Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
I don't really get how and why Da'Vine Joy Randolph has become such a juggernaut for her performance in The Holdovers. She is good. Not bad at all....but she hasn't brought anything new to the table. It almost seems like a repeat of what we saw Hattie McDaniel do in Gone With the Wind. A modern version with both characters seemingly going through almost the same tropes.....or at least one got that feeling comparing the two characters. Randolph hardly seems fresh - just old wine in a new bottle.
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
I don't get it either. It's such a classic supporting performance nominee (if not win).dws1982 wrote
I would vote Penelope Cruz in Ferrari over any of these, though. Very strange that she didn't get any real hold on this category; the long-suffering wife is an Oscar cliche, and you can't argue that she's too subtle, because the movie gives her a great deal to do in several big scenes, with a hugely important one at the end.
I don't think enough voters saw it or even wanted to. Ford v. Ferrari was a few years ago. Michael Mann hasn't been a hot ticket for a while. What Tee says seems right: first they look through the Best Picture contenders, then they pair them with Leading Actor nominees, and after that they rifle through their past nominees/winners, i.e. their friends.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
Not a lot to talk about it in terms of who will win; I have lots of questions as to why and how Randolph became the only choice. The movie doesn't know what to do with her, and I think that comes through a bit in her performance. I'm happy for her, and won't be mad at her win though. I guess I would vote for Blunt or Brooks of these nominees, although I don't know if I would put either of them at the Oscar level.
I would vote Penelope Cruz in Ferrari over any of these, though. Very strange that she didn't get any real hold on this category; the long-suffering wife is an Oscar cliche, and you can't argue that she's too subtle, because the movie gives her a great deal to do in several big scenes, with a hugely important one at the end.
I would vote Penelope Cruz in Ferrari over any of these, though. Very strange that she didn't get any real hold on this category; the long-suffering wife is an Oscar cliche, and you can't argue that she's too subtle, because the movie gives her a great deal to do in several big scenes, with a hugely important one at the end.
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
I'm more excited about the spirit of the films nominated for Best Picture than the overall films themselves. But I have no such hesitations when it comes to the quality of the performances. Over the last few years, I've been enthusiastic about a handful of performances. This year, there's quite a few. And each lineup as either better or as good as any in ages...
..except for this one. I'm honestly trying to think of the last time I cared so little about the outcome of an acting category. Maybe 2005 or 2006 for Best Supporting Actor?
First off the list is Emily Blunt. The most frustrating thing about these supporting categories is that often enough the nominated performances are chosen not because it represents their best work but because it's the first time they're in movies that the nominating committees watch. Emily Blunt's first nomination being for Oppenheimer is a terrific example of this. What can you say about it? I need to see the film again but even her speech reminded me of Christopher Nolan's worst writing tendencies. It reminded me of that scene where Morgan Freeman calls out that one black mailer in The Dark Knight. She gets no consideration from me.
Next up is probably America Ferrera, the other "big speech" performance. I find it a little irritating that the tenor of the Barbie "snubs" were "They didn't nominate the women of Barbie" when... they did, and a woman of color at that. The best thing I can say about Ferrera is that her character is very underwritten but she manages (with her sitcom training) to make her make sense. You believe that she could be Barbie's getaway driver. Again: gets no consideration from me but she's about as well-cast as anyone in that role could be.
I don't really have a problem with Da'Vine Joy Randolph winning an Oscar. She's a terrific actor and I'm glad she's having her moment. I just think that she's fine in a role that largely exists to elicit pity. Whatever social relevance The Holdovers is supposed to have possess exists in this one character. Beyond that, I think she lives up to her role without transcending it. I like Da'Vine Joy Randolph more than her role in the movie so I'm not upset by it.
Both The Color Purple and Nyad were endurance tests for me and the presence of Brooks and Foster were welcome. Foster made Nyad significantly more tolerable just by her presence. I don't know if Foster has ever done anything like this on-screen before. Foster usually plays roles with the weight of the world on her shoulders. In Nyad, she shoulders Bening's ambitions but she gets to help her through little victories throughout. She's routinely as happy as I've ever seen her in a movie and that's not a bad look for her. The problem is that she and the filmmakers never really created a character for her. She's just "Jodie Foster in Nyad." Brooks has a character. Because Spielberg's The Color Purple doesn't last in my memory, I can't say that Brooks faced an overwhelming challenge of erasing the memory of Oprah Winfrey. While Colman Domingo is the film's MVP for being at all credible, Brooks does the best acting in the film (at the dinner table) and probably of this category.
I'm pretty torn between Brooks, Foster, and Randolph in this moment. Randolph benefits from being in a much better film whereas Foster and Brooks' yeoman work doesn't extend far enough to make up for that. I'm probably closer to a vote for Brooks at this moment.
..except for this one. I'm honestly trying to think of the last time I cared so little about the outcome of an acting category. Maybe 2005 or 2006 for Best Supporting Actor?
First off the list is Emily Blunt. The most frustrating thing about these supporting categories is that often enough the nominated performances are chosen not because it represents their best work but because it's the first time they're in movies that the nominating committees watch. Emily Blunt's first nomination being for Oppenheimer is a terrific example of this. What can you say about it? I need to see the film again but even her speech reminded me of Christopher Nolan's worst writing tendencies. It reminded me of that scene where Morgan Freeman calls out that one black mailer in The Dark Knight. She gets no consideration from me.
Next up is probably America Ferrera, the other "big speech" performance. I find it a little irritating that the tenor of the Barbie "snubs" were "They didn't nominate the women of Barbie" when... they did, and a woman of color at that. The best thing I can say about Ferrera is that her character is very underwritten but she manages (with her sitcom training) to make her make sense. You believe that she could be Barbie's getaway driver. Again: gets no consideration from me but she's about as well-cast as anyone in that role could be.
I don't really have a problem with Da'Vine Joy Randolph winning an Oscar. She's a terrific actor and I'm glad she's having her moment. I just think that she's fine in a role that largely exists to elicit pity. Whatever social relevance The Holdovers is supposed to have possess exists in this one character. Beyond that, I think she lives up to her role without transcending it. I like Da'Vine Joy Randolph more than her role in the movie so I'm not upset by it.
Both The Color Purple and Nyad were endurance tests for me and the presence of Brooks and Foster were welcome. Foster made Nyad significantly more tolerable just by her presence. I don't know if Foster has ever done anything like this on-screen before. Foster usually plays roles with the weight of the world on her shoulders. In Nyad, she shoulders Bening's ambitions but she gets to help her through little victories throughout. She's routinely as happy as I've ever seen her in a movie and that's not a bad look for her. The problem is that she and the filmmakers never really created a character for her. She's just "Jodie Foster in Nyad." Brooks has a character. Because Spielberg's The Color Purple doesn't last in my memory, I can't say that Brooks faced an overwhelming challenge of erasing the memory of Oprah Winfrey. While Colman Domingo is the film's MVP for being at all credible, Brooks does the best acting in the film (at the dinner table) and probably of this category.
I'm pretty torn between Brooks, Foster, and Randolph in this moment. Randolph benefits from being in a much better film whereas Foster and Brooks' yeoman work doesn't extend far enough to make up for that. I'm probably closer to a vote for Brooks at this moment.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
Is it a weak category? I think so. We talk about the bloggers setting the tone for the race by predicting according to specific dictums and just sticking to it. Sometimes it’s the role itself. Sometimes it’s the pedigree of the performer. Sometimes it’s just predicting people from the big film. I think both Blunt and Brooks fall into this tier, even if they ended up with opposite problems. While The Color Purple, in a vacuum, didn’t do egregiously badly, it didn’t do that well either. While I was disappointed with the box office, it’s not outrageously bad either (compare to the film adaptation of the Tony winner from it’s season, for example). The reviews were mildly positive but that’s damning with faint praise indeed. That it couldn’t get a single technical nomination (for sound, for costumes/production design) is surprising. That Brooks survived to get a nomination in this context is quite surprising. Who was the last supporting performer to win on their first nomination for a film that got no notice elsewhere? Angelina Jolie. It’s happened a few other times for women (whereas for the men, only once – Van Heflin). Tee mentions that the fact that the blogs had her own as the presumptive frontrunner to outright win probably kept her in this race (for the nomination). That said, now I think she’s squarely fifth.
Conversely, Blunt’s film is the likely winner and she’s been one of its stars of the awards circuit, reminding everyone just how charming she is. She finally fulfilled Tee’s prediction for her (way back in the 2006 race) that she would get a nomination. Indeed, she ticks all the boxes for a nomination that the fact that we were doubting it for a little while is perhaps only really telling on us about just how little we are enthused about the performance. When you’ve got five names, yeah, give her a vote for career enthusiasm, “its about time-itis” and general love for the film. But that lack of enthusiasm for the performance means that even in a weak race, she wouldn’t be someone I’d predict.
I found it interesting that some of us talked about Foster potentially winning a third Oscar. I’ve never thought of her in those terms given just how quiet she’s been this century (indeed, I tend to think that three-time winners need to be over-and-above, but maybe that’s misguided). That said, after seeing the film, I sorta got it a bit more. I haven’t timed it, but surely she has the biggest role of the five. And she’s quite good. If this year didn’t have a dominant performance in the lead, I would be tempted to predict her.
That said, if people get bored of predicting Randolph and they want to shake things up, America Ferrera is an interesting idea. It’s really hard for me to tell how much centrifugal force Barbie actually had. 8 nominations is certainly respectable, but that’s what Dreamgirls got (drop the song because of the new rules, give it picture in an expanded field, if you want). Two of those nominations were for best song, which … eh. It couldn’t get Robbie or Gerwig to best actress or director when those were gettable nominations. I can see Ferrera getting in just by virtue of what Sonic said – she’s the only recognizable human being. She also gets that thesis-statement monologue. Yeah, it’s basically the “cool girl” monologue again. Honestly, I don’t think it’s so crazy a nomination or a winner. It’ll be weird for the film to end the season with just song and production design and I could contort myself into a narrative that results with her winning
Randolph is absolutely destroying the field in terms of critics prizes won, with 32!!!! Compare that to other dominant winners and she’s trouncing them too (Laura Dern won 20, Viola Davis 11). In many respects, she fits the model of someone like Octavia Spencer or Allison Janney – long time character actress with breakthrough role. But she’s not quite as long term as many of them (her film/TV career is slightly over 10 years old, whereas Janney they probably would’ve known for two decades prior to her win). You look at the reviews and while they’re definitely positive (I know both Tee and Magilla were quite positive), they don’t stand out as “she must win awards.” It’s a sympathetic role in a well-liked film and I guess that’s enough. I don’t understand the sheer exclusive domination, but that’s not the first time I’ve said that.
Conversely, Blunt’s film is the likely winner and she’s been one of its stars of the awards circuit, reminding everyone just how charming she is. She finally fulfilled Tee’s prediction for her (way back in the 2006 race) that she would get a nomination. Indeed, she ticks all the boxes for a nomination that the fact that we were doubting it for a little while is perhaps only really telling on us about just how little we are enthused about the performance. When you’ve got five names, yeah, give her a vote for career enthusiasm, “its about time-itis” and general love for the film. But that lack of enthusiasm for the performance means that even in a weak race, she wouldn’t be someone I’d predict.
I found it interesting that some of us talked about Foster potentially winning a third Oscar. I’ve never thought of her in those terms given just how quiet she’s been this century (indeed, I tend to think that three-time winners need to be over-and-above, but maybe that’s misguided). That said, after seeing the film, I sorta got it a bit more. I haven’t timed it, but surely she has the biggest role of the five. And she’s quite good. If this year didn’t have a dominant performance in the lead, I would be tempted to predict her.
That said, if people get bored of predicting Randolph and they want to shake things up, America Ferrera is an interesting idea. It’s really hard for me to tell how much centrifugal force Barbie actually had. 8 nominations is certainly respectable, but that’s what Dreamgirls got (drop the song because of the new rules, give it picture in an expanded field, if you want). Two of those nominations were for best song, which … eh. It couldn’t get Robbie or Gerwig to best actress or director when those were gettable nominations. I can see Ferrera getting in just by virtue of what Sonic said – she’s the only recognizable human being. She also gets that thesis-statement monologue. Yeah, it’s basically the “cool girl” monologue again. Honestly, I don’t think it’s so crazy a nomination or a winner. It’ll be weird for the film to end the season with just song and production design and I could contort myself into a narrative that results with her winning
Randolph is absolutely destroying the field in terms of critics prizes won, with 32!!!! Compare that to other dominant winners and she’s trouncing them too (Laura Dern won 20, Viola Davis 11). In many respects, she fits the model of someone like Octavia Spencer or Allison Janney – long time character actress with breakthrough role. But she’s not quite as long term as many of them (her film/TV career is slightly over 10 years old, whereas Janney they probably would’ve known for two decades prior to her win). You look at the reviews and while they’re definitely positive (I know both Tee and Magilla were quite positive), they don’t stand out as “she must win awards.” It’s a sympathetic role in a well-liked film and I guess that’s enough. I don’t understand the sheer exclusive domination, but that’s not the first time I’ve said that.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
I think Da'Vine Joy Randolph is so far above the competition this year that there can be no other choice unless you consider Lily Gladstone in this category, but the ship has sailed on that option.
Beyond the power of her performance, I was bowled over by how much she reminded me of a cafeteria worker in my office building in 1970 who had the secondary job of bringing the coffee and pastry cart to each floor during coffee break. When she got to my floor, she would park her cart in front of my desk which was the first one you would come to on my side of the building. I would be her first customer. She was a lovely lady who really enjoyed her job as menial as it may have been. Sort of like Randolph herself, not just her character. I watched an interview with Randolph wherein she said she only had one condition in taking the role, and it was that she would only do it if she could cook the food herself, and she did.
The only one who came close to her for me this year was Rosamund Pike in Saltburn. I have never been impressed with her in the past, but that was before I knew she could be the new Eve Arden or Thelma Ritter. She's that good with the barbs as Jacob Elordi's eccentric mother.
Third for me is Jodie Foster at her best in many moons as Annette Bening's friend and coach in Nyad.
Fourth is Penélope Cruz (Ferrari) an actress who just keeps getting better and better, despite being in an otherwise not especially good movie.
Fifth is a toss-up between Claire Foy (All of Us Strangers) and Emily Blunt. Both were overdue for nominations. My only problem with Foy is that I can't see nominating her without also nominating Paul Mescal and Jamie Bell in the highly competitive supporting actor category.
Julianne Moore just misses my top five. Like not wanting to see Foy without Mescal and Bell, I didn't want to see Moore without Charles Melton also being nominated for May December.
As for Danielle Brooks, I thought she was the best of the actresses in The Color Purple, but the film itself was so disappointing that I didn't really want to see it nominated for anything, not even the costumes which were the best thing about it.
I was a huge fan of America Ferrera as Ugly Betty and I'm happy for her renewed success, but I thought her performance in Barbie was just okay.
Beyond the power of her performance, I was bowled over by how much she reminded me of a cafeteria worker in my office building in 1970 who had the secondary job of bringing the coffee and pastry cart to each floor during coffee break. When she got to my floor, she would park her cart in front of my desk which was the first one you would come to on my side of the building. I would be her first customer. She was a lovely lady who really enjoyed her job as menial as it may have been. Sort of like Randolph herself, not just her character. I watched an interview with Randolph wherein she said she only had one condition in taking the role, and it was that she would only do it if she could cook the food herself, and she did.
The only one who came close to her for me this year was Rosamund Pike in Saltburn. I have never been impressed with her in the past, but that was before I knew she could be the new Eve Arden or Thelma Ritter. She's that good with the barbs as Jacob Elordi's eccentric mother.
Third for me is Jodie Foster at her best in many moons as Annette Bening's friend and coach in Nyad.
Fourth is Penélope Cruz (Ferrari) an actress who just keeps getting better and better, despite being in an otherwise not especially good movie.
Fifth is a toss-up between Claire Foy (All of Us Strangers) and Emily Blunt. Both were overdue for nominations. My only problem with Foy is that I can't see nominating her without also nominating Paul Mescal and Jamie Bell in the highly competitive supporting actor category.
Julianne Moore just misses my top five. Like not wanting to see Foy without Mescal and Bell, I didn't want to see Moore without Charles Melton also being nominated for May December.
As for Danielle Brooks, I thought she was the best of the actresses in The Color Purple, but the film itself was so disappointing that I didn't really want to see it nominated for anything, not even the costumes which were the best thing about it.
I was a huge fan of America Ferrera as Ugly Betty and I'm happy for her renewed success, but I thought her performance in Barbie was just okay.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actress
Might as well get bigger categories underway with the one requiring least brain-exertion.
The nominees:
Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer)
Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple)
American Ferrera (Barbie)
Jodie Foster (Nyad)
Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers)
I anticipate future retrospective posts on this category, likely beginning with everyone listing multiple candidates they'd have preferred to most of the actual nominees. For me, that list starts with Claire Foy, Penelope Cruz, and Julianne Moore, but could go on to include Rosamund Pike, Sandra Huller, even Viola Davis. Not to denigrate our overwhelming front-runner, but a special scolding for the critics, who couldn't find a place or two to honor one of these formidable performers, instead of going with the rote choice everywhere.
As to the chosen: I put Emily Blunt and America Ferrera in more or less the same slot. Neither is bad -- they're both decent, and they have at least marginally big enough moments in their films as to not be absurd nominees. But both are clearly there based on centrifugal force from their Big Films, not because they'd be singled out on their own. I like both ladies, and can be happy for them in career terms, but I simply don't think they rated spots in a fairly strong year.
Not long ago -- shortly before the Globes -- I saw a pack of Gold Derby pundits confidently predicting Danielle Brooks to sweep the TV awards. This demonstrates the power of the blogger hive mind -- by then, Randolph's blitz through the critics' awards was undeniable, yet these "experts" were sticking to the scenario they'd carried in to the season. It's not that Brooks isn't effective in her role -- she basically does the same thing Oprah did, with a powerful singing voice thrown in. But I'll always feel like the pole position she was assigned in blind-prediction season is 95% the reason she survived to a nomination where nothing else from her film did.
Jodie Foster actually comes closest on this slate (Randolph aside) to someone I'd actually consider nominating. I've never been a big Foster-as-adult-actress fan -- I find her work in The Accused bland, Nell an abomination, even Silence of the Lambs merely solid. But here I think she does very strong work, so, welcome back.
It's to no avail, of course, as we've known for some time that Randolph is going to crush in this category. I'm a bit bemused by the staggering unanimity -- I don't think the performance carries the weight of undeniability something like Mo'Nique's in Precious did. But it's a very moving, surprisingly delicate/subtle piece of work in an obviously well-liked movie. I see no reason to offer the slightest demurral from the consensus: a few weeks from now, she'll be holding the statue.
The nominees:
Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer)
Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple)
American Ferrera (Barbie)
Jodie Foster (Nyad)
Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers)
I anticipate future retrospective posts on this category, likely beginning with everyone listing multiple candidates they'd have preferred to most of the actual nominees. For me, that list starts with Claire Foy, Penelope Cruz, and Julianne Moore, but could go on to include Rosamund Pike, Sandra Huller, even Viola Davis. Not to denigrate our overwhelming front-runner, but a special scolding for the critics, who couldn't find a place or two to honor one of these formidable performers, instead of going with the rote choice everywhere.
As to the chosen: I put Emily Blunt and America Ferrera in more or less the same slot. Neither is bad -- they're both decent, and they have at least marginally big enough moments in their films as to not be absurd nominees. But both are clearly there based on centrifugal force from their Big Films, not because they'd be singled out on their own. I like both ladies, and can be happy for them in career terms, but I simply don't think they rated spots in a fairly strong year.
Not long ago -- shortly before the Globes -- I saw a pack of Gold Derby pundits confidently predicting Danielle Brooks to sweep the TV awards. This demonstrates the power of the blogger hive mind -- by then, Randolph's blitz through the critics' awards was undeniable, yet these "experts" were sticking to the scenario they'd carried in to the season. It's not that Brooks isn't effective in her role -- she basically does the same thing Oprah did, with a powerful singing voice thrown in. But I'll always feel like the pole position she was assigned in blind-prediction season is 95% the reason she survived to a nomination where nothing else from her film did.
Jodie Foster actually comes closest on this slate (Randolph aside) to someone I'd actually consider nominating. I've never been a big Foster-as-adult-actress fan -- I find her work in The Accused bland, Nell an abomination, even Silence of the Lambs merely solid. But here I think she does very strong work, so, welcome back.
It's to no avail, of course, as we've known for some time that Randolph is going to crush in this category. I'm a bit bemused by the staggering unanimity -- I don't think the performance carries the weight of undeniability something like Mo'Nique's in Precious did. But it's a very moving, surprisingly delicate/subtle piece of work in an obviously well-liked movie. I see no reason to offer the slightest demurral from the consensus: a few weeks from now, she'll be holding the statue.