OVP: Actor (2001)

OVP: Best Actor (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind

Sean Penn, I Am Sam

Will Smith, Ali

Denzel Washington, Training Day

Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom

My Thoughts: Outside factors oftentimes come into play when you talk about the Oscars.  As much as it shouldn't be, it is rarely just about the performance; instead, it is oftentimes about the politics.  For those who didn't live through it, Russell Crowe in 2001 was a whirlwind of a celebrity.  After Gladiator, he was an incredibly bankable name in Hollywood, and A Beautiful Mind clearing $300 million at the worldwide box office cemented that.  He was also persona non grata in the tabloids.  He had broken up the marriage of America's Sweetheart Meg Ryan on the set of Proof of Life, and was known as something of a bad boy offscreen, including getting into a fight at that year's BAFTA Awards, with producer Malcolm Gerrie after Gerrie cut off Crowe's speech.  All of this is to say-in 2001, the only thing that people were focusing on talking about this category was the personal life of Crowe, then one of the biggest movie stars on the planet, and whether that would hurt him in getting a second consecutive Oscar.

Crowe's performance, it should be noted, is definitely worthy of an Oscar (or at least a nomination).  Of all of the elements of A Beautiful Mind, he's the best (after the score), and delivers as John Nash.  This is not a Forrest Gump situation, where he is playing a man with mental health issues as comedic or a punchline.  Instead, he's played as someone wrestling with his own personal demons.  Most actors would've felt the need to skip some of the charisma & sexuality of the leading man (Crowe at this point of his career was, indeed, quite sexy & charming when he wanted to be), but that isn't stolen from Nash-instead it serves as a cover for why so many people struggled to see what he was compensating for underneath.  Crowe was on a role in 2001, and this is fine stuff.

His chief competition for the Oscar was Denzel Washington, who at this point it'd become something of a common refrain of "when is he going to win Best Actor?" (Julia Roberts spent months personally campaigning for him in a way that apparently is only a problem if you're cheering on Andrea Riseborough).  Washington is sensational in Training Day, giving us a charismatic villain that you almost find yourself rooting for despite him being increasingly violent the further you get into the movie.  Training Day isn't a great movie, but it's a good movie with a great performance, which used to be called a "star vehicle" and that's what happens here-Washington nails the lived-in pathology of a unique character, and definitely came to play against Crowe.

None of the other actors were really in the hunt for a nomination in 2001.  Will Smith was just starting what would be his own quest for a statue with Ali.  Smith, like Crowe, was a new A-list star in 2001 after a bunch of action blockbusters, and his nomination for Ali was a "welcome to the club" moment.  Unfortunately, it's not very good acting.  Smith looks the part (he is, as Ali might say "so pretty"), but doesn't give the role enough depth.  Ali was still alive in 2001, which is always a dangerous place to come from with a biopic, and that might be why we aren't seeing some of the downsides of Ali's personal journey, just the road blocks in his way.  This means Smith doesn't get to play with the most compelling aspects of the role, and we get a limited performance.

If Smith was being welcomed to the club, in 2001 Sean Penn was getting another down payment on his inevitable Oscar.  Unlike Crowe's Nash, Penn's role in I Am Sam is played for laughs, and is insensitive (to the point it would become a running joke in the movie Tropic Thunder seven years later).  It was criticized at the time (though not crucified the way Penn would be today), but even putting aside the inappropriateness of how Penn handles this role, it also isn't a good performance.  It's over-the-top, poorly-modulated, and inconsistent.  I wish Oscar had just skipped this entirely...it wasn't like we weren't aware Sean Penn needed an Oscar by 2001 without them nominating him for I Am Sam.

Our final nominee is Tom Wilkinson, getting the one "he's a character actor we'll nominate once" citation (though Wilkinson would go on to a second nomination six years later for Michael Clayton, proving that adage wrong).  Wilkinson is so good here though.  Sissy Spacek gets to play maternal grief, but he gets an even more difficult role-playing the father who encouraged his son, wanting to live vicariously through him as he pursued a woman that would've been out of his league.  The ending, where he has to come to terms with his own actions, and what it will be like after (spoiler alert!) his son has died & he will forever feel the pull of how his encouragement might've led to it is heartbreaking, and gives us a fulfilling, ambiguous close to the movie.

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 Crowe, beating Smith, Washington, Kevin Spacey (The Shipping News), & Billy Bob Thornton (The Man Who Wasn't There), while Comedy/Musical went to Gene Hackman (The Royal Tenenbaums) against Hugh Jackman (Kate & Leopold), Ewan McGregor (Moulin Rouge!), John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig and the Angry Inch), & Billy Bob Thornton (Bandits).  SAG went to Crowe as well, beating Penn, Washington, Wilkinson, & Kevin Kline (Life as a House), and BAFTA (as already mentioned) went with Crowe as well, here atop Wilkinson, Spacey, and two actors who were cited for supporting with Oscar: Jim Broadbent (Iris) and Ian McKellen (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring).  In sixth place, I think it was probably Gene Hackman.  I want to say there was some slight confusion over category placement for him at the time (I can't find evidence of this online, but it is in my head which means I don't think it's entirely made up), which may have hurt him, but this was considered a bit of a comeback for the actor and could've been the spot Penn got.  Kevin Spacey or Kevin Kline both had heat as well headed into the Oscars, but their films got totally ignored by AMPAS so I'll guess Hackman.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Sexy men and male leads in musicals both struggle when it comes to the Oscars, but given he was the lead in a Best Picture nominee and also given he has never been close to a nomination in the years since, Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge! was such a missed opportunity to come in instead of Sean Penn.

Oscar’s Choice: Had it not been for the Meg Ryan affair or the fight at the BAFTA Awards, I think Russell Crowe takes this-it was that close, and it was that big of a deal at the time.  But with those in place, Washington barely won his Best Actor Oscar.  It's worth noting Washington would be cited four more times to date after this, while Crowe has never been invited back to the Oscars.

My Choice: I'm going to split the difference and go with Tom Wilkinson, who gives the most well-paced performance of the three, and also gets the biggest payoff in the end.  Behind him (in order) would be Washington, Crowe, Smith, & Penn.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does King Kong have nothing on you & Denzel, or do you want to go for a car ride with Tom Wilkinson & I?  Do you also think that Russell Crowe's offscreen behavior cost him a second Oscar?  And was it Hackman, Spacey, or Kline that nearly knocked out Sean Penn?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

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

OVP: Supporting Actor (2007)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2007)

The Nominees Were...

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

My Thoughts: As we've learned throughout our 2007 dissection, film really had a remarkable year in terms of the Oscars, as AMPAS dismissed some obvious prestige plays and went with a series of dark, powerful films.  And yet, the real shocker may be that looking at the Best Supporting Actor lineup they didn't somehow screw this lineup up.  Even in the best of years, the Best Supporting Actor list is almost always filled with duds.  Respected character actors, semi-lead performances, and scene stealers in Best Pictures are the standard line in this category, and again in 2007 they stick to these cliches, but in a surprise most of these performances are not dull, but instead are quite exceptional and career bests in a couple of cases.  So, given that refreshing bit of prelude, let's start with the worst of these performances.

I was never a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting style in movies.  People loved his deeply method approach, the way that he managed to be a movie star that looked like a character actor (a trick not many people get the opportunity to portray, but Paul Thomas Anderson and Bennett Miller saw to his having it), but I always felt his performances were too harried and theatrical.  In fact, the most impressive moment I ever saw from in his career was when he played Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, a towering achievement and one of the best performances I've ever seen on the New York stage.  But that was the theater, where he could get away with some of his more indulgent acting tics.  As a result other than The Master I've never been particularly struck by anything Hoffman did as a film actor, and that includes Charlie Wilson's War.  Here he plays a bombastic CIA operative, whose only temperatures are loud and louder when it comes to the way that Hoffman portrayed him.  There's technical skill here, but honestly even by the low bar I set for Hoffman, this is the least of his Oscar nominated roles, and feels more like an afterglow citation by people still enamored with his work in Capote.

Much better is Casey Affleck, a fine actor who occasionally gets in his own way in terms of technical skill.  This is the film that pushed him out of the way of his brother's shadow, likely leading to him eventually taking the Oscar for Manchester by the Sea.  Though he's never as good as Pitt, who has the more understated and challenging role, Affleck brings a mannered approach to Robert Ford that makes you constantly guessing about him and his motives, perhaps because as Ford is written his motives seem to always be changing.  Is he in love with James, or is he simply trying to become him?  It's not clear, but Affleck doesn't shy away from the Celluloid Closet angles of this part, and though his speaking pattern is sometimes frustrating, it's never out-of-character and well-considered.  My biggest problem with this nomination is that Affleck is the main character, hardly supporting at all-he has more screen-time than even Pitt himself, and was only relegated to supporting because he was not yet a matinee idol.  I dock quite a few points for what is one of the most egregious cases of category fraud I've seen in a long time.

Tom Wilkinson arguably has some category fraud in his corner as well, though at least his work in Michael Clayton could convincingly be called supporting (there's no question that George Clooney's titular character is the main point of focus).  Wilkinson, like Hoffman, plays this part so bombastically it's hard to take it seriously.  Honestly-that whole scene where he proclaims "I am Sheva the God of Death" is so manically over-the-top that you almost wonder if Tony Gilroy is playing this part for comedy.  Unlike the very specific decisions made by his costar Tilda Swinton, this feels more muddled and all-over-the-place, and very different from Wilkinson's fine work in In the Bedroom.  A disappointment, but he's aided by Michael Clayton being quite a fine film.

The last two performances are from actors giving, in my opinion, the best performances of their careers.  Javier Bardem managed to turn his Anton Chigurh into a movie star-career, getting him spots in major cinematic franchises like James Bond and Pirates of the Caribbean, and overall becoming a household name.  His Chigurh is pitch-perfect, and still lives up to the hype.  He keeps the character foreboding, dangerous, and unknowable.  There's no need for back story here, which the Coen Brothers smartly avoid, as he's simply a demon that is intent on winning at all costs.  The film lives and dies on this performance, and Bardem knows it, keeping his part restrained when other actors (including, quite frankly, Bardem himself in later years) would have over-played their hands with such a plum part.  That he keeps such an iconic villain subdued is a miraculous feat, and shows why he became an acting icon after this movie.

Finally, we have Hal Holbrook playing the annual part of an aging character actor who finally gets his due from the Academy.  The only thing that upsets this cliche is that Holbrook is marvelous in Into the Wild, playing a lonely man drawn in by the youth and kindness of a wayward stranger.  Holbrook gets scenes that could play to the rafters, but he keeps them back, eventually bringing out a difficult vulnerability that shatters against the emotionally-stunted Chris McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch) when he asks him to adopt him.  The pain on Holbrook's face, finally taking a chance after a long life of playing by the book, and then realizing that he was rejected, is marvelous-it honestly haunted me for months after seeing the picture, and made me think the movie itself is better than it is.  That's what great supporting actors do, and I'm so glad that Holbrook got to be included in Oscar's pantheon after a long career as a bit player in entertainment.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes were largely similar to the Oscars despite them getting a bit more creative in other categories, with only Holbrook missing (the HFPA, as is their style, went with the movie star in a crowd-pleaser: John Travolta in Hairspray).  The SAG Awards skipped Hoffman instead, a bit of a surprise considering he seemed like a sure thing with Oscar at the time, picking Tommy Lee Jones for No Country for Old Men.  Finally, the BAFTA Awards also went with Jones, as well as Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, skipping over the more America-centric Holbrook & Affleck.  The only thing all lineups had in common was an easy win for Bardem, who was giving one of those performances that couldn't be ignored.  For me, it's hard to tell whether it was Travolta or Jones in sixth place, but considering Jones's shock Best Actor nomination part of me thinks Travolta's major comeback in 2007 was the sort of crowd-pleasing hit that just missed with AMPAS.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I've never been as smitten by Tommy Lee Jones as some other filmgoers, but honestly-his work as Ed Tom Bell is the best performance of his career, and deserved a nomination.  I also would have found time for Max von Sydow's tortured father in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as well as one of the many outstanding supporting performances in Zodiac, with Mark Ruffalo likely being my favorite of the bunch.

Oscar’s Choice: An easy win for Bardem, though second place is harder to call-would they have gone with the sentimental favorite of Holbrook or would a quick second win for Hoffman have been in the cards?  I could make a case for either, but I'm guessing Hoffman would have had an edge.

My Choice: I also can't stop what's coming, and will pick Bardem over Holbrook.  In third place is Affleck, who would have been a threat for going higher were it not for the category fraud, followed by Wilkinson and finally Hoffman.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with the consensus choice of Bardem, or does someone want to make an argument that another man deserved this trophy?  Who was second place, Hoffman or Holbrook?  Who was sixth place-Jones or Travolta?  And which Zodiac supporting player was the most snubbed?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2007: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2007

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

Denial (2016)

Film: Denial (2016)
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall, Andrew Scott
Director: Mick Jackson
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Real life films should always be about people that are only mildly famous, in my opinion.  I'm not someone that enjoys biopics, but if you're going to do one, I like it when it's a story that hasn't already been told a dozen times.  Who needs yet another picture about Marilyn Monroe or Truman Capote-I want something like Denial, or at least I do in theory, as Deborah Lipstadt's story is truly compelling and hasn't really been shared to the world in the same way.  This film, about a woman who went to court to essentially prove that a Holocaust denier was, indeed, whom she said he was, has a rich enough true-life story that it almost makes up for the fact that it's not very good.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film center on Deborah (Weisz), a woman from Queens (there's a great joke at the end of the movie about this that I was the only person in the theater who laughed at...and yes, Weisz transforms herself from a Westminster dialect to a Queens bravado with shocking ease) who is an accomplished academic on a book tour.  Her text is about Holocaust denial, and a study of Holocaust denial, and is the sort of minutia of academia that feels authentic (I was a history major near this time period, so I know how specific some of these studies can get).  In a stunt, David Irving (Spall), a famed Holocaust denier, verbally spars with her during a lecture and challenges her for some of the comments she made about him in the study.  Later, we find out that he's suing her for libel, and with the help of two of Britain's most famous real-life attorneys Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) and Anthony Julius (Scott), she makes a case against Irving.

You don't have to know the real-life story to realize pretty early on that Lipstadt is going to win this case; it's hard to imagine a modern-day story that would show that a Holocaust denier could beat a Jewish woman in court, particularly when you see actual victims of the Holocaust in the audience.  The film fails in a way when it comes to this obviousness, underselling certain scenes (I felt like several of the cross-examinations were a bit dull, particularly when Wilkinson was going after them), and underlining other ones that only, apparently, Deborah isn't able to understand (like repeatedly explaining to her why they can't have victims of the Holocaust speak during the trial for fear of what Irving would do to them on the stand).  The film is too opaque in this regard-it doesn't understand that even those unfamiliar will know how this ends, and doesn't work with the interesting dynamics between the players enough to make that familiarity less of an issue.

Weisz, though, is deliciously entertaining in her role as Deborah Lipstadt.  An actress most well-known for moderated introverts and society wives, she clearly is relishing Lipstadt's up-front and frank demeanor, and the accent may be my favorite from an actor so far this year.  I particularly loved her strange dynamic with Andrew Scott, how they play him as both aloof and deliciously sexy, knowing that they can't totally stand away from all of the rumors about Princess Diana's affinity for Anthony Julius in real-life.  Her work with Wilkinson is less entertaining-indeed, Wilkinson, one of those actors I either love or loathe depending on the film, is more one-dimensional than you'd hope, and their scenes together are arguably the weakest of the film, and since they are also critical junctures in the picture, that shakes its foundation somewhat.  Spall, though never as good as he was in the marvelous Mr. Turner, takes on his bombastic role with appropriate aplomb-if the film were a bigger hit I could see him getting into Oscar conversations, though I don't know that he deserves to be.

Those are my thoughts on this picture-how about yours?  Are you a fan of Denial, or are you like me wishing they'd better assessed their assets in the casting department better?  What other recent biopics did you actually end up learning something from?  And who else deserves a big-screen tale?  Share below!

Belle (2014)

Film: Belle (2014)
Stars: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Miranda Richardson, Penelope Wilton, Sam Reid, Emily Watson, Sarah Gadon, Tom Felton
Director: Amma Asante
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I know that I date myself with such comments, but I do really miss the Merchant/Ivory period craze of the 1990's sometimes.  If you were a fan of period costumes and great literature coming alive onscreen, every Spring and Summer the art houses were flooded with films of this nature.  Nowadays you're hard-pressed to find such things, and when you do it's utter tripe, so imagine my surprise when I stumbled across the delightful Belle, the new film from Amma Asante starring 2014's breakout star Gugu Mbatha-Raw, which manages to be a wonderful throwback to these style of films from the 1990's.

(Spoilers Ahead...though this is an historical story, so if you need a spoiler alert you should probably find some time to read a bit more English History) The film is about Dido Elizabeth Belle (Mbatha-Raw), the biracial woman who was born out-of-wedlock to a British Royal Navy officer.  After the death of her mother, she is entrusted to her uncle William Murray (Wilkinson), the Lord Chief Justice, and is brought up as a free gentlewoman and as a companion to her cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray (Gadon).  The film follows them as they grow up, with Dido inheriting money from her father after his death, while Elizabeth must marry in order to secure her place in society, as she is penniless.

The film tackles a host of different discriminatory practices from the era, which I was a bit surprised by based on the trailers.  The film obviously featured the racial aspect of the film, with frequent conversations about Dido's unusual status in society (she can't dine with her family, but she also is above the servants-she's of a weird social station that hadn't really been created at that point in time), but it almost puts that in the background of the film as it continues on, particularly in regard to the unfairness thrown at women of the era.  The film frequently points out the double-edged sword of Dido's cousin Elizabeth, who is seemingly given every opportunity of society, but we soon realize the enormous pressure under her to marry "well," as she has no money, and how her fate is entirely tied to what sort of man will want to marry her.  This has been shown in films before (Jane Austen has become a legend based on these styles of conversations), but it's been a while since I've seen it cinematically and I thought it was interesting how a film that didn't "need to" make this a part of the film (there's more than enough plot to focus on just one aspect of discrimination) still chose to highlight it anyway.

The same could be said for the weird pariah status of single women in this time period.  Penelope Wilton plays Lady Mary, a spinster who lives with her brother, and is often pitied by the young women who see her as silly and a "failure" since she never wed.  Later on, when both women start to realize that they too could succumb to her fate, she becomes something entirely different from them, and we realize the added pressure of youth upon women of this time period; "scoop him up" soon or you'll quickly be tossed aside.  It reminded me in many ways of Mary from Pride and Prejudice, a woman of less rudimentary interests who is played for comic effect in the film, never minding that her life, should she not find a man who likes her penchant for loud singing and books, will likely be spent as a shadow figure at Pemberley or Netherfield Park, too high-born to work but too poor to live off of an inheritance.  The fact that the film points out the unfairness of her position, particularly when seen in conjunction with the many single men of the film, is a testament to someone who was bound-and-determined to make an interesting film.

The performances are really quite good all around.  Gugu Mbatha-Raw clearly knew this was a star-making role and sunk her teeth in, not only acting well but clearly making an impression on the audience.  The film itself may not be particularly heavy (even though its messaging is more interesting than you'd anticipate), but she makes sure that she gets all of the charm, wit, and passion out of this role that you would expect out of a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art.  I leave this film not necessarily thinking she was robbed of an Oscar nomination (she wasn't), but hoping that I see more of her, and guessing that she'll land that Oscar nomination sometime in the future.  The supporting cast, including the ever-dependable Tom Wilkinson and terrific young character actress Sarah Gadon, all work well, making strong indents in our memories even if they aren't the center of focus.  About the only "bad" performances come from the camp emanating from the scenery-chewing Miranda Richardson and Tom Felton, playing their villains a little too theatrically than this subdued film would require.

I really don't have much more to say, but I have to implore you to seek this out-it's rare where a film genuinely exceeds my expectations, and while this is no one's idea of a masterpiece (least of all mine), it's an intensely watchable movie with fine performances and sharp observations about prejudice.  Add it to your Netflix queue and you'll be glad you did.

No Globe, No SAG...No Problem!

Jonah made it last year without HFPA or SAG...
who will do it this year?

Each year the alarms are sounded by Oscar pundits that "so-and-so" is out of the Oscar race due to them missing at either the SAG Awards or the Globes, and these warnings are not without merit.  The reality is that in this heavily publicized Oscar season more-and-more surprises are shut out each year as the Oscars voters rely heavily on what the press is saying to fill out their ballots.

And yet, each year there is always at least one candidate that manages to sail on through and grab a nomination without a public blessing from SAG or the HFPA.  In the past ten years, only one year (2006) didn't end up choosing an entirely new name to add to the festivities.  Below are a list of the candidates that were new to the night in their years:

2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emannuelle Riva, Jacki Weaver
2011: Gary Oldman and Max von Sydow
2010: Javier Bardem
2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal
2008: Michael Shannon
2007: Laura Linney and Tommy Lee Jones
2006: Zero (let's pay attention people-we've already been over this)
2005: William Hurt
2004: Alan Alda and Clint Eastwood

As you can see, it helps a LOT to be in a film that people are already watching.  Over half of these people were in Best Picture nominees, and Tommy Lee Jones is the only contender that was his film's sole nomination (and lest we forget, he was headlining the Best Picture winner that year), so keep that in mind if you're, say, cheering for someone like Hilary Swank to still make the cut.

As this is an Oscar-oriented site, I figured it would be worthwhile to investigate which performances this year are most likely to make this list.  Below you will find the Top 10 performances ignored by HFPA and SAG that may still wind up with an Oscar nomination:

10. Shailene Woodley (The Fault in Our Stars)

For Her: Woodley has had a major blockbuster moment this year, and that's impossible to deny.  On the heels of kicking off a new franchise with Divergent, she somehow made an even MORE successful hit with The Fault in Our Stars.  The Best Actress field is starting to close, but not so much that the door is shut, and Hollywood has clearly noticed that they got a new movie star this year.  They may want to reward that on their ballots.  Plus, a character with cancer is always a strong hook with Oscar.
Against Her: Woodley should have been able to score at the Globes.  Her newfound fame and red carpet looks are surely something that HFPA would latch onto before AMPAS, and this film already has some major debits (summer film, going for a sole nomination, teen drama).  She needed her name to be a bit more prominent in the game before the year began (in a similar way that Aniston needed to have some precursor love to stay in the conversation).

9. Josh Brolin (Inherent Vice)

For Him: I'm not counting if you received a BFCA nomination for two reasons for the purposes of this article.  One, because they have six-wide fields and that's just cheating, and two, the BFCA's irk me something fierce (they always talk about how much they "predict" the Oscars rather than honoring a specific film or actor for their work-we have hundreds of Oscar pundits, if you have your own televised awards show, you should have your own opinions and not give a damn about the Oscars).  This is all to say that I'm aware Brolin made a big jump in the conversation with a BFCA (or Critics Choice, if you would) nomination, and that's part of why I'm featuring him here.  The other part is that despite the lack of buzz this film has attracted, Brolin has been on everyone's favorite list from the cast, and as a former Oscar nominee, he's not that much of a stretch to make it without too much press.
Against Him: This race looks very set, and when that happens, cracks in the wall usually happen by way of a Best Picture frontrunner, which Inherent Vice decidedly is not.  Brolin also has missed just as often as he was nominated with Oscar-his only nomination was the one that they "had" to give him for Milk and not something optional like No Country for Old Men.

8. Rene Russo (Nightcrawler)

For Her: It's hard to imagine anyone seeing Nightcrawler for Gyllenhaal and not coming out equally as impressed with Russo.  There's some precedent here-Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock, for example, or Toni Collette in The Sixth Sense.  You come for one performance and decide to put two on your ballot.  The big name of the game with these sorts of citations is that you have to be seen, and Russo will be.  Plus, Oscar loves a comeback and after years of random wallpaper roles like Thor's mom, Russo is clearly having a moment.
Against Her: If Jake is scoring everywhere, why isn't she?  How is it that Tilda Swinton, for example, managed the sixth BFCA slot for a very autre-film when the prediction-loving body may have gone with something a bit more likely such as Russo?  Keep in mind every year we have random supporting performances in major films that inexplicably get no traction, despite being superb (see Sarah Paulson last year).

7. Tim Roth (Selma)

For Him: Speaking of comebacks, Roth, a veteran character actor, managed to nab a nomination 19 years ago for Rob Roy, but hasn't been back since.  This year he plays a villain (great for supporting actor) and a real-life person (Gov. George Wallace), both of which could make him a stealth nominee if Selma continues to grab heat.
Against Him: I mean, all of these people have trouble because they don't have enough precursor love, but with Roth it means something more because there's less room to up-jump his costar Tom Wilkinson, who has a bigger part and a more recent history with Oscar.

6. Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)

For Him: It helps that AMPAS clearly adores him (back-to-back nominations), and though the Best Actor field is likely a six-man race, it's a pretty even six-man race, which means that there could be a candidate that's just barely missing like Cooper.  If he gets an uptick in Clint support from the Academy (they do love them some Mr. Eastwood), I wouldn't be stunned if he's that candidate.
Against Him: American Sniper hasn't registered at all this awards season (the NBR doesn't count), and critics haven't been rallying around it (have critics even seen the movie?!?).  Could this be another J Edgar (and even that film managed precursors)?

5. Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner)

For Him: The other stealth Best Actor nominee, Spall has done well this season.  He scored a major prize at Cannes and followed it with a significant prize at the NYFCC Awards, which are historically very strong at predicting Oscar nominees.  Once-upon-a-time Mike Leigh had the magic touch with getting Oscar nominations for his performers.  If this film is gaining (my predictions indicate that it might be), this isn't out of the question.
Against Him: Leigh has never been good at getting nominations for his male actors (he's never actually done it-not even with Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy) and the NYFCC is hardly a strong benchmark when you realize that last year's winner was Robert Redford.

4. Laura Dern (Wild)

For Her: She's clearly beloved (did you see that Hollywood Reporter interview-it was just a giant Laura Dern love-in), and this is the sort of role that Hollywood notices (woman dying of cancer, inspiring her daughter-I mean, come on).  She's been working the circuit hard, and it'd be a nice recognition for both her incredible post-Rambling Rose career and her dad's recent resurgence.
Against Her: Why didn't she get in with the Globes, and in general-what is up with the reaction to Wild?  Is it frustration that no one can actually watch the movie?  Is it the odd prejudice that awards bodies have to female-driven stories?  Or is it just that after Into the Wild and 127 Hours that voters are tired of seeing beautiful people traipse through the wilderness?  Whatever the reason, Dern clearly isn't striking the chord she thought she would.

3. Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night)

For Her: The BFCA is getting name-checked more in this article than it has been in years on this blog, but let's not forget that when the field went six-wide, she was the one that benefited.  Cotillard has been on a roll all year, with two major films in tow and this is a critically-acclaimed film.  The pundits seem to be rallying for her, and there's a lot of support there.  And let's face it here-she's due for a second nomination after all of the strong work she's done since La Vie en Rose (arguably stronger than that initial role!).
Against Her: It's hard to make it for foreign films (she knows this more than anyone) and for some reason (the Cate Blanchett curse?) she hasn't been able to score since her win.  Plus, this year she has The Immigrant potentially taking away crucial votes from herself, which may matter in a tight race.

2. Carmen Ejogo (Selma)

For Her: Ejogo isn't a household name, but she's playing one.  Coretta Scott King, as a long-suffering wife of a hero, is the exact sort of role that the Oscars usually gravitate toward in Supporting Actress.  You could hardly describe Jessica Chastain as particularly safe, and if the Academy responds well to Selma (this appears to be the most important question of Oscar season right now, doesn't it-what does AMPAS think of Selma?) she could make it via Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook.
Against Her: She's not a household name-will people remember her without a stronger push?  Plus, from what I've heard this isn't a particularly meaty part (though that hasn't stopped them before...see also Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook).

1. Tom Wilkinson (Selma)

For Him: Playing a real-life person?  Check.  Meaty role in a Best Picture frontrunner?  Check.  Former nominee that hasn't won yet, but is clearly recognizable for AMPAS voters?  Check (twice-2001 and 2007).  Category that is perceived as weak due to the winner being a foregone conclusion so someone could sneak in at the last minute?  Check.  Clearly there's a reason I put Wilkinson at Number One.
Against Him: About the only thing going against Wilkinson is that he's missed with SAG and the Globes (particularly with the Globes, since they saw Selma) and that he's battling some very popular former nominees in Mark Ruffalo and Robert Duvall.  Otherwise, I'd say this is easily the most likely of these ten to make it, and could well be considered a favorite depending on how Duvall's chances in particular play out.

And those are the ten-what do you think?  Who has the best chances of the ten?  Do you agree with the lineup or should someone like Tilda Swinton or Hilary Swank still be in the conversation?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

October Oscar Predictions: Best Supporting Actor

Who will follow Jared?

Sorry for the delay and lack of posts the past two days.  As I mentioned a few times last week, I have had the cold that has been going around most of Minnesota, and as a result I needed to spend the weekend in bed trying valiantly to get better (I also needed to organize my life a little bit, which got completely out-of-whack in the past few weeks, and the illness didn’t help).

That being said, I’ll give you a brief preview of the next couple of weeks on the blog before I start in our Oscar check-in.  While I will continue to strive to write two blog posts a day, I’ll actually be working on a few larger scale projects on the blog (as well as re-starting a writing project that won’t be on the blog, but I’m extremely excited to get started on again after dropping it for a couple of years), and so I cannot guarantee we’ll have two posts a day (the past two days will be an aberration though-we’ll always have at least one post a day!).

While the off-blog writing project will remain just for me to work on, the on-blog projects I will discuss right now.  We’ll be finishing up two of our series in the next two weeks, with both the 2013 OVP and the John’s Favorite Shows final two entries being created (those links click to the most recent installments-at the bottom of the posts are all of the past entries if you need to catch up).  We’ll also be doing an October check-in on the five main Oscar races (as well as perhaps some other Oscar categories, time permitting), and most importantly, we’ll be doing a series of gigantic posts detailing my predictions for the 2014 Midterm elections, which will be occurring two weeks from today (are you ready to vote-if you haven't gotten the message, the Democrats desperately need all of the votes they can get so make sure you're ready; if you're a Republican, I can suggest some movies that will be out then that could be worth checking out...kidding, kidding (kind of)).  This, along with a few film reviews are what you have to look forward to, so stick around!

We’re going to start with Best Supporting Actor mostly because that category is insane this year.  While the other categories have started to take shape, the Supporting Actor race feels wide-open, and definitely where a savvy Harvey Weinstein or Scott Rudin should be spending their time.  That’s because when Supporting Actor is wide-open, unlike the lead actor category, this field tends to settle on five names rather quickly.  Look at something like 2009’s Supporting Actor race for a hint: these five men were at one point part of a much larger lineup, but they became impenetrable despite all but Waltz and Harrelson at the time seeming like “sure-things.”

J.K. Simmons

While in October there’s really no such thing as a sure-thing, there are a few fellas that seem to be courting the "lock" banner.  J.K. Simmons in what looks like a co-lead role in Whiplash certainly feels like a nominee.  Major role from a character actor everyone likes, that’s the sort of thing this category was invented to honor, and it’s difficult to see him missing in the long-run.  The same could be said for Edward Norton in Birdman, a film that is getting terrific buzz and has an actor the Academy really liked once upon a time, making it pretty easy to see him score his third Oscar nomination.

Aside from these two, though, the field still has a lot of openings, mostly because a lot of men are either competing against costars or are in films whose strength with AMPAS hasn’t really been established yet.  That leaves room for a lot of names to rise to the top of the heap.

Toward the top, and ready to strike, in my opinion, would be Tom Wilkinson in Selma, a film that I still think could be a major player at year’s end if it campaigns properly, leaving Wilkinson (or his costar Tim Roth) room in the race.  Mark Ruffalo has a major film in Foxcatcher, but will they really nominate he and Carell but not Tatum?  That seems a bit of a question mark.  In the 1980’s, Robert Duvall would have been a certain nominee, and perhaps even a sentimental win for The Judge, but the film seems pretty “average” and didn’t do well with critics, so will they forget about him?

Domhnall Gleeson

Christoph Waltz has made a career out of getting nominated for lead performances in the supporting field, so if Amy Adams makes it for Big Eyes (still a bit of a tossup), we could well see Waltz do his thing.  Unbroken and Inherent Vice both have major casts, but at this point we can’t tell who the standouts will be (Domhnall Gleeson and Miyavi are competing for Unbroken, Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin, and quite randomly Martin Short are making a play from Inherent Vice).  Albert Brooks didn’t have great luck a few years back for Drive, but could try to disprove history with A Most Violent Year this cycle.  And then there’s Ethan Hawke, who might benefit from “why not me too?” in comparison to all of the attention being given to his onscreen ex-wife Patricia Arquette.

Then there are the names that it’s still early enough in the cycle to speculate on pulling an upset, even though common sense says that most of the fellas up-top are our contenders.  We have the two lads from Fury (Logan Lerman and Shia LaBeouf), though the former may be too novice and the latter too loathed to make the cut.  Harvey’s push for The Imitation Game could turn Matthew Goode into this year’s Alan Alda.  There’s also that chance that one of the men of Into the Woods (Chris Pine, Johnny Depp, or depending on how he is campaigned, James Corden) or Gone Girl (Neil Patrick Harris or Tyler Perry) could make the cut, though they would have to get to campaigning pretty quickly to cut away from the pack.

Finally, there’s the very special case for Michael Caine.  As we have profiled before, if Michael Caine were to pull off the miracle and get cited for Interstellar, he would become the first actor ever to be nominated in six separate decades.  For a beloved actor who loves Oscar campaigns (or at least is marvelously good at them), this may be too good of an opportunity to pass up.

My September Predictions: Lerman, Wilkinson, Simmons, Norton, and Duvall

My October Predictions: I’ll stick with Wilkinson, Simmons, and Norton, as all of them seem to be in a position to get nominated, but I’m dropping Lerman and Duvall for now (the former is too young and not getting enough buzz from his film’s debut, the latter in a film too easy to forget…though both are viable enough that they should stay in the conversation for now).  Part of me wants to pick Caine if only for the crazy trivia that it would bring, but instead I’m going to go with Josh Brolin and Mark Ruffalo, both of whom are on everyone who has actually seen the movies' lists, and as a result I feel may be in a better position to judge.

2014 Oscar Predictions: Best Supporting Actor

We have tackled Actress, Actor, and Supporting Actress, so to finish off the quartet we will now head into Best Supporting Actor predictions.  Best Supporting Actor may be the hardest of the categories to predict this far in advance because frequently these nominations happen for films that aren't necessarily in the Best Picture race, (though historically these were most frequently Best Picture nominees, if a cursory look at former nominees are any indication), and so this is probably the prediction list most likely to change in the coming months.

The best way to start off in the Supporting Actor race is to think like a Republican, and find all of the older white men with major films out this year.  This category tends to be the most homogenous of the four in terms of its demographics, and so the best place to start is probably Robert Duvall in The Judge.  As we recently wrote about, Duvall is one of the most enduring stars with Oscar, but hasn't been nominated in sixteen years despite extremely strong reviews four years ago for Get Low (which I'm told is good but I didn't see because it missed the OVP-is this something I should be renting?).  I suspect that a father/son drama with Oscar nominee Robert Downey, Jr. would get him some attention.  Adding to the old white man cache would be Tom Wilkinson in Selma, where he'll do that greatest of Oscar tricks (play a famous real-life figure, in this case former President Lyndon Johnson), and I suspect he will probably be back (doesn't it feel weird that he is a recent two-time nominee that no one ever seems to talk about?).  Finally, J.K. Simmons could fill the frequent slot of character-actor-we-are-finally-acknowledging, as his performance in Whiplash seems to be both co-lead and scene-stealing, and I suspect Oscar will want to give him a citation in the same way they have other major famous faces (but not necessarily famous names).  Other older white dudes that could be in the conversation (though aren't as prevalent as these three) include Albert Brooks in A Most Violent Year (though if he couldn't score for Drive...), John Goodman in The Gambler (what is the deal with this movie?-for a film in December starring Mark Wahlberg and Jessica Lange it sure is under-performing, buzz-wise), and Tim Roth as Gov. George Wallace in Selma (though this category doesn't double-up as often in a film as Supporting Actress does).

Moving a bit out of the senior citizen bracket, probably your safest bet for a nomination would be Edward Norton in Birdman, where he appears to have a significant part and is the sort of actor Oscar has been itching to welcome back after his quick one-two punch in the 90's followed by a whole lack of loving from the Academy (AMPAS is a fickle mistress).  Josh Brolin got a nomination for Milk in 2008 but has been working consistently since without any other nominations-if he's a particular stand-out in Inherent Vice I suspect we may see him in this race again.  I'm not sure what it says about Ethan Hawke and the quality of this race versus Supporting Actress, but despite his equally good performance he doesn't seem to have the same sort of momentum as Patricia Arquette does for Boyhood.  Still, if the film does well with precursors expect to see his name at least thrown around a bit after a trio of past nominations.  Dominic West in Pride and Paul Jesson in Mr. Turner are both names that could factor into a race like this if the films strike, but the former has almost no buzz (is it it even going wide by art house standards?) and the latter is a Mike Leigh film, and Leigh is considerably better at getting women attention than men.  And there's always the possibility that someone like Johnny Depp makes it for Into the Woods, though that show usually seems to be about the ladies in terms of awards (and I suspect that recently on-a-roll James Corden would be the standout if there was going to be one).

There are of course "younger" potential nominees in this category as well, the most important being Logan Lerman in Fury.  Lerman was sensational (and Oscar-worthy) two years ago in Perks of Being a Wallflower, but way too young and cute to be nominated in lead.  He's probably younger and sexier than you'd expect for a male category either way, but supporting is a better bet, particularly when working opposite Brad Pitt (Pitt is really good at bringing out his costars, just ask Oscar-nominated Geena Davis, Casey Affleck, and Jonah Hill).  Domhnall Gleeson has a significant role in Unbroken and has been on the edges of stardom in a way his father frequently finds himself (anyone think it's odd that Brendan cannot seem to get any buzz for the well-received Calvary?).  And then there's the truly excellent question regarding Foxcatcher-how do they market Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo in this film (I've heard marvelous things in particular about the former)?  If they put them both as supporting, does Tatum overshadow Ruffalo?  Or do they market Tatum in lead, giving Ruffalo a strong chance at a nomination but hurting Tatum?  That's perhaps the biggest question of this Oscar season, campaign-wise, in my opinion.

My Predictions: I am guessing Simmons, Norton, Lerman, Duvall, and Wilkinson are at the top of the list at this point.  Norton seems the most likely to be nominated, Lerman seems the least just because of his age.  I'm intrigued by a couple of options on this list, though, and could see a few names popping up later in the year, particularly Goodman and the Foxcatcher lads.

Is There a Winner?: Like I said, Lerman is way too young to win here, I doubt that Wilkinson wins for playing a president so soon after Daniel Day-Lewis did, and I don't think that Norton will take it for what looks like a sidekick role.  Simmons or Duvall, on the other hand, have the vibe of a winner.  Simmons has been working in Hollywood for eons and is well-respected; plus, this is a role where he's set to dominate in a BIG way (have you seen the trailer?).  Duvall, on the other hand, has entered the last phase of his career (may it hopefully be extremely long), and has only won one Oscar while many of his peers (de Niro, Hoffman, and Nicholson) all have more than one.  I think that there may be a push to let him join that list (and hopefully get Al Pacino back into some good movies, damn it, to seal the quintet).

And there we have finished up the actors-we'll do the final September predictions (Best Picture!) this weekend, but before we close out our too-early guesses, what are your thoughts on this race?  Do you think I have the five guys pegged, or should I have picked another name?  Who am I missing on this list that may strike?  And most importantly, which of these performances are you most looking forward to? Share in the comments!

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012)

Film: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012)
Stars: Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton, Maggie Smith, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie, Dev Patel
Director: John Madden
Oscar History: None (though it received two Golden Globe nods for Best Picture and Dench)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Getting a bunch of classically-trained British actors into the same picture and throwing them into an awkward, laugh-inducing film has to be one of the most tried-and-true ways for Independent features to make money.  For the art house set, is there any better Box Office Gold than Judi Dench or Maggie Smith?  In fact, while I am loathe to put them into the same sentence as that complete publicity hound Andy Cohen, I could see a solid mash-up between the two for television.  Anyone else think that putting Dench, Smith, Miriam Margoyles, Eileen Atkins, Helen Mirren, and Joan Plowright into the The Real Housewives of the Royal Shakespeare Company would be a huge, huge hit?

But I digress, and must confess, it wasn't until Sunday that I finally got around to one of the biggest "surprise" hits of the year, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  The film, for those unfamiliar (and I suspect if you're reading this blog regularly, this is a film that you've already enjoyed), it's a movie about a group of seven aging British men and women, who, whether through a search for love, a search for health, or a search for a cheap place to live, find themselves living in a rundown hotel in India.

The movie then follows as the characters slowly reach the same conclusion-that you can always have new experiences in life, and it's only over when it's over.  It's hard to pick a favorite story line, though I'd probably settle for Wilkinson's, which was the most interesting, or Smith's, which had the most Maggie Smith and is therefore bound to be everyone's favorite.  Wilkinson's character (spoiler alert) is gay, and spends much of the movie searching out a love he had many years ago in India, and it's the story that you kind of wish was in a separate movie, as you can never have enough "brief affair, spend the rest of your life pining for a love" sort of movies.  Wilkinson, an actor of immeasurable talents, doesn't quite put all of his considerable skills into this role, but he's quite fine when he wants to be, and he totally sells the inevitable reunion moment.

This is the same for Dench and Smith, neither of whom share enough screen time together, but both of whom deliver that patented level of performance that they are well-known for.  Dench, solid and strong-willed, manages to use her soulful eyes and still beautifully structured face to great effect as she charms everyone that meets her-it's hard to believe that she was a quiet, doormat at the beginning of the movie, as she's so skilled with people throughout the film.  Smith, of course, is a biting old British woman (isn't she always?), and gets all of the film's best lines, and though you know the character trajectory about ten seconds into her first scene, that doesn't stop it from still being a fun ride-Smith has a rare talent for comedy, and it's on full display here.  Both of these women could land nominations at the Globes, though I think a trip to the Kodak (or whatever it's being called these days-should check that at some point) seems a stretch for a film as souffle-light as this film.

All-in-all, this is a great film to watch on a Sunday afternoon, with some tea and scones in hand, and to have a marvelous time with friends, but don't go in hoping for one of the best films of the year, as this doesn't quite have the gravitas or the breath to meet those expectations.

What about you-did you enjoy Best Exotic?  Are you more Team Judi or Team Maggie or Team "Don't-Make-Me-Decide-Such-Things?"  And what, if any, Oscar chances do you think the film has?