Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)

Film: Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)

Stars: Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Lloyd Bridges, Robert Stack, Abe Vigoda, Dan Hedaya, Ossie Davis

Director: John Patrick Shanley

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 (and now 2025) Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Meg Ryan: click here to learn more about Ms. Ryan (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Meg Ryan has one of the most traditional star paths of any of the 12 actresses we profiled this season.  Similar to 1990's movie stars Demi Moore, Leonardo DiCaprio, & Julianne Moore, she got some early work in soap operas, which were a huge business in the 1980's (they would hit their commercial peak as a format in 1984) and were a great launchpad for movie stars, but a lot of the rest of her 1980's output was honestly forgettable, taking on girlfriend roles and co-lead love interest parts in 1980's pictures like Top Gun and Innerspace.  Innerspace, though, was a hit, and Top Gun was a phenomenon, so her parts continued to increase, and so a breakout role like When Harry Met Sally in 1989 was inevitable.  When Harry Met Sally was such a big deal that Ryan would spend the next decade continually being compared to it (like Julia Roberts with Pretty Woman), but unlike Roberts, as we'll find out, Ryan was a much more consistent box office performer in the next decade, even in movies like Joe Versus the Volcano (the first of her three outings with Tom Hanks and the only one I'd never seen before focusing on her this month) that audiences at the time were apathetic about, though it's worth noting that this is perhaps the only one of Ryan's films (give or take In the Cut) that has since been rescued by cinephiles as something of a cult film.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Joe (Hanks) who works a lifeless job at a factory where he seems to inhabit virtually no joy.  When a doctor (Stack) tells him he has just six months to live, Joe takes this as a sign from the universe to tell off his boss (Hedaya) and ask out his coworker Dede (Ryan), who is enraptured with his spontaneity but can't handle his impending death, and breaks things off.  This is when things take a turn for the weird, as a wealthy man named Samuel Graynamore (Bridges) shows up and offers him several pleasures (a fancy hotel, first class tickets, a new wardrobe) if Joe will jump into a volcano to appease an island deity from an island that has rare minerals he needs for his business (just go with me on this, it seems more logical than it sounds in the movie).  Joe, knowing he's about to die anyway, takes him up on it, and goes along buying fancy clothes, as well as four waterproof steamer trunks that seem superfluous to the plot until much later.  He meets Graynamore's daughter Angelica (also Ryan), who shows him around and seems to ignite a new passion for life in him, and then he takes a boat with Graynamore's other daughter Patricia (once again Ryan) to the island, where he falls in love with Patricia along the way.  At the island he meets the village chief (somehow played by iconic star of The Godfather Abe Vigoda), jumps into the volcano with Patricia after they are wed...and the island rejects their sacrifice, sinking instead, and they are floating around the ocean, rescued by the steamer trunks, with Patricia revealing to Joe that he was set up, and the doctor was paid by her father to trick him...and he is not, in fact, going to die, but can have a happy life with her.

This movie sounds weird, and it gets weirder.  Joe Versus the Volcano is billed as a romantic-comedy, but it's not particularly funny and until the last twenty minutes, you'd be forgiven for not thinking that it's all that romantic (remember, Joe has romanced three different women, even if they are played by the same actress, so his connection to Patricia is only in the final quarter of the flick).  But it is interesting, frequently talking about the pressure we put upon ourselves to live a meaningful life, when so much of our existence is either intended to be dreary (most people work jobs that they don't care that much about were it not for the paycheck) or are totally outside of our control (our good health, whether or not we find romance or close friends).  After some consideration, I liked this-it's trying to do something different, which is always a moment I'll applaud, even if it isn't remotely successful on all of the levels it's intending to be.

I also really liked Ryan in this, as she's the best part of the movie (even if the shock value of Vigoda showing up in the role he does was maybe my favorite WTF scene).  She aces all three of these women, all with ridiculous (but solid) accents, and is the funniest part of the movie.  In some ways you can see a direct line to what she's doing here to what Cameron Diaz was achieving in Being John Malkovich a few years later.  And her chemistry with Hanks is wonderful.  Nora Ephron had to have noticed that to make it work in the best-loved of Ryan's movies after-Harry (Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail), and while this isn't the classic that those two pictures (two of my most-watched films of all-time) is, it's a quirky older sister that feels justified next to them.

OVP: Actor (2000)

OVP: Best Actor (2000)

The Nominees Were...

Javier Bardem, Before Night Falls

Russell Crowe, Gladiator

Tom Hanks, Cast Away

Ed Harris, Pollock

Geoffrey Rush, Quills

My Thoughts: All right, let's move into the lead actors, and a reminder of how I miss the era of the 5-wide Best Picture nominees sometimes.  In 2000, if you can believe it, only one of the Best Actor nominees (usually the category with the most correlation with Best Picture) was from one of the top films of the night.  This isn't to say that there weren't films that would've made it in a ten-wide field.  In a ten-wide field Cast Away for sure and maybe Quills is going to get into the top race, making this feel more generic than it seems, but in 2000 it was only one man, getting his second of three back-to-back nominations from the Academy (his only three nominations to date, bizarrely enough).

That man is Russell Crowe, who gets to be one of the final vessels for me to complain about Ridley Scott's Gladiator.  It's not that Crowe is necessarily bad here.  He gives, for my money, the best performance in Gladiator, and finds some humanity in a characterization that easily could've been a bland, Mel Gibson-style performance.  There's just not enough of it.  I needed more swagger...it might've helped if Crowe had had a little more chemistry with Nielsen (or hell, Phoenix), but for someone who was billed as a sex symbol at the time, the film is not interested in capitalizing on that.  It's also just not written to be a great performance-Crowe would need more swagger as an actor to make this jump off-the-screen in a bigger way, and that's not how he's playing it.

Quills is a film that is very much written to be sexy, but it's not, and not because Rush is not generally considered a sex symbol in the way that Crowe is (though Rush does have more sexual chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix than Crowe does in his movie!).  This is the least of Rush's Oscar-nominated work, and it's a performance that indulges many of his worst traits as an actor.  Rush is not a subtle performer, and pretending he is always gets you into trouble (his best performance is in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, which uses that overacting to its advantage).  That's a problem in the messy back-half of Quills, where he takes an already "too much" character and turns him up to eleven, which is a bad counter to some of the more grounded work Kate Winslet is doing here.

Ed Harris is also at-odds with his work in Pollock, though it's not always his fault as an actor.  Harris (as director) is pulling double duty, and in the process he feels like he's pulling away from the character onscreen.  Pollock writes Jackson as being full of misery, and only focuses on that misery.  This makes the film feel like half a picture, and the characterization as half a performance-we're meant to understand that Jackson has at least some draw beyond just his art (that people are fascinated by him), but it doesn't come across in Harris's work (in many ways, this is how I felt about Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose, another actor, like Harris, I generally enjoy but was in the minority on one of their most lauded performances).

Speaking of actors I run hot-and-cold on, let's get to Javier Bardem.  I do not generally enjoy the films of Julian Schnabel, whose films feel like they're stuck in a kaleidoscope (and not in as pleasant of a way as that sounds, as generally that'd be my thing).  Bardem's work here is surprisingly nuanced.  Like Rush, he's someone that frequently overacts, but as a dying gay poet, a role filled with indulgences, he is far more naturalistic than you'd expect.  I just wish the movie was able to anchor around that work a bit more, finding a way to steady itself so they felt more in sync.

Tom Hanks in 2000 was at the top of his game, and it would be so weird to think that he'd soon be entering his "Oscar wilderness phase."  This is particularly true because Oscar would pick such a fine piece-of-work to go out on until he became Mr. Rogers.  Cast Away has been parodied quite a bit in the years since Hanks made it a genuine blockbuster (the film is, after all, a movie about a man obsessed with a volleyball), but that doesn't take away from his achievement here.  The work he does, oftentimes having to have chemistry with an inanimate object, and giving us a hopeful, human story is really splendid work.  For an actor that I think is thought of more as a "movie star" than a thespian, there are scenes here that number amongst the best of his career (particularly the "Wilson goodbye").

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  The Drama statue went to Hanks, atop Bardem, Crowe, Rush, & Michael Douglas (Wonder Boys) while Comedy/Musical went to George Clooney (O Brother, Where Art Thou?), besting Jim Carrey (How the Grinch Stole Christmas), John Cusack (High Fidelity), Robert de Niro (Meet the Parents), & Mel Gibson (What Women Want)...side note, but don't you miss the era where they would only have proper comedies in this category & we'd get five names that weren't in contention at the Oscars?  SAG gave their statue to Benicio del Toro for Traffic (I believe this was a mistake in filing for the wrong category that showed just how unstoppable del Toro was for Supporting Actor), against Crowe, Hanks, Rush, & Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot), while BAFTA favored Bell against Rush, Douglas, Crowe, & Hanks.  At the time, most assumed Michael Douglas would get in for the spot that went to Harris, and that's probably the case even if Bell makes more sense based on how we think about the Oscars as a game of math today (an article for another day, but I do think that that over-prognostication of awards season may have inadvertently ruined awards season), given that the Academy has never been kind to nominating young male actors for lead acting roles.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I don't generally nominate young actors either (I do think there's something to be said for them being a product of strong direction), but there's no way I'd miss Bell here, particularly knowing what a fine actor he'd grow up to be.  His work in Billy Elliot is aces, and adds so much to a film that could've been an otherwise disposable coming-of-age picture.

Oscar’s Choice: Crowe's win at the time was something of a surprise (Hanks was expected to win his third statue even with Crowe's name in the game, and a lot of heat for Ed Harris), and would unknowingly make Denzel Washington's win the following year possible.

My Choice: It's easily Hanks, who is the only person in this lineup giving a truly Oscar-worthy performance.  I debated between Bardem & Harris for second, and while I had Harris in that position when I started this article, I've talked myself into giving it to Bardem, whose work is subtler and better for his picture.  Crowe is in fourth, and I'll leave Rush in last place.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you think Oscar got it right with the Gladiator, or will you be stuck at sea with Tom & I?  What do you think Ed Harris's, a four-times nominated actor who likely will never win, best performance is?  And was it Jamie Bell or Michael Douglas in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2000: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

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

No Globe? No SAG? No Problem!

This past week we saw not only the Golden Globe winners announced, but also the SAG nominations.  That means that we are able to do one of our annual series on the blog, a look at the acting nominees most likely to get nominated for an Oscar despite not having a nomination for either of these two major precursors.  Every year since 2006 (a year that was unusual mostly because of the wide spread of nominations shared by the Globes & SAG Awards for Supporting Actor, making it harder to pick something that hadn't already been selected) at least one nominee for the Oscars was not highlighted by either the HFPA or SAG-AFTRA, and becomes the "shock" of the morning.  At this point in the season, predicting the Oscars is something of a slog because so much is "decided" so trying to guess who will be this nominee becomes quite fun.  Here are the people from the past ten years who fit this bill:

2021: Penelope Cruz, Jesse Plemons, JK Simmons, Judi Dench, & Jessie Buckley

2020: Paul Raci & LaKeith Stanfield

2019: Florence Pugh

2018: Marina de Tavira & Yalitza Aparicio

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

Usually the types of nominees that get in under this designation fall into one of two categories.  First, and most often, it's people who sneak in because their film is either already being watched for Best Picture or another acting race.  Last year the former fit people like Jesse Plemons & Judi Dench, and the latter fit nominees like JK Simmons & Jessie Buckley.  In fact, in the past ten years only two of the nominees (Penelope Cruz & Charlotte Rampling) got in on their own-if you're calling this you're thinking of actors, likely relatively well-known (i.e. former nominees or noted character actors) who are in major films that for some reason haven't gotten much love yet this year.

Rampling & Cruz fit into this conversation in a different way.  Sometimes, an actor can sneak in solely based on their big name.  These performances tend to favor former nominees or winners (like Cruz), or people considered to be acting titans giving the performance of their lifetimes (like Rampling).  The gut instinct each year is to lean into this one because it's sexier, but it's much harder to pull off.

I will say, before we begin, that I'm honestly a little bit leery about this trend this year.  The Best Actress field is wide-open, but the Globes pretty much got them all save for Danielle Deadwyler, who was cited by SAG.  Arguably Best Actor is the category with the biggest opportunity to surprise, but while that fifth slot is wide open, there's a few Globe/SAG-blessed names (specifically Hugh Jackman, Jeremy Pope, & Diego Calva) who could get the nomination if Oscar is feeling less creative as much of the other contenders are not in genres that Oscar goes for, or are in films that aren't otherwise on his radar.  All that being said, the odds are with me that there will be at least one new name, but I am much more curious than most years over whom it might be.

Honorable Mention: There's a few honorable mentions that I'd like to throw out before we get to the main list.  Jennifer Lawrence & Brian Tyree Henry have solid reviews in Causeway, and Lawrence is obviously famous enough to get in on her own, but it's a tough sit and Apple doesn't seem that interested in promoting it this year.  Daniel Craig's work in Glass Onion will be seen by a lot of people, but I wonder if it might be too silly for him, even though it's starting to become a bit eyebrow-raising that the most successful Bond since Sean Connery has never gotten an Oscar nomination.  Gabriel LaBelle is likely too young to make Best Actor (he'd be the youngest person to be nominated since Mickey Rooney in 1939), but he's leading a Best Picture frontrunner (The Fabelmans) so you can't dismiss him entirely.  Nina Hoss (Tar) & Woody Harrelson (Triangle of Sadness) have subdued roles in Best Picture contenders, while Tobey Maguire goes over-the-top but very late in Babylon.  None of these names would surprise me, but I feel like they'd need more movement to make the cut at this point.

10. Andrea Riseborough (To Leslie)

For Her: I initially had Lawrence here given the potential "comeback" narrative of her getting a nomination, but I switched to Riseborough for a film that you likely hadn't heard of 72 hours ago.  Riseborough has had a groundswell of Academy members singing her praises in a way I've never seen before.  It's common for a high-profile Academy member to personally vouch for a less-famous performer (Julia Roberts did this to help get Javier Bardem nominated for Biutiful), but Riseborough has had a groundswell of support from everyone from Gwyneth Paltrow to Kate Winslet to Sarah Paulson.  Whether or not it works, it's impressive & has too many likely voters supporting her to totally ignore it.

Against Her: Riseborough violates pretty much every rule I stated above.  She's in a film that was barely released, she's not particularly famous (not in the way Penelope Cruz, nor in the way that even Charlotte Rampling is), and is a noted character actor.  She's worked with a lot of Academy members (probably why she's getting the push), but ahead of people like Ana de Armas, Viola Davis, & Danielle Deadwyler (the names she'd need to displace), with major studio pushes?  I think this is more of a curiosity campaign than one that will see her nominated.

9. Tom Hanks (A Man Called Otto)

For Him: Hanks is late-breaking in a movie that's becoming something of a sleeper hit against the odds. Older Academy members will like this film, about a curmudgeonly man who changes his ways by meeting people from different walks of life (the original was nominated for Oscars as well), and he's a beloved movie star.  It also is worth noting that with Bill Nighy, Brendan Fraser, Colin Farrell, & Austin Butler the likeliest nominees for Best Actor, that only leaves room for one former nominee to be cited (an all first-time nominee Best Actor race hasn't happened since 1934).

Against Him: While he's much more famous than Riseborough, Hanks would still be the only major nomination contender for A Man Called Otto.  I wonder if it might've broken just a little too late to catch the buzz that's happening from an increasingly curious public.  I heard a lot of people saying "I'm going to see it" this weekend, rather than having already seen it because it has been doing a slower rollout.  I wonder if a swifter rollout would've been the best play for Hanks, an actor who is definitely an Oscar favorite but who has repeatedly been passed over (Apollo 13, Captain Phillips, Bridge of Spies) just as often as he's made it.

8. Edward Norton (Glass Onion)

For Him: Norton gets a major, showy roll in a film that I think is an outside threat for Best Picture, and is certainly a movie most Academy members have seen (given it was a pop culture hit all over Christmas break).  Norton is a three-time nominee who has never won an Oscar, and if people are putting Glass Onion on their ballots (and I would assume they are given the response), it's not a stretch to assume they'd go with an actor they've liked in the past.

Against Him: Just how strong is Glass Onion?  The miss at SAG Ensemble, as well as their snub of Janelle Monae, has me wondering if people are taking this film seriously enough to be considered a true Oscar contender, or if this is just popcorn fare that will have to settle for a writing nomination just like its predecessor.

7. Jean Smart (Babylon)

For Her: Smart is pretty much the textbook definition of a Jesse Plemons-style nomination.  A woman that has a key role in a film that is in play for Best Picture, and she's in the middle of a career peak.  Her roles in Hacks and Mare of Easttown got her mountains of nominations for television, and she steals scenes in this movie.  She also has a killer monologue late in the movie that sums up Hollywood in one gigantic, moving nutshell...it's the sort of thing that, if they like Babylon, they could easily cite, particularly given how wide open the Supporting Actress field feels right now.

Against Her: Do they like Babylon?  Babylon, which until it actually opens was not just a major threat for nominations, but could've won Best Picture, bombed so spectacularly at the box office it's hard to tell where the Academy goes with this.  Sometimes Oscar doesn't give a crap about box office, and it is a good movie (that feels up their wheelhouse).  But will they simply vote for the actors that are obvious contenders (Robbie & Pitt) or could they get creative and cite someone like Smart?  It's hard to tell, which is why an otherwise surefire contender isn't in the Top 5.

5 & 6. Claire Foy & Jessie Buckley (Women Talking)

For Them: I'm combining these two for obvious reasons.  The big reason why they both could contend as they are giving performances very much up Oscar's alley.  Both actresses are in Oscar's sweet spot right now (Buckley was just nominated last year, Foy has been making a name for herself as a serious thespian by launching The Crown, a show that screams "older Academy members love me"), and both have the sorts of impassioned, difficult roles that Oscar loves.  The SAG nomination for Best Cast means that Women Talking still has a clear path to a Best Picture nomination, and in an actors' film, it feels weird they wouldn't cite, well, the actors.

Against Them: But if they like them, why aren't they getting votes?  Particularly with SAG, how did it make it for Best Cast but didn't get Foy or Buckley into the race?  I suspect what's happening is that voters are only picking one of them in a packed Supporting Actress field, and they're drowning out their support-each actress has a showy role, and it's hard to tell even between the two of them which is better-how do you decide that while trying to decide between 10-12 other names?  It's possible they are too even to get one of them in, and Women Talking isn't a big enough deal to get them both cited.

4. Tom Hanks (Elvis)

For Him: Hanks, as I said above, is an Academy magnet (two wins & 6 nominations through the years).  Elvis is a movie that the Academy (and the public) adored, and he has a near co-lead role as Colonel Tom Parker in this movie, playing the narrator atop Austin Butler's Elvis.  If they are big fans of the film, it's hard not to think that Hanks won't sneak onto at least some ballots, and in a year bereft of a lot of big biopics & prosthetic transformations (both things Oscar loves), Hanks would give them both in a tidy package.

Against Him: The reviews.  Jared Leto last year had an obvious path to a nomination for House of Gucci, but he didn't get it, and it was largely based off of people basically turning his performance into a joke that was too embarrassing for the Academy to get.  This is not good acting, and while that hasn't stopped Oscar before (Rami Malek, cough cough), coming from Hanks, someone who doesn't need this citation, it's hard to see a reason to give him a nomination that clearly will age poorly.

3. Judd Hirsch (The Fabelmans)

For Him: Hirsch spent much of the year in comeback mode.  The actor, who hasn't been nominated for an Oscar since 1980, got raves in early screenings of The Fabelmans, and again...this is the sort of thing that sneaks in last minute (not just with someone like Jesse Plemons, but think of someone like Alan Alda in The Aviator a few years back).  A former nominee who gets a key part in a Best Picture frontrunner...that's a recipe for success.  In many ways he reminds me of Judi Dench last year-someone who made sense all year but no precursor went for...until Oscar did.

Against Him: It's a short performance-Hirsch is barely in the movie, only taking up maybe 8-10 minutes of screen-time, and playing relatively little impact on the story at-hand.  Perhaps more of a problem is internal competition-it's clear that Paul Dano (an actor who is destined for an Oscar nomination at some point) is in the conversation after his SAG nomination.  It might be easier for Academy members to go there with a much larger part.

2. Paul Mescal (Aftersun)

For Him: Mescal is an up-and-coming actor that I think is sure to be nominated for an Oscar at some point.  His work in Aftersun, coming on the heels of his revolutionary performance in Normal People, has critics crying "best performance of the year" and it's a weak field.  I've made this analogy a few times this year, but in many ways the competition looks a lot like 2006, when there were four nominees set-in-stone but the fifth slot felt like it'd be a total free-for-all with atypical performances like Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat threatening to upend Oscar's sensibilities.  In the end, they went for Ryan Gosling for a small movie that looked a lot more reputable, and was an endorsement of an actor they'd nominate again in the coming years.

Against Him: For starters, Gosling had a major precursor (a SAG nomination) headed into Oscar morning.  Mescal, without that, is a new face in a film that won't be cited anywhere else.  That's a tough go, particularly given he'd also be a the fifth first-time nominee in a category that loves to repeat nominees.  And against proven movie stars like Hugh Jackman, Tom Hanks, & our #1 option here...it's a tall order that feels a bit like online critics predicting someone they know, forgetting that industry types don't know every fresh new name without some help.

1. Tom Cruise (Top Gun: Maverick) 

For Him: That leaves us with Tom Cruise.  Cruise is in a surefire Best Picture nominee, he's a former nominee (and three-time loser), and everyone in the world knows his name.  This is also clearly something that means a lot to Cruise, who hasn't really been in the Oscar conversation since at least 2008, if not 1999.  I'm personally surprised he couldn't get a nomination for the Globes, but he did make it for the Critics Choice Awards, and if this film is looking like it could be a Best Picture winner (and that DGA nomination sure is a sign that it's in the running), it's hard to imagine they'd skip Cruise (even if he's a producer and will get an Oscar speech regardless).

Against Him: This is completely against-type for the Oscars.  I know we're looking at a year where Angela Bassett might win for a comic book movie (I will predict her, but part of me thinks she'll be the shock snub of Oscar morning next week), but Tom Cruise for playing Maverick?  For an Oscar nomination?  They have nominated action movie performances before, but it's rare, and more often, even when those films get nominated for Best Picture (like, say, Mad Max: Fury Road) it's more of a tech victory than an acting one.  This would stand out as a unique nomination if it happened.

OVP: Supporting Actor (2019)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2019)

The Nominees Were...

Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes

Al Pacino, The Irishman

Joe Pesci, The Irishman

Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

My Thoughts: Conversations about category fraud are rampant if you follow blogs, podcasts, or social media about the Oscars (and I suspect if you're reading this article you probably do).  In general, I tend to side with those that take a firm stance against it, even if I'm aware that this is a losing battle (principles are hard to hold intact when you feel they're caving, but I like to stand my ground as long as I can).  As a result, I knock down a point from an overall performance for the OVP if I feel it is a lead work masquerading as a supporting (I don't do the same if it's supporting in lead as I think they are already at a disadvantage, and also because that's less common).  That determination is subjective, though, as we'll see here-four of these performances are bordering on leads, and I could see the argument for them being actual leads, but I don't consider all of them actual lead performances (even if they take up much of their movies).

The one indisputably supporting performance in the bunch is Joe Pesci, so we'll start there.  Pesci came out of retirement to play this part, and doesn't get the showiness of his nominated costar Al Pacino.  However, Pesci, an actor made famous for his vitriolic or even outlandish work in films like GoodFellas and Home Alone here adapts to an introverted character.  There's a sense of calm upon his Russell, someone who is always in control even when others around him think he's not in the loop.  This is a hard role to play & standout, but Pesci shows that retirement has not made him rust-a truly calculating turn, and one that compliments the film nicely.  I left the film curious, not frustrated, by his conflicting motives.

His costar Al Pacino, for me, is also a supporting player (by my measure, despite this being a big part, he is not the lead-that's completely the titular Robert de Niro).  Pacino gets a showier part than Pesci, which is usually followed by a "but," when critics say this, however that's not the case here.  Pacino is terrific in The Irishman, full stop.  His Jimmy Hoffa is meant to be both true-to-life (Hoffa bent & broke the law throughout his time in the sun), while also staying the moral compass of the film, the one character who seems to have his arrow pointed as close to north as you can find in Scorsese's epic.  Pacino could've overplayed him (he's done that often in the past few decades), but here his calibration is fully-locked.  A brilliant casting move for Scorsese to finally bring Pacino into his fold.

The other character I can't really fault as being a "category fraud" situation is Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, another case of a supporting player portraying a big & important part, but a supporting one nonetheless.  Hanks is an ideal choice to play Mr. Rogers, and honestly I wondered if this might be boring as Hanks has mined this well frequently in his career.  But he plays Rogers compellingly, and more surprisingly, with layers.  Hanks doesn't canonize Rogers, but he also doesn't shy away from the fact that he was simply a good man, driven by his religious principles & a want for equality.  That's hard to do in a movie, and to make your character worth watching for two hours when you don't have an obvious flaw to connect the audience to, but Hanks does it with a late career role I think is his most challenging part since Saving Mr. Banks.

Anthony Hopkins, one could argue, is not entirely the lead in The Two Popes, as it is more Pope Francis's story than Benedict's, but I don't really buy that.  Skirting the line, but it's over the threshold for me personally.  That said, while I know others didn't love this movie, I thought Hopkins was quite good in it (similar to Hanks, he's an actor who has been churning out under-appreciated work for much of the past decade after dominating the awards circuit throughout the 1990's).  He gives us a rage & an anger that we need from Benedict, who is haunted by not only his remote connection to God, but also the burden of his earthly legacy, clearly in shambles as Francis becomes the beloved figure Benedict never could aspire toward.

Brad Pitt is the one case of category fraud I'm not buying any arguments for.  Just because Leo's character is the headliner doesn't mean that we have to buy that Pitt is suddenly supporting here, and I don't.  Docking him for that, Pitt's great here (Pitt is always great, in fact-while not a list of my favorite performances ever assembled in this category, this might be one of the best lists of talents the Academy has ever come up with in Supporting Actor).  He is a man who has spent his life in second fiddle, knowing that any dreams of stardom went out long ago & he is best left enjoying what's left in his time alongside bigger names.  Pitt might be playing a version of himself as a handsome, sun-bleached California dude, but the best actors know how to bring themselves into each character to make the part completely theirs.

Other Precursor Contenders: Oscar & the Globes were in lockstep this year, both in terms of their winner (Pitt) and their nominees (every single performer carried over from this star-studded lineup).  SAG got a little bit different, but not much-they kept Pitt as their winner, while putting in Jamie Foxx (Just Mercy) in place of Tom Hanks.  BAFTA also awarded the trophy to Pitt, and was exactly the same as Oscar's lineup.  In terms of sixth place, we knew at the time that Hanks might miss (he'd been on a long Oscar draught), but it was hard to tell who was in sixth.  Foxx isn't a bad guess (it does feel like he's in that spot in his career where a third nomination will probably come about), but I kind of wonder in retrospect if love for Parasite would've put Sang Kang Ho into contention.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: There are no bad performances in this lineup, and it is (for my money) the best cumulative acting lineup that Oscar assembled in 2019.  That said, I would have included both Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) and Tommy Lee Jones (Ad Astra), both of whom added nice compliments to their film's stories and are undoubtedly true supporting parts.

Oscar’s Choice: It was decided pretty early on that this was Brad Pitt's year, and it was made clearer when he was competing against four men who already have an Oscar (this argument didn't work for Amy Adams in 2013, but it was a sound one for Pitt).

My Choice: I'm going to go with Pesci in a very slight nod over Pacino (I have said differently on other days), as I think it lingers better.  For third, it would be Pitt without the category fraud, but with the category fraud points docked, the bronze will go to Tom Hanks, with Pitt & Hopkins coming behind.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with me siding with Joe Pesci or are you standing behind Brad Pitt finally getting his Oscar?  How much should category fraud matter when deciding whom to vote for in these contests?  And seriously-who was the sixth place finisher?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2019: Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2019

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

No Globes? No SAG? No Problem!

Doesn't that feel good?  After the longest awards season drought in recent memory, we officially received the nominations for the Golden Globes & SAG Awards this week.  I know there was a lot of confusion (Jared Leto? Corden but no Streep?), and always some anger (no one is ever happy with awards, but with someone whose personal Top 5 matched with 80% of the Best Drama category at the Globes, I am pretty pumped about HFPA this year), but in general it's nice to have some normalcy & to have awards season raging while winter gets colder & my ability to get vaccinated continues to be a shifting goalpost.

One of our favorite traditions on the blog is every year we do our annual "No Globe/No SAG/No Problem" article.  While the Globes & SAG Awards are a good barometer for the Oscars, they are not always right-on if you use them solely as a predictions tool (it'd be more interesting for all of us if we just used them as an award but since we don't I'm going to keep writing this article).  Every year since 2006, the Academy has chosen at least one name that was not nominated at the Globes/SAG.  Below are the lucky ones from the last decade:

2019: Florence Pugh

2018: Marina de Tavira & Yalitza Aparicio

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

As you can see, a few trends emerge.  Oscar likes to over-reward its Best Picture nominees, or at least films that are already a lock for another acting nomination (movies voters are already watching anyway).  They tend to gravitate in recent years toward actors who are well-liked and "Oscar-bound" in terms of their career trajectory, but haven't been nominated yet (Rampling, Manville, Hardy, Oldman).  And they generally don't invite films that are getting their sole nomination (Rampling being the exception on that front).

This year, I have slightly more names than usual, though ultimately I don't think we'll have more than 1-2 contenders emerge.  There are three reasons for that.  The first is trying to understand the gap-the Oscar nominations aren't for another month, so if a film does catch on in that time frame, we won't know it.  In a normal year most of the narratives would be baked even for films that hadn't been released yet, but trying to gage what's factoring into the awards is tough because of box office (our second reason).  Box office isn't really a component this year (even a film like The Croods: A New Age which has done surprisingly well at the box office given the pandemic are not making headlines for their grosses), so movies that might have been helped by being well-loved by audiences (such as News of the World) don't have that luxury, and can't use that as a way to be the "crowdpleaser" nomination this year. The problem is I can't really feel out what's replacing "box office" as a normal Oscar factor (if anything is at all), and so I find the race is looser as a result.

The third is that I haven't seen all of these movies.  The 2021 releases are difficult to track down (though I was lucky to catch The Father at a festival screening), and most came out during the last week (when I had a busy work week).  For example, I'm not listing someone like Denzel Washington in The Little Things because he seems to have no buzz (and it might not be that kind of a performance), even though the enthusiasm for Jared Leto's work combined with Oscar's longtime love of Washington makes him an "on-paper" kind of person who could show up here.  I am listing, however, 15 actors below that I do think should keep their dance cards open, and like I said, at least one or two of them are going to join a select group who skipped the whole awards season...and still ended up with an Oscar nomination on their shelf.

Honorable Mention: A couple of names I want to throw out here.  Zendaya (Malcolm & Marie) and Stanley Tucci (Supernova) both have buzzy projects that went nowhere with HFPA/SAG.  It's possible these were too late-breaking & Oscar will catch the buzz, or it's also possible their studios botched the releases and they go home empty-handed.  LaKeith Stanfield is the lead role in Judas the Black Messiah, and if that's a Best Picture nominee he could make it (he's the sort of actor who is going to get a nomination at some point), but all of the buzz is on Daniel Kaluuya so I'm not feeling it too big this year.  And finally, while she somehow missed at the Globes (the biggest shock of the week for me, even over the Leto citation) and the SAG Awards, Meryl Streep should never be entirely counted out for an Oscar nomination.  She has (just once) gotten into the Oscars without a citation for either (1987's Ironweed), and the fifth slot in Best Actress is a true free-for-all...I would be stunned if she got it at this point, but to dismiss her chances even after all of this would be foolishness.

10. Tom Hanks (News of the World)

For Him: Hanks is a beloved star, one whom the Academy finally welcomed back last year.  I said up-top that films that are in the hunt for Best Picture or another acting prize tend to do well here, and with Helena Zengal nominated twice, and this being the kind of classy (but accessible) movie that AMPAS likes to fill up its Best Picture field with (even if they don't nominate it for Best Director), I wouldn't count him out.  All of the fields have roughly 4 nominees that feel locked, and one truly open fifth slot, so there's room.

Against Him: No film, in my opinion, is hurt more by a lack of box office than News of the World.  In a dour year, its message of hope & unlikely families would have been a surprise hit at the box office (for my money), and as a result there would've been more demand for the movie to get nominated here.  Without it, I don't know if Hanks (in a role he could do in his sleep, even if he's watchable as ever) really needs a nomination over someone like a Steven Yeun or Gary Oldman, who are in movies that are likely to be bigger deals with Oscar.  Plus, Hanks has a weirdly long history of being in prestige projects where other actors got nominated but he didn't (this would be the tenth such instance of this happening).

9. Charles Dance (Mank)

For Him: Like I said up-top, when we see someone sneak in last minute, they're doing so for a film that A) is a Best Picture contender & likely looking at additional acting nominations and B) is a veteran actor whom the Academy has never gotten around to nominating.  Charles Dance fits both those descriptions like a glove.  He's playing a real-life figure in a key role in his film, and in a movie full of supporting actor turns, he's the one that's clearly meant to stand out (if you watch the trailers or pay attention to star billing).

Against Him: It's a smaller part, and probably needs 1-2 more scenes to make it an easy sell for Oscar. It's also hard to tell how wild the industry is about Mank.  The Globes loved it, SAG nearly forgot about it, and audiences have been mixed on its cold approach.  Oscar is going to have to love it for something like this to happen (though I can't quite shake Alan Alda in The Aviator, the most similar doppelganger for Dance to cling toward).

8. Kingsley Ben-Adir (One Night in Miami)

For Him: Like Dance, Ben-Adir's biggest asset is that he's in a big-deal movie.  If One Night in Miami is a hit with AMPAS (and it could well be), they may be finding a way to nominate it outside of Leslie Odom, Jr.  Ben-Adir got plaudits from people who saw the movie, and many considered him the best-in-show of the film.  Plus playing a real-life figure never hurt any actor.

Against Him: It's an introverted part, and Ben-Adir might suffer from reverse category fraud a bit.  He's not as famous as Odom is, but he's still "the lead" while the two have roughly commensurate runtimes...will Oscar voters really put him here while they're putting Odom in supporting?  Part of me thinks they should have tried to convince us that all four actors were supporting, though that could have led to category splitting...I think this isn't showy enough to land in a lead category, but if they like the movie I could be wrong (hence him on this list).

7. David Strathairn (Nomadland)

For Him: We continue with another actor from a major Best Picture contender whom so far has been ignored by the televised awards.  I put David Strathairn higher than the other two for a pair of reasons.  First, he's been nominated before, so I know Oscar likes him.  Second, and more important, he has no internal competition (he does, but no one famous enough to get in here).  If you want to honor Nomadland beyond Zhao & McDormand, he's your best bet, and the film has many acolytes (it's the kind that's going to get a lot of #1 placements on nominations ballots for Best Picture).

Against Him: It's a small role, smaller in stature to the film than even Dance's, and it's not showy at all. It's good (he's always good), but Oscar rarely goes for this kind of small-arch, inward role, particularly if others haven't noticed it first.  While Supporting Actor has a lot of directions it could go, this would be an unusual fifth slot nomination.

6. Mads Mikkelsen (Another Round)

For Him: Occasionally (Cotillard, Riva, Bardem) in the past decade we've seen a performer from a major foreign-language film get into this race without any precursors, and I do think that's possible here.  Mikkelsen is well-known to Hollywood, and has been in English-language productions for the past decade.  This is a big, plum part, and it's a surprisingly smart movie; even if you see it without a lot of expectations, it's going to surprise you & you'll enjoy it.  I can't shake the idea that this is the sort of performance that if enough Academy members see it, he gets in.

Against Him: Will enough see it?  Again, box office plays a part here-will the Academy reach for the foreign-language drinking drama as they're trapped in their house with their families?  Mikkelsen is not a previous nominee like Cotillard or Bardem, so while he's well-known he's not an Academy favorite.

5. Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods)

For Him: He won the NYFCC award (always a good indicator for the Oscar), and is getting best-in-career style nominations for the film.  Oscar likes to honor long-working character actors when they get their moment-in-the-sun, and Best Actor is fluid enough (only Hopkins, Boseman, & Ahmed feel truly safe) that a new name or two sneaking in isn't without question.  The Academy went all-in for the last Spike Lee movie.

Against Him: The SAG snub is baffling.  HFPA might've just not liked the movie, but SAG nominated it for Cast and Boseman, yet they snubbed Lindo (who has the best performance in the film).  I don't really know what's happening here, but the consensus seems to be that the industry isn't feeling Da 5 Bloods, and if that's the case Boseman might be the only contender from the film other than Lee in writing...leaving Lindo out of the running for someone like Steven Yeun (in a movie they seem more inclined toward).

4. Mark Rylance or Frank Langella (The Trial of the Chicago 7)

For Him: I'm aware the tie is a cheat here, but mostly I can't figure out quite how to read Chicago 7, which seems like the early frontrunner to take Best Picture at the Oscars this year.  If that's the case, it's possible someone other than Sacha Baron Cohen will get into this field, but I don't know who as the cast is massive (Eddie Redmayne or Jeremy Strong aren't crazy suggestions either).  Rylance & Langella are previous Oscar nominees in big, intense parts in the movie, and if they want to give the movie a dual nomination they're the two most-likely to benefit from such a move from Oscar.

Against Him: Dual nominations in the same category aren't as popular as they were a few decades ago, and it's possible that these two both split their votes with each other or that Academy voters feel that honoring Baron Cohen is enough of a nod to the movie as they need to give.

3. Paul Raci (Sound of Metal)

For Him: He won every critical prize known to man, and he's in a film that is getting attention for Best Actor (and honestly feels like an outside shot at Best Picture).  His role isn't a co-lead, but it is sizable, and he gets his Oscar-bait clip (his final moments onscreen).  Plus, this is the kind of role Oscar has gone for in the past with a character actor who has his moment in the sun.

Against Him: The lack of a SAG nomination hurts (a lot).  Raci was never going to be famous enough for the Globes, but the SAG Awards will honor actors who haven't been favorites before with the Academy.  That he missed there makes me wonder if televised awards bodies aren't sold on the film beyond Ahmed, or if they are capable of noticing a relatively obscure character actor (who isn't as famous or ubiquitous as Laurie Metcalf or JK Simmons who went this route in recent years).

2. Ellen Burstyn (Pieces of a Woman)

For Her: She's an Oscars icon, and she's in a film that's getting attention (albeit not for her).  She'd also be the oldest nominee ever (a hook!), and she has one scene late in the movie that is such a "nominate this!" moment that it's difficult to see Oscar voters watching it & not suddenly taking notice of what she's doing.  Supporting Actress, especially for the final nomination, is very influx.

Against Her: Her big scene in the movie comes quite late in an intense movie (how many AMPAS voters skip the rest of the film after the first twenty minutes?), and while it's not a small part historically (there have been smaller ones cited in recent years), one wonders if we've entered a world where a performance this short can compete with co-leads like Maria Bakalova or Helena Zengal.

1. Sophia Loren (The Life Ahead)

For Her: She's an Oscar-winning legend who came out of retirement to do this part.  While it isn't in contention in other categories like many above this, Loren doesn't really need that-she's the attraction here.  And while McDormand/Davis/Mulligan have locked down the first three slots, Vanessa Kirby doesn't feel "solid" to me considering the nature of her film (and the Burstyn snubs), and Best Actress has arguably the loosest fifth slot of the acting fields: Amy Adams, Michelle Pfeiffer, & Andra Day all could get into this field as the last nominee, but none of them feel like sure, or even solid bets based on super-late release dates (no buzz) or questionable reviews (Adams).  All of this is to say that I'd probably still predict Loren (at least as of today) for that final nomination slot as she could surprise.

Against Her: The SAG Awards snub stings, as they tend to favor their legends a bit more than others.  Loren is hurt this year by not being able to show up at red carpets...that Old Hollywood glamour would've made her not just a surefire nominee (we want her to come!) but a threat for the win, in my opinion.  Without that top-of-mind, I wonder if she's become out-of-sight for Oscar voters.

OVP: News of the World (2020)

Film: News of the World (2020)

Stars: Tom Hanks, Helena Zengel, Mare Winningham, Bill Camp

Director: Paul Greengrass

Oscar History: 4 nominations (Best Sound, Score, Cinematography, Production Design)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

One of the comments I've heard the most about this year's Oscars is not from film fans, who ardently will argue with you that this was a "good year for movies" (a conversation for a later day, but it wasn't-every year has good movies that come out, but not every year can be a "great year for movies" because axiomatically if every year is a "great year" none of them are...and 2020 let us down in that regard even if there were some gems along the way).  Instead, it's from lay fans of movies who simply "haven't seen any of the films that are going to compete" and while I think this isn't quite fair, it's reality to admit that without a communal pop culture, without parties & office lunches, there aren't as many movies that have entered the zeitgeist or popular culture in the way that they normally would have.  This is true for News of the World, a film that stars everyman movie star Tom Hanks (who doesn't love Tom Hanks?), which would've been a hit in a normal circumstance.  It's a big, pleasant, well-crafted adventure film about Hanks & a young woman whom he must protect against the odds.  This is 100% the kind of movie my family would've watched as a collective over Christmas, and it's the kind that word-of-mouth would've made into a proper hit, potentially enough so that it'd be a Best Picture nominee in the vein of The Blind Side or The Help or Philomena (too popular to ignore).  Alas, without box office, News of the World has to stand on its pleasant but broad appeal, and likely won't be a big part of the Oscar conversation outside maybe Cinematography.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie centers on Captain Jefferson Kidd (Hanks) a Confederate soldier who in 1870 now travels from town to town, reading newspapers to the populace for 10 cents, giving them an idea of what's happening from city-to-city (think of it as a very early version of the evening news).  Traveling from one such city, he finds a lynched black man and along with him a young white girl named Johanna (Zengel), who has been living with the Kiowa tribe & whose family had been murdered on the prairie.  She doesn't speak English, but she does have an aunt-and-uncle that live a great distance from there who might be able to take care of her.  He initially tries to give her to a family to wait for the train to take her to her aunt-and-uncle, but soon learns that she'll run away in that situation, and takes her himself.  Eventually the two warm to each other as they face the rough-and-tumble world of a post-Civil War Texas, and come to find an understanding with each other.  When it's clear that he must put the demons of his old life behind him (he has been suffering from PTSD after the war, and the unfairness that he went to war but it was his wife who ended up dying before they could be reunited), he decides to adopt Johanna from her uncle-and-aunt (as they are not fit to take care of such a child), and they start reading the news across the country together.

The movie is routine, even if it's occasionally scary (such as a standoff with a group of men who are trying to kidnap Johanna).  There is no overarching villain (no baddie comes back repeatedly along their journey), and it isn't trying to break new ground.  The idea of a jaded adult gaining perspective from being forced to care for a child is the basis of hundreds, if not thousands, of movies, and so you know how this will end before we even meet Johanna.

That said, routine isn't always bad, and Tom Hanks continues his late career renaissance by breathing life into this figure.  He plays Kidd as too modern, too woke (and Hanks, who has been hit-or-miss with accents in his career, doesn't remotely attempt the Texas twang most of his costars are sporting, his northern California accent there throughout), but this is such a surface-level film it doesn't really matter. You want to see the two win, you want to see good triumph over evil, and on that populist appeal it delivers.  I name-checked The Blind Side and The Help above, which may have sounded like an insult, but I don't put it in that realm-it's not a bad movie.  It's just the kind of movie that, with Oscar, it's not the critics who will need to rally but audiences.  I suspect that won't happen, and thus this will be the film that does well on cable rather than with the Academy, but if you're looking for an uncomplicated, 2020 adventure film, you've come to the right place.