Let's Talk Best Supporting Actress

[flipp525]

I am so confused by the Erika Alexander talk for American Fiction. She’s always a likable presence and does nicely with the love interest role in the film, but there is nothing there for a nomination. Trust me. Tracie Ellis Ross does more in her much more limited screen time. I could even see a veteran campaign for Lesley Uggams making more sense than Alexander being singled out as the supporting female performance.

[Okri]

Hmmm... How I'd group them

Tier 1: Randolph, Blunt

I just can't imagine a scenario where either of them miss out. Randolph is obviously beginning to lap the field for a win.

Tier 2: Brooks

While we've spoken of The Colour Purple tripping up, I do think Brooks remains reasonably well positioned. Even with the underperformance at the GG, she still got nominated there. She'll likely get in SAG (the organization is quite kind to TV performers going to film) and I think the film will be a box office hit.

Tier 3: Foster, Moore, Cruz, Pike, Foy

Foster.... I don't think she cares and we're in the era where campaigns are required and I just don't see her campaigning aggressively. I think Moore and Pike are in the position where I can easily imagine voters really not likely their movies. May December is basically a machine designed to induce queasiness and Moore doesn't shy away from that. Pike probably has the most sympathetic role in Saltburn, but we also know the film isn't that well liked. But I can imagine Foster and Moore getting the stateside precursor trio, with Pike dislodging one at BAFTA .

I think BAFTA will go hard for All of Us Strangers. I like Sabin relating Foy to Manville. She's also been recognized from SAG for her TV work previously, but that didn't help in 2018. No one seems to care about Ferarri. But I also said that about the presidential version and that ended up a best picture nominee, so maybe Cruz will get some recognition.

Tier 4: Ferrera, Alexander, Davis, McAdams, Binoche, Henson

Binoche? She got recognized by the Gothams as support but it's a leady type role. They might see it for the foreign film category. I just mentioned her because Sabin didn't, to be honest. I wasn't predicting Henson when I was predicting 7+ nominations for the Color Purple, won't predict her now.

ETA: I think Gladstone is getting nominated in lead, but the vicissitudes of that race will fascinate.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
What I would really like to see, though, is for them to follow L.A.'s lead and nominate Lily Gladstone in support, allowing five clear leads in Best Actress - Annette Bening, Sandra Hüller, Greta Lee, Carey Mulligan, and Emma Stone.

If that were the case, I could see: Emily Blunt, Jodie Foster, Lily Gladstone, Julianne Moore, and Da'Vine Joy Randolph filling the supporting slots, making the category more competitive.

The only area where I disagree with you is I don't think Gladstone makes Best Supporting Actress more competitive. I think the competition is over and Gladstone wins in a slam dunk.

A week or so ago, Mister Tee mentioned that for all the talk of Best Actor being strong, Best Actress seemed to be the actually formidable race. I do think comparatively Best Actor is the strongest its been in years but Best Actress is pretty strong this year. You left off Natalie Portman (May December), Margot Robbie (Barbie), and maybe Fantasia Barrino (The Color Purple) who all have a shot. At least at this point, that's a strong race of eight without Lily Gladstone. I think any one of these contenders would have no trouble cracking Best Actress not just last year but over the last few years.

I'm going to reserve judgement on the strength of Best Supporting Actress to see how it pans out. This is the fourth year in a row where I've asked "Will there be a category this year?" And there obviously always is. As for Lily Gladstone, it might not be difficult for her to get the second most number of votes in that category but with the number of Best Actress awards given to her this year I think odds are against it.

[Big Magilla]

I haven't seen All of Us Strangers yet, but Claire Foy, like Emily Blunt, is someone who should have at least two Oscar nominations now, so I think it would fine if they decide to nominate one or the other or both.

What I would really like to see, though, is for them to follow L.A.'s lead and nominate Lily Gladstone in support, allowing five clear leads in Best Actress - Annette Bening, Sandra Hüller, Greta Lee, Carey Mulligan, and Emma Stone.

If that were the case, I could see: Emily Blunt, Jodie Foster, Lily Gladstone, Julianne Moore, and Da'Vine Joy Randolph filling the supporting slots, making the category more competitive.

[Sabin]

flipp525 wrote
I’m still honestly dumbfounded that Claire Foy has not made a foothold in this race for her superb performance in All of Us Strangers. It was so affecting and beyond anything I’ve seen her do before. I thought she was just perfect. She would be my number one if I had a ballot.

Foy seems to be a perrennial also-ran with past bids for First Man and Women Talking. This category still feels very amorphous to me and ripe for surprises.

I’ve always thought that once All of Us Strangers opened, word-of-mouth might increase Andrew Scott’s and Foy’s chances at a nomination. I do actually believe that Scott has a good shot and can only hope that those voters who were passionate about his performance will be inclined to remember Foy’s as well since their performances go together so much.

I think BAFTA (and even the Oscar nod) is still very much in reach for her. I could see BAFTA nominating Paul Mescal too.

I almost wrote that Foy is probably likely for a BAFTA which very much puts her in the running. I was leaning towards her. I don't see any reason why she couldn't follow a similar trajectory to Lesley Manville for Phantom Thread. At this point in the race, she was a distant also-ran, but then enthusiasm for the film picked up and she ended up joining her male lead. The other issue I see for her though is whether Andrew Scott makes it in. All of Us Strangers remains an overall question mark at this point in the race. I could see it getting six nominations or nothing.

I haven't seen the film. It hasn't opened in LA yet (I'm seeing American Fiction on Friday). I'm looking forward to it.

[flipp525]

I’m still honestly dumbfounded that Claire Foy has not made a foothold in this race for her superb performance in All of Us Strangers. It was so affecting and beyond anything I’ve seen her do before. I thought she was just perfect. She would be my number one if I had a ballot.

Foy seems to be a perrennial also-ran with past bids for First Man and Women Talking. This category still feels very amorphous to me and ripe for surprises.

I’ve always thought that once All of Us Strangers opened, word-of-mouth might increase Andrew Scott’s and Foy’s chances at nominations. I do actually believe that Scott still has a very good shot and can only hope that those voters who were passionate about his performance will be inclined to remember Foy’s as well since their performances go together so much.

I think BAFTA (and even the Oscar nod) is still very much in reach for her. I could even see BAFTA nominating Paul Mescal too alongside the more expected Andrew Scott citation.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Supporting actress is at once the least interesting category as to outcome -- I think Randolph is now on a glide path -- and the most interesting for the number of potential candidates for nomination. This group could absolutely repeat: Foster and Pike, despite weakish vehicles, are deserving -- though it's worth remembering both these ladies won here 3 years ago for movies no one otherwise cared about; Julianne Moore's film could weird out some voters (and, by the way: May/December is no more a comedy than The Bear); Blunt still seems to me borderline, mostly carried aloft by the strength of her film. To my way of thinking, Claire Foy, Rachel McAdams, Viola Davis, America Ferrera or Penelope Cruz could all swoop in and grab a spot (though this would have been a place you'd expect the final three to first make an appearance).

This started as a post to Tee but I realized it could easily turn into what's now an annual griping about the same category. Who is going to fill the lineup?

For X years in a row, Best Supporting Actress remains the most amorphous category with a few obvious contenders and a small army of contenders who appear lucky to get on base. Back in 2019, I think most of us had an inkling that Laura Dern and Margot Robbie were going to get nominated with Kathy Bates (Richard Jewell), Annette Bening (The Report), and Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers) less certain. I'm pretty sure a poll of bloggers over who would be more likely for a nomination, Bates or Lopez would be lopsided in Lopez's direction. Not the case. To be fair, Bates had a National Board win under her belt. SAG threw in Kidman and Johansson (nom), BAFTA (and the National Society) threw in Pugh, and there's your lineup.

So what can we know about the race at this point? Generally, the HFPA lines up with the Oscars 3/5 and 4/5. That's obviously out the window with this expanded lineup to six. 2016 was 5/5 because that lineup seemed pretty locked up from day one.

Da'Vine Joy Randolph would seem to be on a glide path and will probably end up winning. Quick quiz: the last time a Best Supporting Actress contender won the National Board of Review, NYFCC, and LAFCA was Regina King for If Beale Street Could Talk who was the first contender since Dianne Wiest to sweep all four. Whatever quibbles I have about Randolph's candidacy (she's good ,not great) fly out the window coming off of years where Jamie Lee Curtis and Ariana DeBose won.

Who's next?

Well, there's contenders from Best Picture contenders or Best Picture-adjacent contenders:

Golden Globe nominees (Blunt for Oppenheimer, Brooks for The Color Purple, and Moore for May December). All three of these performances have their own set of hurdles. Blunt has the film, the due narrative, she just has more of a scene than a role. But that's more than McAdams had for Spotlight. It sounds like Brooks has the role, but the film is a question mark. So what about Moore? She's a decade past her "due" narrative. Her role is showy (and she's terrific) but it doesn't generate empathy for her character. She's fucked up in a way that isn't fixed by the end and likely will never be fixed (a Moore speciality).

I feel most confident about Blunt. Brooks, I think it really depends on box office and if SAG goes for her. For Moore, it mostly depends on her competition which right now looks to favor her nomination.

What other Best Picture or Best Picture-adjacent performances?

There's Alexander for American Fiction, Davis for Air, Ferrera for Barbie, Foy for All of Us Strangers, Henson for The Color Purple, Huller for The Zone of Interest, and maybe Pugh for Oppenheimer. Who am I missing? From my vantage point, none of these scream nominations at least at this point even with SAG on their side. Maybe Foy if she gets a BAFTA nom.

Beyond the Best Picture field are two Golden Globe nominees (Foster & Pike), both of which I've seen, and both are in films that are in some ways polar opposites. Nyad is lukewarm while Saltburn is divisive. Foster has possibly the largest role of anyone in competition while Pike has a memorably spiky little role. It's hard to weigh one against the other. Both are possible, both are in the club, and both look exactly like the kind of Golden Globe nominated role that doesn't end up getting an Oscar nomination.

Finally, there's Penelope Cruz for Ferrari, a movie that doesn't seem to be picking up awards steam but she's allegedly terrific in it. And there's Rachel McAdams for Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. I would say that McAdams has the most underdog Oscar narrative in years except I'm pretty sure something like this happens all the time, never materializes, and then we forget about it. We're just early in the race right now so anything is possible, especially in a field like this. Even her LAFCA is suspect. Do we know that she would've beaten Randolph in a head-to-head?

I see Blunt, Brooks, Moore, and Randolph as the best bets and about ten people duking it out for the final slot.

What else can we use to divine out the last nominee? Well, this voting bloc is actors and while there isn't an iron-clad rule that nominees in this category are joined by other acting nominees there are examples of the last nominee(s) being a tag-along. This can explain how Jessie Buckley got in over Ruth Negga, how Marina de Tavira got in over Emily Blunt, and how Lesley Manville got in over Holly Hunter or Hong Chau.

Which Best Supporting Actress contenders are from films that are going to have other acting nominations as well?

Easily, America Ferrara. Even if Margot Robbie doesn't show up, Gosling is getting nominated. Next up would be Florence Pugh for Oppenheimer. And then less certain but still in the running would be Erika Alexander for American Fiction, Jodie Foster for Nyad, Claire Foy for All of Us Strangers, and Taraji P. Henson for The Color Purple. None of these are 100% assured. We don't know if Jeffrey Wright, Annette Bening, Andrew Scott, or even Danielle Brooks are assured. I guess Rosamund Pike can be considered in this category because Barry Keoghan will be getting some support.

This math has me leaning towards Claire Foy, but then I go back to the example I used at the beginning with Kathy Bates and Richard Jewell, a film that didn't take off, that nobody was talking about, but by virtue of a strong supporting role a previous winner got her first nomination in ages.

As of now, I'm leaning towards:
*Emily Blunt, Oppenheimer
*Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple
*Jodie Foster, Nyad
*Julianne Moore, May December
*Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

What are your thoughts? Who am I missing?