OVP: Supporting Actor (2023)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction

Robert de Niro, Killers of the Flower Moon

Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer

Ryan Gosling, Barbie

Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

My Thoughts: And now we officially are in the acting races!  I've noticed slightly less traffic to this series than normal, which I'm chalking up to this being right after the 96th Academy Awards, so you're all tired of the field and would prefer something more retro (don't worry, in June we're be going to do our first foray into the 1990's, so there'll be plenty of nostalgia for everyone).  But, I'm hoping that today and tomorrow will be a fun discussion.  The supporting races at the Oscars were such a foregone conclusion that, quite frankly, it feels like these lineups were under-discussed more than anything else.

For example, did it feel like we were having a moment for Robert de Niro last year?  Nearly fifty years after his first Oscar nomination for The Godfather, Part II, he got his ninth acting nomination for Killers of the Flower Moon, playing the unfathomably evil patriarch of a crime syndicate.  De Niro is giving his best performance...maybe in my lifetime, honestly?  It's spectacular stuff, with the way that he shows his hands repeatedly (this is a man who feels unexpected and yet doesn't have much of a poker face), and yet you are always caught off-guard by his ruthlessness.  Really good stuff, and surprisingly strong chemistry with DiCaprio.

Ryan Gosling gave what might end up being his most memorable role at the end of his career.  Gosling's winning celebrity combined with his lousy box office returns (save Barbie) means that he's been one of our most consistent actors and has done so in genuinely good movies.  That's true here, giving us the best version of his handsome goofball.  There was some press about how "Ken got nominated but not Barbie" in 2023, but that's because Gosling steals literally every scene in the movie he's in, embodying a himbo energy with a silly, broken man.  It's a masterclass in comedy.

This isn't the case for Mark Ruffalo.  Ruffalo was once the Ryan Gosling in movies (compare his work in You Can Count on Me with Gosling's in Blue Valentine...you'll find the similarities), but Gosling is better at over-acting.  Ruffalo's work here isn't enough.  I kind of liked some of his earlier scenes, where he plays a lothario who is just intent on getting into Emma Stone's pants, but when he's asked to play wide in the latter half of the movie, he whiffs more than he connects.  There's too much silly, especially compared to the more sophisticated "big" acting that Stone is doing next to him.

Robert Downey, Jr., like his Avengers costar (it should not be lost that 60% of this category has Marvel credentials given our next nominee was in Black Panther), can suffer from "too much" acting, but that's not the case with Oppenheimer.  I don't think this ranks amongst his best work (which, for my taste, is either Tropic Thunder or Ally McBeal), but it's also a very respectable way to give him an Oscar.  He plays his villain with a sense of entitlement (but also coordination) that feels like a DC creature, someone who is always ready to spring forward with his next line-of-attack, the next ploy for a promotion.  It feels custom-made for him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't ace it.

Our final nominee is the problem.  Sterling K. Brown is not just the worst of these nominees, he's the worst of all 20 acting nominees in 2023.  I am not someone who cares that much about if straight people play gay roles, but they do need to be believable as gay people, which he is not.  He plays this role as too stereotypical, frequently feeling like he has no sense of being attracted to men other than "it's in the script."  To be fair to him, this is the most phoned in character in Cord Jefferson's script, and is filled with a lot of really rough stereotypes about gay people (making him a man-crazy, irresponsible drug addict), but it's so flat, and truly, an egregiously bad performance that would feel more at-home at the Razzies.

Other Precursor Contenders: First off, I hate that the Globes expanded to six nominees per category, as it's such a copout due to a bunch of online whining (news flash: there are more than five good performances in a year...it doesn't stop being a good performance if they're not in the Top 5).  Downey won, besting de Niro, Gosling, Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe (Poor Things), & Charles Melton (May December).  SAG stuck with five, giving it to Downey over Brown, Dafoe, de Niro, & Gosling, while BAFTA also picked Downey atop de Niro, Gosling, Jacob Elordi (Saltburn), Paul Mescal (All of Us Strangers), & Dominic Sessa (The Holdovers) (side note, but this is one of the best lineups I've seen from BAFTA in a while).  The sixth place was undoubtedly Dafoe, though I also think Dominic Sessa was probably on more ballots than his precursor run would let on...it's the kind of co-lead role that gets into this category.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: Both of the supporting men in All of Us Strangers (father Jamie Bell, boyfriend Paul Mescal) are spectacular.  In a year where we spent a lot of time discussing whether both Poor Things actor would get in, we should've been focused on the supporting men of Andrew Haigh's brilliant picture.

Oscar’s Choice: Downey won by so much, you honestly could make an argument for pretty much anyone (save Brown) in second...and no, it isn't automatically Gosling (de Niro is a legend who has been waiting for that third Oscar for 43 years, Ruffalo is clearly going to win at some point, and this was a big picture for him...either of them could've been the runner-up).

My Choice: Depending on the day, it'd be Gosling or de Niro, but more days I land on the latter, so I'm giving it to the villain of Killers of the Flower Moon (both are showing in my My Ballot, and either would've ranked amongst the best winners of this category).  In third is Downey, followed by Ruffalo and then Brown.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to attend Senate hearings with Robert Downey, Jr., or do you want to join Robert de Niro & I in Oklahoma?  Ryan Gosling & Mark Ruffalo both feel like inevitable Oscar winners at this point-who gets it first?  And was it Dafoe or Sessa in sixth place?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2023: Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

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

The 96th Academy Awards: The Good, the Bad, and the Reflective

Last night, we had the 96th Academy Awards, and while it's coming out a little bit later in the day than we normally write it, we are going to do my annual write-up focusing on what the Oscars did right, and what they did wrong at last night's ceremony.  If you're reading this, you likely watched it, so I shall avoid the preamble and just dive into the good stuff.

The Good

Overall, last night's ceremony was almost entirely good.  After years of mixed bags, either in terms of the way that the Oscars (and their hosts) handled the ceremony, or badly-timed winners, we got a pretty strong show.  Jimmy Kimmel's opening monologue is not at the same level of someone like Billy Crystal or Whoopi Goldberg, but he's done a better job of handling some of his jokes (leaving "no one has seen these movie" cuts to himself), and had a few really solid zingers, the best being to Steven Spielberg ("Steven, are you nominated again this year or do you just have season tickets"...for the record, Spielberg was nominated as he was one of the producers of Maestro, only the second film after 2006's Letters from Iwo Jima where Spielberg was nominated for a film he didn't direct).  Kimmel is a good host, and as I've said a few times, I like having hosts that repeat so that we don't just give up on a good idea if it doesn't last perfectly the first time-I hope ABC keeps him in the rotation.

Though the presenters got off to a rocky start (Melissa McCarthy & Octavia Spencer doing a bit about Chippendales that tanked), they got into a decent groove after that.  Emily Blunt & Ryan Gosling, Arnold Schwarzenegger & Danny Devito, Kate McKinnon & America Ferrera (again with Steven Spielberg) all pulled off their presentations with aplomb, landing decent jokes and bits.  It helps to hire funny actors to present, and in all of these cases, that was achieved.  We also had very few fashion misses, and in many cases (Anya Taylor-Joy, Danielle Brooks, Lily Gladstone) they were home runs.

But two things more than anything stand out as genuinely great from last night.  The first was a trio of winners that were not necessarily expected (though none would be considered a surprise) that I have to admit I loved: The Boy and the Heron for Animated Feature Film, The Zone of Interest for Sound, & Godzilla Minus One for Visual Effects.  None of these were gimme wins, and in all cases, the Academy had a more conventional (and less interesting) option waiting in the wings...but they still showed unusual care in picking three victories that will age well.  The Academy gets such crap for not making the right choices, it needs to be acknowledged when they picked beautifully-all of three of these are well worth it.

Lastly, the single best moment of the night was Ryan Gosling going balls-to-wall with "I'm Just Ken."  It has been a long time since we saw a truly impressive (and not just a "Lady Gaga can actually sing!") number that wasn't guaranteed to go well, and this could've been it.  I initially assumed that Will Ferrell (one of the stars of the film) would take this on and play it for silly laughs, but instead, they had a handsome man doing his best Marilyn Monroe impression, getting up there like a sexy rock star, and landing every punchline in the song.  "I'm Just Ken" is not a great piece of music, but it is a terrific set piece, and Gosling showed that in the best musical number I can remember the Oscars doing in a decade.  When he wins his eventual statue, honestly...this is part of how he won it.

The Bad

I'm not going to weigh in on the Emma Stone & Lily Gladstone situation, even if it's the headline this morning, because I think they're both on roughly the sage page.  Gladstone is my preference, but Stone is nearly as good-neither of these wins was going to age poorly, and I'm glad Gladstone went lead because while Stone can alternate between lead & supporting without it hurting her career, Gladstone is the first true Native American leading woman in Hollywood...I don't see a world where she goes supporting for her one true lead role and it doesn't mean she's always a supporting actress.  She's since gotten another lead role, and I think that may help her career more than an Oscar (even if I do wonder if this is the only time she ever gets nominated, mostly because most first time nominees only get nominated once, even genuine, decades-long movie stars like Doris Day or Debbie Reynolds who never showed up again).

But what I will say is bad is that the show felt a bit staid.  Save for "I'm Just Ken" the show was a little bit too safe, and maybe too predictable.  The only two things that didn't feel totally unrehearsed were Emma Stone accidentally calling Jimmy Kimmel a dick/prick (it was hard to tell which, but it was definitely one when she was caught accidentally on camera after a joke about Poor Things she clearly didn't approve of) and Al Pacino forgetting to read all of the nominees and just giving us the immortal words "my eyes see Oppenheimer"...more star charisma in a mistake than most actors have their whole careers.  Otherwise...it was more respectable than thrilling.

I think part of this is the need to telegraph so much of the ceremony in advance, which is a byproduct of social media.  Telling us every single one of the presenters in advance means there's no "surprise guests," which I'm sorry, you need.  Having Olivia de Havilland randomly walk out to present something used to be a "drop the curtain" sort of moment from the Academy Awards, and there weren't enough of those this year.  If you don't have that, you need iconic comedic talents like Robin Williams or Jim Carrey who can come out and channel their own persona for a few minutes.  Even the "bring back the former winners" moments were largely a yawn (with a few exceptions-Jessica Lange & Lupita Nyong'o, you understood the assignment).  Supporting Actor was entirely people who had won this century, and so it felt less special.  I know that a lot of this category's most notable winners have died, but where was Michael Caine?  Joel Grey? Tommy Lee Jones?  There was a lack of "whoa" in almost all of the lineups, and even the legends that showed up (like Rita Moreno or Sally Field) show up all the time.  I know the Academy got burned a few years back by having Kim Novak present and get attacked on social media, but I want more risks like that; the only thing that came close was the Keaton/Schwarzenegger/DeVito bit, which I loved and kind of wish they'd also included Margot Robbie & Cillian Murphy to show all the Batman villains in the audience.  Bring back someone like Ali MacGraw whom the people in the Dolby would know but the people at home might have to (gasp!) watch a movie to learn more about.  Also, I am officially putting this to rest on the blog after this (hopefully), but Brendan Fraser barely being able to get through his lines about acting titan Jeffrey Wright, only to be followed by Nicolas Cage giving one of the best intro's and totally upstaging him says everything you need to know about how bad the Academy screwed up by giving him a statue for The Whale.

The Reflective

One of the signs that this year was kind of dull was that I didn't cry during a single speech (I know some people did during earlier speeches, but I'll be honest-I'm not a "cry at a political speech" sort of person in general having followed politics & the national conventions for decades).  I did, however, tear up during the ceremony, and that was when Al Pacino walked onto the stage.  Pacino walking out to the theme to The Godfather (which I get to watch for the first time in a while later this year as part of a rewatch for the OVP) hit a chord with me, the 83-year-old actor all warmth and happiness as he got a standing ovation.

I have so long had the Oscars be a part of my personality, I sometimes have to remind even myself that there's a reason I love the Oscars-I love the movies.  I am not, it has to be said an "awards person."  This isn't to say I don't follow them-I know who won the Globes or BAFTA's or SAG Awards, and I love the pomp & majesty of the Oscars, including the show and the monologues and the fashions, but I haven't watched any awards show other than the Oscars in full for at least five years (just in morning after clips).  At the end of the day, the reason I got into the Oscars were they were a guide to the movies, and the reason I keep talking about them is that they are a framework for me to talk about film.  The Oscars are the one time each year where everyone sort of stops and is willing to discuss the thing that fills my heart with joy.  But increasingly, with the Oscars, it feels more mechanical, like all of the magic is being commodified.  The presenters & performances must be shown in advance, the awards are so overanalyzed that they lose all of their surprise and intrigue.  Watching Film Twitter, one of the best vessels to discuss movies, act like winning an Oscar is just a game of chess, has made it less fun.  I went 17/23 for my predictions (respectable, if nowhere near a personal best), but the one I was most proud of this year was calling The Boy and the Heron because it felt like me going with my gut for a win rather than going with the precursor math.  Precursor math can help (I never would've called American Fiction without it as my gut was definitely saying Greta was getting that statue for Barbie), but it isn't very satisfying.

So it was good to see Al Pacino take the stage, and be reminded that the reason I watch the Oscars, the reason I watch movies, and don't just have them veer into "on my cell phone background noise" or (shudder) "content" is that they mean something.  Al Pacino in The Godfather impacts my soul in a way few things can.  And looking back on the last year, there were moments that felt like I was transported somewhere else.  Paul Mescal flirting with Andrew Scott in All of Us Strangers.  Lily Gladstone interrogating Leonardo DiCaprio in Killers of the Flower Moon.  Rachel Zegler singing for her life in Hunger Games.  These are moments that will last longer for me than anything at the Oscars, and a good reminder that it's okay to just enjoy movies, and to give them their proper respect.  Put down the phone John, you can just watch the twinkling lights in the dark, and see if they might bring you somewhere (to quote another movie fan) you've never been before.

OVP: Actor (2006)

OVP: Best Actor (2006)

The Nominees Were...

Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond

Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson

Peter O'Toole, Venus

Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

My Thoughts: We are not keeping track of which acting lineups are the worst, though maybe someday I'll go back & give out that prize.  Best Actor of 2006, while probably not the worst, is definitely one of the least-inspired lineups in Oscar history.  There were better choices even in a weak year (we'll get to them next week when we conclude our 2006 run with a My Ballot post), but Oscar didn't take them.  The men of this lineup, several of them have given truly seismic, film-defining performances, but here we are at best getting to the adequate.

We'll start with the winner of the trophy, and the only man of this bunch to be a one-and-done Oscar nominee (honestly, a rarity for Best Actor), Forest Whitaker.  Whitaker has spent most of his career either directing or taking on supporting parts, but here he is central stage as Idi Amin.  This is a showy role, one that Whitaker cannot seem to ground, playing him to the hilt.  He gets some points for being able to convey a realistic madness through the character, particularly toward the end when his paranoia's scope sets in, but there's too much scenery-chewing and not enough back-and-forth chemistry with James McAvoy.  This is kind of a textbook definition of Oscar getting enamored with a biopic without really standing back to see if the movie has any merit.

Whitaker, though, brings that madness to his character that I found interesting even if it didn't ultimately work.  I have nothing really redeemable to say about Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness.  The picture itself is schmaltzy garbage (and that deliberate typo in the title is maddening), and Smith is the kind of actor who will lean into the schmaltz rather than elevate it.  His work here as a man about to be evicted from his home who eventually becomes a millionaire brokerage firm manager is the kind of uplifting story that makes for great Today Show copy, but rarely can transform into intriguing acting, and Smith mines it for easy tears without ever giving us a complicated look at our principle character.

Peter O'Toole, at least, is trying.  In his last of eight nominations, O'Toole plays a dying lothario who is romancing a young woman through wooing her since he has been rendered impotent by his prostate cancer.  O'Toole is saddled with a very weird film, one that doesn't quite gel (Jodie Whittaker's Jessie is underwritten & Whittaker can't fix that), but he makes it work.  O'Toole is a fine actor, and this is a solid bit of character study in a strange film.  O'Toole occasionally veers into coasting on his film legend status, perhaps because even he doesn't know what to do with this atypical approach to a cancer drama, but this isn't entirely a "legend getting in for being old situation"-O'Toole is genuinely good in the movie.

This is not something I can say for Leonardo DiCaprio.  DiCaprio gave a complex, fascinating look at privilege, crime, & loyalty in The Departed, which was nominated for Best Picture & would've been among his best citations from the Academy...so of course Oscar decides to reward him for a film & piece-of-work that is every bit The Departed's inferior.  It's difficult to believe, considering this is his signature as an actor, but DiCaprio's work here is without charm, unable to gain chemistry with Jennifer Connelly & he falls flat in the final hour of the movie once his opportunity for banter has left.  Leo DiCaprio is a great actor, but similar to Rosalind Russell & Spencer Tracy, he was too often-cited for work that didn't play to his strengths, which is light comedy & soapy romance (Blood Diamond is neither of those things).

Our final nominee is Ryan Gosling, who was graduating here from The Notebook heartthrob into a very serious actor; it's hard to remember, but there was once a time when Gosling's ability in front of the camera wasn't yet proven.  His work as an unorthodox teacher is, like all of the men in this category, in a movie that doesn't quite work.  Half Nelson is the best of these movies, but it's still a cliched education drama with familiar beats.  Unlike DiCaprio or Smith, though, Gosling elevates the work & makes it a much better movie.  He gives a subdued, informed performance as Dan Dunne, someone who is both an authority figure but also a bit lost in his own maturity.  That juxtaposition feels solid for Gosling's wheelhouse, and I'm glad Oscar was paying attention to such a small movie.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama gave us most of the Oscar lineup, with Gosling out and Leo DiCaprio (double-nominated) in for The Departed (Whitaker won), while Comedy/Musical went to Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) over Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean 2), Aaron Eckhart (Thank You for Smoking), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Kinky Boots), & Will Ferrell (Stranger than Fiction).  SAG went exactly for Oscar's lineup (winner & nominees), while BAFTA totally did its own thing-Whitaker won, but beat Leo (for The Departed), O'Toole, Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), & Richard Griffiths (The History Boys).  In terms of sixth place, the only logical answer is Sacha Baron Cohen, which would've been a mind-bend kind of nomination-you could make an argument for Greg Kinnear (Little Miss Sunshine) or Ken Watanabe (Letters from Iwo Jima) since they are in Best Picture contenders, but as someone who lived through this Oscar race, there was real talk about Baron Cohen getting the spot.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Well, I would've cited DiCaprio for the right movie, that's for darn sure.  I also know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but two years after the Academy invited Clive Owen to the club with his (deserving) work in Closer, why exactly did they skip out on nominating him for the best performance of his career in Children of Men?

Oscar’s Choice: Easy win for Whitaker.  A bit perplexing in hindsight, but like I said above, sometimes Oscar just gets the biggest crush on a biopic performance & the fever doesn't break until it's too late (and hey, Whitaker is better than Rami Malek).

My Choice: I'm going to go with Gosling over O'Toole, since he does a bit better with incorporating his performance into the film in question.  Behind them would be Whitaker, DiCaprio, & Smith.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you joining the stampede for Whitaker or will you stay in detention with Ryan Gosling & I?  Would Maria Bakalova's bizarre awards run earlier this year have felt so strange if SBC had gotten the fifth slot here?  And what is the weakest ever Oscar acting lineup?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2006: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2006

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

OVP: Actor (2016)

OVP: Best Actor (2016)

The Nominees Were...

Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea
Andrew Garfield, Hacksaw Ridge
Ryan Gosling, La La Land
Viggo Mortensen, Captain Fantastic
Denzel Washington, Fences

My Thoughts: We move forward with the 2016 Oscars this week into Best Actor, a contest that was far more competitive at-the-time than it looks in hindsight, considering Casey Affleck ended up with the trophy that most assumed he'd win the day Manchester by the Sea came out.  Part of that had to do with Affleck's personal problems, but I also do think even in a normal year we would have seen two of these men start to pop in a way that we hadn't before in terms of "competitiveness."

One of those two guys is Denzel Washington.  Washington is a strange bird in that he regularly works in commercial fare, and yet is never punished for it when it comes to the Oscars.  Most actors (looking at you Tom Cruise, but Tom Hanks would also fit into this bill) who toe-the-line between commercial and artistic fare occasionally are snubbed for their returns to Oscar-bait films, perhaps to say "don't take it for granted you can always come back" but that's not the case for Washington, who always makes it back.  Even if he was being punished, it's hard to imagine that happening for Fences, where he brings a fire and fortitude to his Troy Maxson that makes you think it was almost written for him (and not a thirty-year old play).  There are moments where Washington should modulate his performance (remembering, perhaps, that he is not playing to a standing-room only audience at the Cort), but in the scenes where he's great (like "the daughter" scene), he's giving some of the best work of his career.

The other actor who conceivably could have dethroned Affleck is Ryan Gosling in La La Land.  People talk about how Leonardo DiCaprio was going to be the "next Paul Newman," frequently dismissed despite putting in killer work for years, but doesn't it feel like Gosling fits that fate more?  Gosling somehow can't even get nominated for his best work (Blue Valentine, Drive, First Man).  Gosling tries to capture the mood of La La Land, and in his acting he does that.  There's a sense of the mood that Chazelle was trying to accomplish there.  Unfortunately, in a movie that wants us to indulge in numerous flights-of-fancy, the singing isn't up-to-snuff, and as a result I never got into this the way that other people do, even though I give Gosling's work overall a thumbs up and love him as an actor in general.

Gosling & Washington both were obvious threats for the win, but that doesn't mean that Affleck wasn't deserving.  An actor of tics and nervous introversion (so different than the bravado confidence of his brother Ben), Affleck is perfectly cast in Manchester by the Sea as a man who cannot get past the grief of his family dying in a fire, even when he is given a new chance to be a savior for his young nephew.  The scenes with Michelle Williams late in the movie are my favorite part of the film, and of Affleck's performance, the inability of him to forgive himself showing in his face, because that would be to acknowledge that life could move on-it's a heartbreaking performance, fully-realized, and the best thing he's done in his career.

The last two nominees are more after-thoughts, though considering the lock-step aspects of this lineup through the precursors, they obviously had their champions.  Mortensen gets the more difficult part, as a mountain man who is raising a young family on the outskirts of society (a weird companion piece to Leave No Trace two years later, though this one has more room for levity).  His performance hinges on being able to convince the audience that he is doing the "right thing" by his family, even if that right thing comes with too much tunnel vision about what is also "right for him."  The movie itself I didn't love, but I don't put that as much on Mortensen's lead performance, which is interesting if occasionally not revealing enough about what he's feeling (which is crucial for the late scenes to achieve emotional payoff).  The actor who once adorned posters in the dorms of young men everywhere continues to pave perhaps the weirdest post-LOTR career with this movie, and considering it got him an Oscar nomination, perhaps the most fruitful?

Doesn't it feel like Andrew Garfield has been waiting for this Oscar nomination way longer than he actually has?  His citation for Hacksaw Ridge was yes, part of that film's stampede, but also a long road from when he nearly made it for The Social Network.  I have talked about how, while I didn't like Hacksaw Ridge, I didn't hate it like many online critics seemed to, and I think a lot of Garfield's best moments are from Gibson forcing a narrative on him, making his work elevate because Gibson is showing "this is important" in big bold letters through the editing, cinematography, and sound design.  The earlier scenes, the ones outside of an action lens & the ones Gibson just view as a means-to-an-end, are terrible, and Garfield doesn't know how to play this version of his Desmond Doss work.  This isn't Garfield's best work, but it is nice to know he finally got his overdue Oscar nomination if his career never fully realizes its initial promise.

Other Precursor Contenders: We start with the Globes, which distinguish between Drama and "Comedy/Musical," and as a result have ten men on our ballot.  The dramatic men included victorious Casey Affleck, besting Garfield, Mortensen, Washington, and Joel Edgerton in Fences; Comedy/Musical was an easy lift for Ryan Gosling, the only Oscar nominee of the bunch, against Colin Farrell (The Lobster), Hugh Grant (Florence Foster Jenkins), Jonah Hill (War Dogs...one of those Golden Globe-nominated films I have absolutely no memory of existing), and Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool).  SAG went with a carbon copy of Oscar, though they picked Denzel Washington for the win, likely at that point trying to give Oscar an out considering some of the #MeToo stories that were swirling about Affleck at the time.  BAFTA went to Affleck, and here it was Washington oddly enough snubbed (it is, at the end of the day a pretty American story, but Viola Davis won so I don't know what was happening here), and including Jake Gyllenhaal for Nocturnal Animals.  Sixth place in retrospect feels like a distant sixth, but at the time Mortensen's film, which was really under-seen felt vulnerable, either to Edgerton or Reynolds (there were a lot of people pulling for Deadpool at the last minute).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: First off, Garfield is nominated for the wrong movie.  I'm glad that we finally have an Oscar nomination for a very fine actor, but his superior work in 2016 was in Silence, not Hacksaw Ridge.  I would have also included Trevante Rhodes, for playing the third quarter of Moonlight so beautifully; that scene in the cafe alone warranted an Oscar nomination.  And honestly, I'd probably rely on two films that almost no one saw for my final two citations.  Adam Driver is always excellent these days, but his work in Paterson shouldn't be ignored-this sweet, kind, slightly strange movie is so effective because of his sensitive work.  Finally, I love what Logan Lerman did in Indignation.  I know he kind of got Bryce Dallas Howard/Jessica Chastain'd by Timothee Chalamet in recent years, but he's a promising actor who has now had three truly great performances this decade (along with Perks of Being a Wallflower and Fury)-at what point do people start giving him acknowledgement?

Oscar’s Choice: I think this was pretty close between Affleck (who made the most sense on-paper), Washington (whom I believe I predicted at the time because there was a movement going against Affleck), and Gosling (whom I also thought might be a decent winner at the time considering he hadn't won yet and his winning someday feels inevitable), but it was Affleck's work that won.

My Choice: This is a first for me, and sadly not a last.  My winner is Casey Affleck, and for the purposes of this series (where we are focused solely on the performances at hand and not careers or makeup Oscars or the personal lives of the actors), he is the official winner.  However, if I had an actual real world ballot, I would have probably voted for my second place Denzel Washington considering the sexual harassment allegations against Affleck at the time.  But for this series, it's Affleck, Washington, Gosling, Mortensen, and Garfield, in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you think that Washington or Gosling had a legit shot at besting Affleck here?  Do you think this is the end-of-the-line for Andrew Garfield (who has fallen into less-seen productions since Hacksaw Ridge), or will he sneak back for a second nomination?  And has anyone actually seen War Dogs-is it any good?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2016: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2016

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

No Globe? No Sag? No Problem!!!

Lesley Manville didn't get invited by SAG or
HFPA, but she was good enough for Oscar anyway.

There are a lot of things to say about this morning's SAG Awards.  For starters, there is no universe where Bohemian Rhapsody qualifies as a strong ensemble.  I didn't even like Crazy Rich Asians, but I understand the pull to nominate it here, but Bohemian Rhapsody is completely & totally Rami Malek, and the supporting cast is a bunch of one-dimensional, lackluster performances that are entirely in service to Malek.  Nearly as absurd is thinking that Emily Blunt is a supporting performance in A Quiet Place.  I enjoyed Blunt in this film, and am excited she's clearly headed to her first Oscar nomination, but no one would consider this a supporting performance if Mary Poppins Returns wasn't an option this year.  NO ONE.  Nicole Kidman has to be looking at this year right now and wishing that she'd gone supporting for Moulin Rouge! in 2001 because apparently she could have gotten dual nominations that year, no trouble (and yes, it's absurd to think of her as supporting in Moulin Rouge!, but is it any more absurd than Blunt or Chalamet or Ali?).

But that's a gripe for a different day, because today we get to do one of my all-time favorite traditions at TMROJ: our annual "No Globe/No Sag/No Problem!" article.  For those unfamiliar, every year we take a look at one of the more under-reported aspects of the awards season, that despite people pretending like anyone without a Globe or SAG nomination is DOA when it comes to Oscar, almost always there's at least 1-2 actors who randomly get nominated without either of these precursors.  Even in an era of group think with the Academy, we have not had a year where no one is a "new name" since 2006, which was largely due to the bizarre Best Supporting Actor race that season (nine different actors were cited in those categories that year between the Globes & SAG Awards).  For reference, in the past ten years these have been the "No Globes, No SAG" victors with AMPAS:

2017: Lesley Manville
2016: Michael Shannon
2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy & Mark Ruffalo
2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, & Laura Dern
2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emmanuelle Riva, & Jacki Weaver
2011: Gary Oldman & Max von Sydow
2010: Javier Bardem
2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal
2008: Michael Shannon

As you can see from the above, the "No Globe/No SAG" contenders usually fall into one of two camps.  Either they are previous nominees/winners who are making a late play for the Oscar nomination, as they're already established enough with the Academy that they don't need precursors to get their screener into the DVD player, or they are "halo" nominations from films that are doing well in the Best Picture or other acting races that sneak onto enough ballots to get a fourth or fifth place nomination.  It's worth noting that none of these actors usually end up winning (I believe the last time that someone pulled off an Oscar win without either precursor nomination was Marcia Gay Harden in 2000), but it's too soon to count the following ten contenders out of Oscar's big night:

10. Toni Collette (Hereditary)

For Her: She received raves for her work in Hereditary, which is a genre film but has the prestige-horror angle that Oscar sometimes goes for (look at Get Out last year), and she's a previous nominee.  Collette has been working the rooms hard for this citation, and is the sort of actor most everyone has worked with & acknowledges is one of the best, but her nominations count doesn't really speak to that fact.
Against Her: It's a rough year for Best Actress outsiders (there is a lot of consensus forming around the Close/Gaga/McCarthy/Blunt/Colman quintet), so she'd likely have to take out either McCarthy or Blunt for their nominations, a tall order considering the former is one of Hollywood's most bankable movie stars and the latter most agree is overdue for this nomination.  Plus, it's still genre and she might have needed more critical hosannas to land this spot.

9. Nicole Kidman (Boy Erased)

For Her: Kidman is consistently one of the best actors in cinema, and this is exactly the sort of role that gets you nominated (long-suffering, long-supporting mother).  Lucas Hedges did get a nomination for Best Actor at the Globes, and as a result this is probably more in the conversation with AMPAS than most critics have been giving it credit for, and Kidman's exactly the sort of matinee idol that gets nominated for work such as this.  If people ignore her on their Best Actress ballots for Destroyer, perhaps they'll want to include her here?
Against Her: She's looking at likely vote-splitting for her work in Destroyer, even if it's in a different category, and she's got The Favourite women taking up two of the nominations already.  Will Oscar have room for an actual supporting performance if they already have 40-60% of the category filled up with leads?

8. Steve Carell (Vice)

For Him: Carell seems to be pulling a play from Michael Shannon's book this year, where you just appear in as many films as possible and see what sticks.  He likely doesn't have to worry about vote-splitting with Beautiful Boy and Welcome to Marwen, but a trio of films could make the Academy give one of its occasional "they were in everything, so let's nominate them" citations.  Carell's got a showy role in a movie that feels like a Best Picture contender, which always helps-could this be a "halo" nomination of sorts?
Against Him: Best Supporting Actor seems to be solidifying (again, lead performers Timothee Chalamet & Mahershala Ali both make it harder for a turn like this to make the cut), and if anyone from Vice makes it, won't it be recent-winner Sam Rockwell, who got the Globe nomination?  It's hard to envision the Academy loving this movie so much that both of them get into the lineup.

7. Linda Cardellini (Green Book)

For Her: I can't decide if this should be #1 or if I'm crazy for including it on this list at all.  Cardellini's role in Green Book is a trifle, nothing really impressive about it and lacking even a really juicy scene that might get her into the conversation in a different year.  But she's also playing the supportive wife (one of Oscar's favorite roles) in a probable Best Picture contender, and romancing a surefire Best Actor nominee in her film.  Is this a Jacki Weaver-type nomination?
Against Her: She's not as famous as most of the people on this list (though she's worked in Hollywood a while), which makes standing out more of a challenge, and it's a pittance of a part.  With category fraud so rampant this year, how will there be room for a genuine supporting part to sneak in like Cardellini's?

6. Ryan Gosling (First Man)

For Him: I get the feeling that First Man is going to do much better with Oscar than it had any hopes to do with some of the precursor awards, considering it has very showy tech attributes that go a lot further with AMPAS.  That should help Gosling, a two-time nominee who has never won, who gives an introverted performance here that has gained a lot of critical praise.  If AMPAS wants subtle, he's a pretty strong option.
Against Him: If John David Washington is genuinely getting his nomination, that leaves very little room for a Best Actor nominee to sneak in, as Gosling would have to take out Viggo, Bale, Malek, or Cooper, none of which feel movable at this point.  Oscar only occasionally goes for subtle-this might be too subdued for them, and the SAG miss for Claire Foy makes me wonder if no one is feeling this work this year.

5. Yalitza Aparicio (Roma)

For Her: The work in this film is showy and impressive, and you can't help but connect with her Cleo.  For actor-fans of Cuaron's film (there will be a lot of them-expect this to be a Best Picture nominee), they've got no other place to show their enthusiasm other than Aparicio, and Globe/SAG are more into stars than Oscar is (because you become a star with that Oscar nomination).
Against Her: It's a director's film, and while the cast is an undersung hero of why it works, the combination of it being a visual rather than actorly showcase and that it's in a foreign language (already a hiccup with Oscar), means that Aparicio is going to need Oscar to love it a lot in order to get her into the race.

4. Julia Roberts (Ben is Back)

For Her: She's one of the country's most recognizable movie stars, and as a result can make a late play in a way that few others would be able to pull off (if Clint Eastwood's work in The Mule is good enough, he should be on this list as he's in the same boat, but the lack of a critic's screening makes me think that is entirely a commercial play).  Ben is Back is getting great notices for Roberts, and it hasn't opened yet so it could be a strong commercial play (plus she'll be on red carpets already thanks to Homecoming).  While there are a lot of Globe/SAG-nominated performers who could break up the quintet I've listed above, my gut says that if one of those names isn't on the list, it'll be Roberts that comes out of nowhere & scores for her work here.
Against Her: She needs strong box office & she needs to oust someone who is already a big part of the conversation.  She can do that, but Roberts has never pulled off an Oscar citation without serious Globes support heading into the night.

3. Michael B. Jordan (Black Panther)

For Him: He's a superstar actor (he must be getting a nomination at some point, right?), who has the most obvious, nominatable performance in a film that is a serious threat to win Best Picture.  It's relatively rare for a Best Picture winner not to have at least one nominated performance, and villains do well in Best Supporting Actor.
Against Him: The Return of the King was a much surer Best Picture victor, and it missed completely for nominations.  It's entirely possible that the Academy will skip this considering they don't go for comic book performances (Heath Ledger being the obvious exception), and he's been skipped over before for more obvious work.  Maybe they just aren't fans?

2. Ethan Hawke (First Reformed)

For Him: Hawke's work here is remarkable, a tour-de-force triumph that will be catnip to anyone who sees it.  Oscar loves very physical performances, and ones with lots of great monologues.  It's easy to see him making it on #1 ballots if enough people catch the film...
Against Him: ...but will they?  Schrader is probably looking at a Best Screenplay nomination here if Hawke can also pull it off, but this is a rough movie that people are going to have to start catching around the holidays, and it was released months ago, so the buzz is going to be tough to maintain as Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody continue to be a big presence in theaters.  Might it just be one of those performances the Oscars wish they'd nominated after-the-fact?

1. Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians)

For Her: Everything.  She's a well-known actor (check) who is appearing in a showcase supporting role (check) in a populist film that everyone saw (check) that is increasingly likely to win a Best Picture nomination (check).  Plus, in an Academy increasingly focused on diversity with their acting nominations, Yeoh's an easy way to honor one of the most important Asian women in cinema.  I had toyed with putting Hawke or Jordan at #1, but the SAG nomination for Best Ensemble combined with the dual nominations at the Globes makes me think this is probably going to happen.  Also, Supporting Actress is the only race where the fifth slot doesn't have a clear favorite so she has room (Adams, King, Stone, & Weisz make it, but Foy is slipping, Robbie is out-of-nowhere, and Blunt will get in for Mary Poppins instead).
Against Her: It's a relatively slight role, and it's entirely possible that the Academy (allergic to comedies) won't love CRA the way the general public did.  But I think this is happening-it's the only one on this list that I'd have listed on my official Top 5 predictions at this point.

OVP: First Man (2018)

Film: First Man (2018)
Stars: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Corey Stoll, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler
Director: Damien Chazelle
Oscar History: 4 nominations/1 win (Best Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Production Design, Visual Effects*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Few modern directors I have a more complicated relationship with than Damien Chazelle.  While history doesn't remember it as such (and frequently, neither do I), I actually gave Whiplash a positive review (it got 3 stars on the blog), though I remember thinking at the time it was being helped quite a bit by Chazelle nailing the ending the film, as I'm usually more forgiving of a movie that finds a way to stick the landing.  His follow-up film, the briefest of Best Picture winners (roughly 90 seconds it held the title) La La Land, I was less forgetful in my consideration of it.  While I could admire the beauty of some of the movie, I felt the film was a nostalgic homage that fell flat, stuck in trying to be a Minnelli picture when Chazelle was struggling to understand that genre.  So it seems bizarre to me that First Man, of all things, is the movie where I finally start to warm to Chazelle.  After all, biopics are perhaps the movie I most diverge from critics and audiences on (I am cringing realizing I need to see that new Queen movie thanks to the box office likely propelling Malek to a nomination this year), and Chazelle's he-man, hyper-masculine treatment of his characters (and the way he cannot figure out what a supporting actor does), did not spell out success for my personal tastes, and yet...I really, really liked First Man.  Perhaps it was because Chazelle, saddled with a relatively mundane (though extraordinary) man at the center of his biopic, was forced to think outside of the box office to make this movie interesting, we finally find a journey suitable to prove his talents as a director.

(Real Life Doesn't Need Spoiler Alerts) The film, for those who aren't aware, is about the earliest stages of the space program, specifically the time leading up to Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. The film opens with Armstrong's daughter Karen dying of a brain tumor.  Armstrong (Gosling), famously stoic in real life (many of his colleagues were never aware he had had a daughter who died before she turned three he was so silent on the subject), throws himself into his work in the Gemini and Apollo programs, his marriage frequently suffering as a result, as his wife Janet (Foy) struggles with raising her sons knowing that their father could die at any moment, and that of course she has a partner with whom she cannot discuss her daughter's death.  The film moves through the less familiar story beats of the space program, focusing on the deaths rather than the successes (particularly those who died in the Apollo 1 launch), and the push by Congress/the public to not pursue the space program, as it seemed too costly & they were consistently falling behind the Soviets.  The movie ends with Armstrong coming back from the moon, quarantined but now an immortal figure, silently sharing a moment with his wife after having honored their daughter on the moon by dropping her bracelet on its surface (this isn't factually accurate, though he did name a crater on the moon after his daughter).

The movie easily could have struggled because Armstrong as an historical figure is pretty much what you'd expect from such a man.  While someone like Buzz Aldrin (whose struggles with depression, anger, and alcoholism seems tailor-made for the cinema) is usually at the center of a biopic, Armstrong was always just a boy scout, the all-star, conservative hero who did his duty and tried not to brag about it too hard.  Gosling, therefore, was given an odious task of making Neil Armstrong compelling as a cinematic force, which he does, mostly by letting his pensive demeanor and speaking voice hide the hurt of losing his child, and knowing what it is to become obsessed with a cause, even at the expense of his marriage.  The Armstrongs eventually divorced some 25 years after the moon landing, with Neil remarrying soon after, and you can see in Chazelle's editing choices that he doesn't want this to be a love story, but perhaps more the tale of two people surviving circumstances that would have brought down most others.  Foy and Gosling are both terrific in trying to create a marriage where love is in short supply, but frequently determination and resilience holds things together.

Chazelle doesn't entirely get rid of some of the bad habits of his previous films.  It says something that a character actor as reliable as Corey Stoll is on-hand to play the colorful Buzz Aldrin and Chazelle has nothing for him to do-the director's inability to understand what to do with supporting actors was evident in Whiplash (JK Simmons was a lead character in that movie, so don't cluck) and La La Land, though I will admit its less noticeable here since not only are Foy & Gosling playing essentially lead roles, but so is the mission itself.  Beautifully lensed by Linus Sandgren, the space launches are incredible, particularly the titular moment where Gosling goes on the moon.  With haunting, near-1950's style Sci Fi music playing in the background (Justin Hurwitz is unrecognizable as the composer), we get a wordless opera on the moon, by far the best thing that Chazelle has ever done and arguably the most spellbinding sequence I can recall seeing onscreen this year.  This wonder, aided by strong performances, makes up for Chazelle's glossing past his supporting characters or trying to have a both sides-political argument (it's clear that Chazelle is trying to make a film that Armstrong would have appreciated, ie a conservative vision, and while he skips the planting of the American flag as it would have seemed gauche in the context of the film, this is one of the best "conservative" films I've seen in a long time).  After his first two films failed to impress, I waited a few weeks to review this movie thinking it would age poorly or the flaws would shine through as I got some distance from the movie, but that's not the case.  The movie is great-see it before it leaves theaters if you can.

Song to Song (2017)

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

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

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

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

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