OVP: Actress (2001)

OVP: Best Actress (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Halle Berry, Monster's Ball

Judi Dench, Iris

Nicole Kidman, Moulin Rouge!

Sissy Spacek, In the Bedroom

Renee Zellweger, Bridget Jones's Diary

My Thoughts: And we are coming to a close of six consecutive days of OVP Ballots (we'll do the remaining three next week), with our final acting race, Best Actress.  Like Best Actor, I think it's worth knowing some context here.  In 2001, the Oscar race for Best Actress was very, very close.  Nicole Kidman, Sissy Spacek, & Halle Berry were all neck-and-neck as you'll see with the precursors below, and this was the rare race that truly no one knew whose name Russell Crowe was going to call out.

Well, Renee Zellweger probably knew she was staying in her seat, though it's not because she wasn't good in Bridget Jones.  Zellweger, in the wake of Jerry Maguire, had spent a few years floundering in different projects, appearing in daughter/girlfriend roles opposite Meryl Streep & Jim Carrey, and then eventually beating Juliette Binoche for a surprise Golden Globe in 2000 (when she was literally in the bathroom).  Her Bridget Jones made her a proper movie star, and she nails the English accent here in a way few American actresses have achieved beforehand.  She also is genuinely funny & charming, getting the pathos of a single girl in her thirties down to a tee.  The main complaint-it's too slight.  The film is too light, it doesn't quite have enough direction outside of her, and isn't good enough.  But in a year where Oscar felt the need to get a little creative, this was a solid decision.

The only other American in this field was of course Halle Berry.  This is Berry's only nomination, and an historic win in the category...that I wish I could say I enjoy.  I agree with pretty much every criticism levied at this part through the years-that she's miscast, that she feels like she doesn't have enough chemistry with Thornton.  It feels like the further into the role she gets, the more she loses of the character, and that's not what the script is doing.  There's nothing there, other than just a beautiful woman who (while still beautiful) hasn't sat in a makeup chair for three hours prior.  When people criticize deglam performances, this is what they're referring to-all physical change, but not enough substance to the work beneath.

Nicole Kidman's work is the opposite.  Heightened glamour (though obviously a "cheaper" type given the character), she also finds depths beneath the mountain of makeup and silk dresses.  Kidman's work here is remarkable, giving us Satine in all of her facets: as a con artist, as a dreamer, as a survivor.  We understand that her life changes with Christian, but unlike McGregor's lovesick writer, who is totally reborn when he meets her, she brings some of the weight of her previous life with her, informing the performance even as she dares to find a change.  It's terrific work, atop singing that feels like it's giving us more of the character (not easy, especially for a non-professional singer). 

Sissy Spacek also gives us layered work in In the Bedroom.  This performance is showy (that plate-smashing scene became iconic for a reason), but only in parts.  Much of the buildup to that is Spacek putting in the groundwork.  I love the way she always seems a little nervous around the son that she has a distant, prickly relationship with, knowing that she has to guide him to do the things she wants since saying it out loud will just have him go in the opposite direction.  This, of course, is a hallmark of being the mother of a defiant young man, one who is desperate to please one parent but not the other, and Spacek (a mother of two) clearly carries that into her work as Ruth.

Finishing off the list we have our only real-life figure (a rarity for this category) with Judi Dench's performance as Iris Murdoch.  This was during that period where Judi Dench could get nominated for playing virtually any part, so you'd be fine wondering if this is just a "default" nomination, but it's not.  Dench is very good as Iris Murdoch, and has one of the trickier acts in the film, playing a woman who has to both be connected to her younger self (played by Kate Winslet) while also showing flashes of growth and fading away.  She does a decent job of giving us a genius on the brink of losing everything, a woman of prose who can no longer find the words.  The film is depressing, and that starts to hurt Dench's performance because it goes for easy sentiment toward the end, but it's still strong work during Dench's heyday.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama, Spacek won, beating Berry, Dench, Nicole Kidman (The Others), & Tilda Swinton (The Deep End), while Comedy/Musical went to Kidman in Moulin Rouge! against Zellweger, Thora Birch (Ghost World), Cate Blanchett (Bandits), & Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde).  SAG went with Halle Berry, besting Dench, Spacek, Zellweger, & Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), while BAFTA picked Dench against Kidman (The Others), Zellweger, Spacek, & Audrey Tautou (Amelie); Berry wasn't eligible due to when the movie was released in the UK, but she was nominated for Best Actress the following year.  In terms of sixth place, it's tricky.  It's possible that Kidman, because she could only be cited for one film, was not only in sixth but maybe even in fourth for The Others, as both were serious threats for a nomination that year, but if you don't count that, it was surely Swinton, doing the legwork for her eventual win in 2007.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: The Oscars have had a complicated history with Kidman's best friend Naomi Watts, who has been cited for two Oscars for underwhelming films, while her best work they ignored.  That happened in 2001, when she gave the performance of her career in Mulholland Drive and they sadly skipped over it.

Oscar’s Choice: Headed into the night, a three-way tie between Berry, Spacek, & Kidman looked as likely as anything, but Berry was able to ride her SAG win to victory, and one of the Oscar's best speeches (it still gets me crying every time).

My Choice: I'm going to go with Kidman over Spacek, because I think her role is trickier given the heightened world Baz has created, and because the singing is so well-done; both will be showing up next week in my My Ballot wrap-up for this category, though.  Behind them I'll pick Zellweger, Dench, and then Berry.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Do you stick with the Academy making history with Berry's choice or do you want to join the Kidman train early with me?  Which of Kidman's 2001 performances should Oscar have chosen if you only get one?  And why do you think it took Tilda Swinton so long to get into the Academy's good graces?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

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

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

OVP: Carrie (1976)

Film: Carrie (1976)

Stars: Sissy Spacek, Amy Irving, Betty Buckley, Nancy Allen, William Katt, John Travolta, PJ Soles, Piper Laurie

Director: Brian De Palma

Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Actress-Sissy Spacek, Supporting Actress-Piper Laurie)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

All October long, The Many Rantings of John is running a marathon dedicated to the Horror classics of the 1960's-90's that I'm seeing for the first time this month.  If you want to take a look at past titles from previous horror marathons (both this and other seasons) check out the links at the bottom of this article.

One of the things that you're not seeing a lot of this month as we profile horror classics from this era is Oscar nominees.  In the long history of the Academy Awards, only six horror films have been cited for Best Picture: The Exorcist, Jaws, The Silence of the Lambs, The Sixth Sense, Black Swan, & Get Out, all of which I have seen (in some cases, many times) so they wouldn't qualify for our "new to me" theme.  Despite making boatloads of cash at the box office & occasionally getting major hosannas from critics, horror films rarely get into Oscar categories, even in tech fields like Makeup or Visual Effects where horror has been on the cutting edge for decades.  Today, though, we're going to get into the rare horror film that did get some major Oscar nominations, though perhaps they got them in part because the film, for much of its run, isn't really a horror film at all.

(Spoiers Ahead) Carrie is definitely a film that eventually becomes a horror picture, but for much of its run it is less a traditional "monster" movie and more a film about a young woman named Carrie (Spacek) who is put in an impossible situation in life.  Her religious zealot mother (Laurie) is vicious to her, basically scolding her for existing, and beating her for getting her period (which she says is a mark of shame, something that she gleans from her own pregnancy).  Carrie is treated viciously by most of the girls at school, including cruel Chris (Allen), who works with her boyfriend Billy (a young John Travolta) to ensure Carrie is elected the Prom Queen at the prom (she's been taken by her crush Tommy Ross, who looks exactly like you'd expect a 1970's heartthrob to look), and then is doused in pig's blood.  The film's ending turns into a proper horror movie, with Carrie's telekinetic powers turning her into a blood-soaked villain, enacting revenge on everyone who has been cruel to her all movie, though in the process a number of the people who were kind to her, like her crush Tommy & gym teacher Miss Collins (Buckley), also die.

The movie is an adaptation of Stephen King's first published novel, and is generally considered to be one of his best adaptations.  I have not read the original book, not because I'm not curious after this movie and more because I struggle with King as a novelist (he's a very good writer who frequently is in desperate need of an editor).  Unlike something like The Shining or Misery, the bulk of the horror here is more psychological & relegated to the final twenty minutes, which works well.  You get to see the world that Carrie inhabits, that she's not so much a villain of intention but one who cannot handle the world around her.  The scene where she has feminine care products hurled at her while she's bleeding in the shower, unaware of what is happening to her, is scarier than anything else.  I don't know if you could make a film like this today with this much sensitivity (particularly considering how much violence has emerged in the past 25 years in public schools), but it does make Carrie one of the rare iconic "villains" of this era to be more in the vein of Frankenstein or the Wolf Man, a misunderstood monster, as opposed to a killing machine like Leatherface or Jason Voorhees.

The performances are very good by the three lead women, two of which won Oscar nominations.  Spacek is extraordinary as the damaged Carrie.  I liked that the film plays with our expectations along with Carrie.  For example, you spend much of the picture wondering whether or not Tommy & Amy Irving's Sue are part of the prank or are actually good to Carrie, which lends some caution to Spacek's performance that I thought was really smart.  Piper Laurie, who hadn't been in a film since 1961's The Hustler (meaning that she got back-to-back Oscar nominations for these two movies despite a 15-year gap), has a part that could've been just a bananas, crazy-to-the-rafters performance (and sometimes, let's face it, it is), but it largely works as a religious zealot who gone mad both with overzealous readings of scripture and with using it as an excuse to abuse her daughter.  Rounding out the trio is Betty Buckley, totally underrated as a kind, if occasionally immature gym teacher (look at the glee she gets tormenting Carrie's bullies-that's some good, layered acting even if Oscar wasn't paying attention).  There are moments in Carrie that don't work (the score is too derivative of Psycho, some of the side plots involving Chris & Billy are so cruel to as be unbelievable), but overall this is a controlled horror film featuring fine work from Spacek, Laurie, & Buckley.

Past Horror Month Reviews (Listed Chronologically): The Golem, The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, Freaks, The Mummy, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, The Black Cat, The Bride of Frankenstein, Mad Love, The Raven, Werewolf of London, Dracula's Daughter, Son of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man Returns, The Mummy's Hand, The Invisible Woman, The Wolf Man, Cat People, The Ghost of Frankenstein, Invisible Agent, The Mummy's Curse, The Mummy's Tomb, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, Phantom of the Opera, Son of Dracula, The House of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man's Revenge, The Mummy's Ghost, The Uninvited, House of Dracula, She-Wolf of London, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, It Came from Outer Space, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Abbott & Costello Meet the Mummy, Revenge of the Creature, The Creature Walks Among Us, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Attack of the 50-Foot Woman, The Blob, Village of the Damned, The Innocents, The Masque of the Red Death, Night of the Living Dead, The Wicker Man, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Badlands (1973)

Film: Badlands (1973)

Stars: Martin Sheen, Sissy Spacek, Warren Oates

Director: Terrence Malick

Oscar History: The film was actually eligible in 1974, for the record (it is famously a "1973" movie but it was only at film festivals that year), but got no nominations despite a generally enthusiastic reception when it first came out.

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

As part of our month-long celebration of the 10th Anniversary of The Many Rantings of John, I am completing all of the remaining gaps in my Terrence Malick filmography (one of my favorite film directors) with what we're calling "Terry Tuesdays" throughout June.

One of the weirder aspects about doing "Terry Tuesdays" (which we'll do chronologically the next four weeks) is that most of the Malick films I haven't seen are the "classics."  While Malick doesn't have a particularly long filmography, by-and-large I've seen the deep cuts.  As a result, you aren't going to get short-changed here with a lot of Knight of Cups, but instead we're going to dive into one of the most important films of the 1970's, Badlands.  While Malick had worked in the film industry before this making short films and as a script revisor (he reportedly was an uncredited contributor to Dirty Harry), Badlands was his first film, and luckily for Malick, he came of age in the 1970's, when major studios were taking a chance on a director as unorthodox as Malick, which is why Warner Brothers was willing to back such an iconic film with actors who were still up-and-coming (though Malick, true-to-form, was able to pick out the legends that would be Martin Sheen & Sissy Spacek).

(Spoilers Ahead) For those who have been raised on modern Malick, it might surprise you that Badlands has a relatively conventional approach to story, one where the script is actually pertinent and it's not just about the natural surroundings & feeling of the film (which would become his trademark in the decades to come in movies like The New World and The Tree of Life).  The film involves Kit Carruthers (Sheen), a troubled young 25-year-old who falls in love with a teenage Holly Sargis (Spacek), whose mother has recently died and is now living with her father (Oates).  Holly falls for Kit because he looks like James Dean (the film is set in the 1950's), and when they decide to run away together, Holly's father stops them, and in a moment of surprise, Kit kills him.  The two run away, burning down their house, and become fugitives on the lam, with Kit increasingly exhibiting bloodlust (killing police officers, and at one point, a friend of his for no reason), until they are caught by the authorities, with Holly getting off (and eventually marrying her attorney's son), while Kit is executed for his crimes, though he's experienced a semblance of fame as a result of his crime spree.

Badlands was not nominated for a lot of Oscars when it first came out, but it was recognized pretty quickly as a remarkable achievement, and it's hard not to see why critics became obsessed with it.  The movie is gorgeous, though because it's 1974 the cinematography might seem underwhelming compared to the ceaseless beauty of The New World.  However, compared to pretty much any other outdoors scenes being shot in 1974, you'd be hard-pressed to find a film that could compare.  The Montana and South Dakota Badlands are a wonder to behold, and there are moments where the camera has taken over, totally telling the story despite the film's relatively conventional (at least for Malick) approach to the screen.  It's a crime that the film wasn't nominated at least for Cinematography.

But Malick's style isn't just about pretty pictures-it's about capturing a mood, about capturing a longing, and that's what he does here.  Badlands finds something really rough but beautiful in the promise of these two young people, who are given the one thing in American culture you can commodify but you can never truly sell: youth...and shows how it comes with an aching to understand that is only possible with age.  The way that the two slowly realize that they are in love not with each other, but with the idea of being young-and-in-love, crossing the plains only for a short time, is glorious.  The film is also not shy about violence, but unlike Bonnie & Clyde (one of my favorite movies, so don't take this as a slight), this isn't glamorized, but instead it's lackadaisically vicious.  It's not entirely clear if romantic, dreamer Kit is just misguided or a full-on sociopath, but it feels like Malick is hinting at the latter, which makes his handsomeness & disarming charisma all the scarier amidst these soft meadows. Badlands understand that the American dream isn't real, and if you admit that, none of the myths about the American experience can hold much water...but that doesn't mean that they aren't important weights that enforce our experience here.

OVP: Crimes of the Heart (1986)

Film: Crimes of the Heart (1986)

Stars: Diane Keaton, Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek, Sam Shepard, Tess Harper, Hurd Hatfield

Director: Bruce Beresford

Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Actress-Sissy Spacek, Supporting Actress-Tess Harper, Adapted Screenplay)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

The 1980's are a weird time for me cinematically.  I was alive in the 1980's, but the movies I was obsessed with were Lady and the Tramp and Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day...I was not really concerned with the kinds of films that Oscar was acknowledging.  As a result, I don't have any nostalgia to surround myself with from the decade, and am left with kind of a bad feeling every time someone brings it up with reverence...as the 1980's is easily my least favorite decade cinematically.  The acting is a bit too involved, the headliners are not my favorites, the scripts are too indulgent and anguished...it was a decade where people seemed to be totally oblivious to how awful Ronald Reagan was as president.  I had this sense of apprehension heading into Crimes of the Heart, even though I genuinely like all three of the leading ladies in it (even with my 1980's allergy), as I was curious what a film like this would feel like, and if it would rise above the 1980's trappings.  What I didn't expect, however, was how weird it would be.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about three sisters, all of whom have very different natures.  Lenny (Keaton), is a spinster who has spent much of their life taking care of their dying grandfather (Hatfield), while Meg (Lange) is a struggling singer in Hollywood who has left behind her family.  They are both home immediately following Babe (Spacek), their youngest sister, having had an affair with a black teenager & shooting her husband who regularly beats her senseless.  As the film progresses, we learn more about the trio, specifically the shocking trauma they endured when they were children (that their mother hanged herself and her cat, making them national news).  As the film ends, it looks like Babe will kill herself in a fashion similar to her mother, but is unsuccessful in repeated attempts to commit suicide, and the film ends with the three sisters finally acknowledging their need for one another, despite their differences.

The movie is bizarre not in its approach (it actually kind of works for a theatrical adaptation, even if you can see the strings of it being a play from a mile away), but in its strange tonal inconsistencies.  It is a tender film, one about three sisters who love each other despite deep differences & genuine animosities. But it also runs rampant between comedy-and-drama, oftentimes in ways that you can't really tell what the director is trying to accomplish.  The cat hanging comes as a total surprise during a felt scene, and while it is a spit-take moment, it also feels kind of cheap.  There's something to be said for telling the story of people who endure 15 minutes of fame in the lens of comic tragedy (we've all seen headlines like that "Woman Hangs Self & Cat" feels ripped from the back pages of a tabloid newspaper), but the movie itself never successfully lands on what its purpose is, and when it tries to turn Babe's suicide into an equally comic moment (after seeing what it did to these women as children)...I just didn't like it.  It felt like a parody, and not in a good way.

The film won three Oscar nominations.  As I mentioned, the stage-to-screen translation is good even if you can tell its a play, but weirdly that can be accredited to the art directors.  I loved the lived-in sense of Lenny's house, the way it is bursting with too much stuff, quilts & photo albums & boxes that you've "meant to throw out but have been collecting dust for twenty years."  So often in films we don't see this attention-to-detail, but it's very real-look at your house, and notice things that have sat on counters or on closet shelves for a decade without having been moved in all that time.  Adding this sort of personality makes it feel less like a stage.  The script, though, doesn't do that kind of legwork, and its issues with tone & strange shock value felt off-putting.

Sissy Spacek is the best member of the cast, by a lot in my estimation, even if she also gets the best part.  Keaton is the pro at comedy, but has never done well with films that tread across genres (she's a good dramatic actress, but she needs to play that drama completely straight otherwise it comes off sarcastic), but it's Spacek who best encapsulates the black humor of the film.  She plays her part as someone who lives a more spontaneous life than her sister Lenny, but one more sporadic than her sister Meg, and she's very good when she's pitting her two older sisters against one another (as if she's done it her whole life).  The nomination for Tess Harper is weird.  Harper had just had a breakout part three years earlier for Tender Mercies, but that hardly explains her shrill, blink-and-you'll-miss-it role in Crimes of the Heart, a totally one-note performance that lacks any of the nuance that Spacek is bringing.  It's honestly bad acting, and totally runs aground the rest of the picture.  It's hard to imagine Oscar couldn't have done better.

4 Mini Reviews

We conclude our review roundups today with four more more movies from 2018 that I'll be giving mini-reviews to for the sake of time as we put a finish on last year and roll into our 2019 projects.  We still have some more 2018 movies that I want to get into, but we'll be doing that via our traditional full reviews, with these last four films getting the one-paragraph treatment (tis the curse of not getting an Oscar nomination and landing on a day I was too busy to complete the review).  I've made these films wait long enough, though, so let's dive in to their discussion.

The Old Man & the Gun (dir. David Lowery)

This film works better if you assume that Robert Redford is, indeed, retiring from acting.  If you do, you get the sense of wistfulness for an actor who has dominated movie screens for decades.  Redford's kind, handsome face and voice resonate with the audience even as he treads on familiar beats.  It's an odd story, the kind I'm surprised Clint Eastwood hadn't gotten his hands on (about a bank robber whom tellers genuinely like and has been robbing banks nearly all of his life).  Being based on real life, there are less twists than you'd hope for/expect, and the back-half where you 100% want him to get away with it but know he can't if this movie ever got made, is a bit of a drag, but Spacek & Redford have good chemistry, and with the knowledge that Redford won't make any more movies, there's enough nostalgia there to give you a good experience. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Ant-Man and the Wasp (dir. Peyton Reed)

It must have sucked having to follow something as emotionally-draining as Avengers 3, but Ant-Man in theory works better as a standalone comic film, thanks in large part to the compelling main antics of Paul Rudd, our unlikely hero.  The film doesn't have the same level of panache and focus, unfortunately, that the first film had (which is my second favorite of all of the Marvel Universe films after Winter Soldier), getting too bogged down in the Ghost villainy, which goes nowhere, and perhaps not realizing that the movie doesn't really need a villain since bringing back Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), is more than enough plot.  Still, Michael Douglas's work here is continually great and I love the chemistry between Rudd & Lilly.  I just wish the film had trimmed about thirty minutes off of its runtime, avoiding expanding in too many directions. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Colette (dir. Wash Westmoreland)

Keira Knightley's post-Pirates career has perhaps been one of the best I've ever seen out of an actress that could've so easily just been "the love interest" in a pair of 2003 movies.  An adventurous artist, I can think of no better person to play the charming, provocative Colette in the early stages of her career when she was writing the Claudine books under her husband's name.  Unfortunately the movie never really captures the bite that Knightley seems raring to give to this character, with the thick plot feeling thinly handled by Westmoreland, trying to fit traditional story beats into the life of an untraditional woman.  Still, Knightley remains an actress I'm obsessed with, and will follow her pretty much anywhere. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

A Bag of Marbles (dir. Christian Duguay)

A tiny little film that probably escaped mention with most people last year, I was intrigued by the film trailer of two young boys forced to flee the Nazis during World War II on foot, abandoned by their parents in hopes that they'd someday get to reunite.  The movie is based on a true story, an extraordinary one that became a bestselling memoir in the early 1970's, and there are moments that live up to the potential I saw in the trailer.  The cinematography is terrific, and I loved some of the side touches, particularly the brief interlude in the middle of the film when they're in Southern France, getting a respite from the war.  However, the movie never captures the startling fear of the real-life journey, and the child actors responsible for the main characters feel adrift in the movie's direction.  (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Emmy Predictions: The Dramas

Today is the last day that Emmy ballots can be submitted, and since the nominations will be officially announced in two weeks (July 16th, to be exact), I figured in kicking off our week of mega-posting (every day is getting two posts at least, guaranteed), I thought it would be appropriate to start off the week with one of the more popular segments on the blog: predictions!  I keep hearing this year's contests are some of the closets in years.  Let's see if I agree (we'll start with the dramas):

Best Drama Series

1. Mad Men
2. House of Cards
3. Game of Thrones
4. Orange is the New Black
5. Empire
6. Better Call Saul
7. Downton Abbey

The Lowdown: In the first year of the seven-wide nominations (is this really necessary...though also is the random-number nominee list at the Oscars really necessary...the answer to both is no), we have a few shows that, regardless of their chances of winning are assured nominations (Mad Men, Game of Thrones, Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards).  Empire was a zeitgeist moment and more importantly was on a broadcast network at a time when they can't get critical acclaim for a drama to save their lives, so that's in, as is the successful spinoff Better Call Saul.  The last slot seems to be a battle between The Good Wife (which missed last year but has competed in the past), The Americans (which is always the bridesmaid), and Downton Abbey (a repeat nominee that has seen finer days).  I'm going with Downton since this is still the Emmys and it doesn't have to hit sixth place, but seventh to make it (it also sort of proves that 7-wide is unnecessary, as the Top 6 looks like a pretty respectable list).

Best Actor in a Drama

1. Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
2. Kevin Spacey (House of Cards)
3. Bob Odenkirk (Better Call Saul)
4. Terrence Howard (Empire)
5. Kyle Chandler (Bloodline)
6. Clive Owen (The Knick)

The Lowdown: The Emmy nominations are always broken out between the potential winners (in this case Hamm, Spacey, and Odenkirk) and the guys trying to land another nomination, likely in the process gaining 4-5 nominations and an eventual trophy, because Emmy loves to repeat.  As a result, I think that Kyle Chandler, who made it for years on Friday Night Lights, should be back again for Bloodline, while Terrence Howard/Clive Owen have the prestige of being an Oscar nominee now starring on a television series.  About the only one of the contenders trying to beat them out that I see potentially making it is Jeff Daniels, who was nominated last year (which at the Emmys always makes you a threat), but The Newsroom has faded so much that this seems like a rough sell.

Best Actress in a Drama

1. Viola Davis (How to Get Away with Murder)
2. Taraji P. Henson (Empire)
3. Robin Wright (House of Cards)
4. Julianna Margulies (The Good Wife)
5. Ruth Wilson (The Affair)
6. Claire Danes (Homeland)

The Lowdown: This is a genuine horse-race, in my opinion, while the other categories just have "upset potential."  Aside from the top three women, it seems like this race could go any number of ways.  In addition to Margulies, Wilson, and Danes, you also have last year's contenders Kerry Washington, Michelle Dockery, and Lizzy Caplan, as well as former nominees Vera Farmiga, Taylor Schilling, and Elisabeth Moss all clamoring for support.  My gut says they won't quite skip Margulies the year after she finally won (though some might view that as a career capper), Wilson just won the Golden Globe and women do better in this sort of stylized drama than men (hence no mention of Dominic West up-above), and Danes has never missed despite sketchiness regarding Homeland's quality.  If there's someone I'm trying to make room for but can't, it's Moss who may or may not gain from Mad Men's swan song season.

Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

1. Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones)
2. Jonathan Banks (Better Call Saul)
3. Jon Voight (Ray Donovan)
4. Mandy Patinkin (Homeland)
5. Jim Carter (Downton Abbey)
6. John Slattery (Mad Men)

The Lowdown: This is where I become like those people who are forced to predict the Oscars even when they haven't seen the movies, because most of the major contenders in this race I have no idea the strength of their season and am relying on other factors (like previous nominations and strength-of-buzz) to make my call.  Considering that this field looks somewhat weak on paper, I'm going to keep not only the frontrunner for the trophy (Banks), but also last year's eligible nominees (Dinklage, Voight, Patinkin, and Carter).  For the final slot, I'm skipping Ben Mendehlson in Bloodline and Michael Kelly in House of Cards in favor of a former Emmy nominee who never won and probably had support even when he missed (ala Wendie Malick and Holland Taylor all of those years): John Slattery.

Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

1. Maggie Smith (Downton Abbey)
2. Christina Hendricks (Mad Men)
3. Uzo Aduba (Orange is the New Black)
4. Christine Baranski (The Good Wife)
5. Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black)
6. Lena Headey (Game of Thrones)

The Lowdown: The first four seem certain.  Three are Emmy titans and one is emerging as the "favorite" on her show and won an Emmy on her first try.  Lorraine Toussaint has gotten most of the plaudits for the latest season of Orange is the New Black, which should go a long way for her, particularly considering her role as a veteran character actress who has never made it before (hell, she could even win...witness Margo Martindale as an example).  The final nomination seems to be a three-way battle between two of last year's nominees (Lena Headey and Joanne Froggatt) and an Oscar-winning legend (Sissy Spacek).  Part of me feels like both Headey and Froggatt got in due to less competition than expected last year, and Spacek makes more sense, but Headey's "walk of shame" got a lot of really impressive press and it's not easy getting nominated for the first time in your show's fourth season when you've been there since the beginning.  So that makes me think Cersei will rise again.

Those are my predictions for Best Drama-do you agree, and if not, where did I make my mistakes?  And what names are you hoping to hear?  Share your thoughts in the comments!Bett