subtly enough to show the path that Vincent could have taken, but decided against.  Watts and O'Dowd both have the great supporting comic bits in the movie (I love it when Watts does comedy and O'Dowd is so effortlessly charming in everything these days), but McCarthy's character was the one I found myself thinking about the next day.

My final problem with this film (which I will admit was at least short) is that I think it's time for us to give up on certain tropes of the Eighties because they're A) played out and B) highly unrealistic.  In real life, no sane-minded person would trust someone like Vincent with their children-the man should be in jail, and certainly shouldn't be shaping the minds of a young person.  Even in Maggie's precarious financial situation this seems unlikely.  These horrible guardian films seem completely dated in the same way that body-swapping comedies do-there doesn't seem to be anything interesting or new to say here. It's time screenwriters found a more interesting way to use aging actors than to pair them with a precocious tot, give them free comedic reign, and then let the plot go out for lunch.

Those are my thoughts on St. Vincent-how about yours?  Have you caught the movie yet?  If not, what do you think about the career trajectories of McCarthy and Murray (and the internet's obsession with Murray)?  Share in the comments!

2014 Oscar Predictions: Best Supporting Actress

Supporting actress, at least in terms of age, is probably the most forgiving and even of the four acting categories.  It's the only category where you can regularly see brand new and emerging talents, character actors scoring a mid-career high, and then an aging veteran back for one last bout with a nomination (just look at last year's Lupita Nyong'o, Sally Hawkins, and June Squibb for a perfect example).

Looking at this year, at least two of those categories are somewhat occupied (I'm still waiting for a 70+ woman to emerge-if you have an idea of one that might, share in the comments).  A number of the top contenders this year are in the ingenue/just starting out category.  Felicity Jones, who may well be moving to lead, would be toward the top of the list.  Playing the devoted and long-suffering wife, she's got Oscar's favorite role and could pull a Jennifer Connelly and win the trophy if she stays supporting (if I were her I'd go for it, as it's difficult to see her winning lead when Redmayne won't).  Joining her is Keira Knightley, playing another long-suffering romantic (or rather platonically romantic) partner to Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game and Emma Stone, who is the long-suffering daughter of a crazy father in Birdman.  Though she's not quite in the ingenue phase of her career anymore at 37, everyone's favorite human being Jessica Chastain apparently gets the best part in Interstellar, so I wouldn't doubt her making it.  Rounding out the ingenue bunch would be Katherine Waterston, the most unknown of the contenders, who gets a plum part in Inherent Vice and seems like the sort of actor we're all going to claim we had heard of in a few months.

Actresses of a certain age, however, are doing quite well this year.  Jennifer Garner and Judy Greer have turned in splendid work in the past though they're a bit under sung as far as actresses go.  Either way, Jason Reitman has been great with getting women in his films recognition (three Oscar nods and five Globe nods in a very short filmography) so they're worth paying attention to (I mean, Ben Affleck's already going to be there to promote Gone Girl...).  Carmen Ejogo plays yet another long-suffering wife in Selma as Coretta Scott King, so if that film takes off (and I suspect it will) she could be a contender (as could Oprah Winfrey who will get a (literal) knockout scene as Annie Lee Cooper, though her miss last year for The Butler is one of those great Oscar mysteries so who knows if they might be over her).  Laura Dern plays Reese Witherspoon's mother in Wild, so if that film truly takes off she could be pushed, but something tells me that Wild will be the Reese show.  Finally, there's Patricia Arquette, who has never been nominated for an Oscar after years of strong work, and could finally make it into the conversation for Boyhood.  I was initially a little apprehensive about people who were so "lockish" about that film (it didn't feel quite right for Oscar), but she is the caliber of actress they like to have nominated at least once (to prove they have good taste) so maybe this will be that time?

Then there's a handful of actresses who could emerge given the right sort of circumstances.  No one is entirely sure how Into the Woods will turn out, but either Emily Blunt or Anna Kendrick should at least be mentioned here.  If the year weakens a bit, we might see Viola Davis for Get on Up come back into the conversation for her brief work in that film.  Then there's always the less showy supporting work of someone like Marisa Tomei in Love is Strange, Kristin Scott Thomas in My Old Lady, or Marion Bailey in Mr. Turner, but those films will need more momentum to get in here.  And if all else fails with Oscar, play a hooker, which could be the trick for Naomi Watts to land a third citation for St. Vincent.

My Predictions: Hmm, I'm going to go with Stone, Waterston, Arquette, Ejogo, and Jones at this point, though if Jones goes lead I'm guessing that Blunt probably moves up to her place.  These five have a nice balance between Best Picture, "due," ingenue, and just a bit of a category fraud.  I still feel like there must be an older actress that could sneak in, but occasionally this category misses its social security recipient so I will stop hunting for now.

Is There a Winner?: This category is the most susceptible to an "out-of-nowhere" winner (Nyong'o won on her film debut), so any of these five women could theoretically win.  If I had to bet, though, I would assume that Ejogo and Jones are the most likely to emerge based on history and their roles.